The whole world and its mother seems to be talking about 3D right now. That's where the hype machine is headed, to an extent unprecedented since the first arrival of HD.
As a result, it would be easy to imagine that 3D is the only interesting new thing happening in the world of TV this year.
But actually, nothing could be further from the truth. For tucked away in a small corner of your nearest quality AV store, probably hidden behind a heaving pile of 3D TVs, you might soon be able to pick out a 'Quattron' TV from Sharp, almost apologetically claiming to be the world's first TV to use Quad Pixel technology.
Yes, we know - it doesn't sound very exciting.
Hardly up there on the AV front with watching Manchester United lose at home to Chelsea in 3D. But we strongly suggest that you don't just wander by these Sharp Quattron sets in search of 3D kicks.
For if you actually pause and look closely at them, they might just end up persuading you that maybe 3D isn't so important after all...
The 821E model we're looking at today sits in the middle of a three-strong set of Quattron ranges.
It's joined by 40-inch and 46-inch versions (the 40LE821E and 46LE821E), while the lower spec LE811E series has just 40-inch and 46-inch models (the 40LE811E and 46LE811E), and lacks the DLNA functionality, the time shift functionality, and the flat-front design.
The top-end LE921 models, meanwhile - which are now delayed until September - add 200Hz to the mix, and will be available in 40-inch (the 40LE921E), 46-inch (the 46LE921E) and 60-inch (the 60LE921E) versions.
So, want one of the best LCD TVs ever made? Want to watch and crucially record Freeview HD? Read on...
Your comments (10) Click to add a new comment
peejay1959
January 20th 2011
10. Well After reading many good reviews about picture quality ad having a good play with one in a shop I decided to plump for this one. What a mistake!!! If you want everything to have an overly vivid LUMINOUS blue hue to then it might for you. I tried for hour to tone it down in the enormous number of settings that it had No Joy!! tried the well reviewed 'HD Basics' DVD No Joy. Called the Retailer who referred me to Sharp and gave me the wrong numberfor them!! Eventually got through to SharpServ who sent an 'engineer' who came in and basicly said it was in spec and I'd have to live with it or swap it for another make....... Still Fuming so will sign offnow. Dont Buy One!!! Poor Set, Poor Service. Come on Sharp I'm sure you can do better!!!!!
Alert a moderator
gefahrator
November 25th 2010
9. And also to 'linuxuser' as i said the extra yellow sub-pixel adds no frequency of light that you don't get with RGB.
EVERYTHING in the visible light spectrum can be created from red, green and blue light.
Alert a moderator
gefahrator
November 25th 2010
8. This is complete rubbish and a gimmick.
Red, Green and Blue are the primary colours of light, meaning any other colours in the visible light spectrum can be produced by various amounts of the three colours of light, this is why RGB is used in the first place.
Claiming that a yellow sub-pixel improves image quality is blatently lying. the yellow sub-pixel itself is just a mix of red and green light, that can be just as easily made by a standard RGB pixel.
Improved brightness is also a tough claim, a yellow only sub-pixel would be slightly more transparent than and RGB sub-pixel, but by making those sub-pixels smaller you compromise picture definition for hardly any change in brightness.
And in response to 'resis' photo printers use CMYK because the result of ink mixing differs from that of light mixing, thats why if you take a painting class they will tell you that red, blue and yellow are primary colours rather than RGB.
the light reflected by a mix of inks will never be the same as a mix of light as the ink reflects light from the sun (or a light bulb or whatever) when you look at it, while the pixels on a tv have their own light
Alert a moderator
kit2010x
November 3rd 2010
7. If the tv stations are only broadcasting an RGB signal then the yellow component of the picture must be "manufactured" within the television itself. How is this anymore life-like than what we are viewing already?
Sounds like a gimmick more than anything.
Alert a moderator
cartersharon
April 29th 2010
6. The whole world and its mother seems to be talking about 3D right now. That's where the hype machine is headed, to an extent precedented since the first
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2256604
Alert a moderator
jbrandonbb
April 22nd 2010
5. I don't think anyone should ever say the phrase "for tucked" it is a little jarring.
Alert a moderator
xvalue
April 21st 2010
4. resis: I see what you're saying, but I still tend to believe that you can only get out of a source what you put into it. A component source (for example) has three discreet signals, red, green and blue. The yellow pixel that sharp has on the panel is limited to generating a frequency that is within the gamut of what those three signals can produce.
Alert a moderator
resis
April 21st 2010
3. @xvalue: bear in mind TV images are a simulation of a real image - the real world puts out a near infinite range of colours, and the closer a TV can get to that, the better the picture will look. It's not a case of 'lost in translation' between RGB-eye transfer, there's an analogue bit in between (the light frequencies), which is what the extra set of pixels aim to emulate. It's true that we can only differentiate a fixed number of shades of a given colour, but being able to produce extra colours at the source, rather than emulating them, should help improve image quality. The best photo printers use CMYK printing, and they look better than RGB ink prints. And no, I don't work for Sharp! I'm just an interested geek!
Alert a moderator
gamer_144
April 21st 2010
2. xvalue has a point there O_O
Alert a moderator
xvalue
April 20th 2010
1. Im no expert, but if the source signal transmits in RGB and the human eye receives light in RGB, then wouldn't the yellow signal that Sharp spent so much time and money seperating just get re-mixed when your eye reads the light coming in to it?
Im sure a calibrating machine would be able to tell you that there are 1000 more colours, but would your eye be able to?
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments