or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › DIY Screen Section › RGB Paint Mix Experiments & Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RGB Paint Mix Experiments & Discussion - Page 10

post #271 of 413
Richum, sounds like what I said in post 419. My gray sample looked like my white sample under light controlled viewing but better under ambient lighting. However, the gain of our screens sound like they different. Any white paint or primer will kill any brightness when using metallics. That's why I'm using clears with powders mixed in. You can certainly try topcoating what you did with some flat poly and metallic powders. It will damp out those deep dark blacks but will bring up the dingy whites.
post #272 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by benven View Post

Richum, sounds like what I said in post 419. My gray sample looked like my white sample under light controlled viewing but better under ambient lighting. However, the gain of our screens sound like they different. Any white paint or primer will kill any brightness when using metallics. That's why I'm using clears with powders mixed in. You can certainly try topcoating what you did with some flat poly and metallic powders. It will damp out those deep dark blacks but will bring up the dingy whites.

I have some White Pearlescent pigment (dry powder) I will try that in flat poly and perhaps add some UPW or White Acryiic Gesso ( heavy in Ti o2) and see what happens.

I just keep wondering if the high gain approach in order to "over power" the ambient light is the best approach. I know high gain limits the viewing cone but I have a narrow viewing room to begin with, so for me it is a non-issue for others it is a problem.
post #273 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by <^..^>Smokey Joe View Post

This is theory. Built upon recent readings and a little reasoning(fudging)(caffeine effected logic).
Probably flawed, but worth a look.

Separation.
Resolution.

I think these are important, as much as the idea of Red, Green, Blue being used as a surface, they might also need to be combined to match the source.

We are better than any device made as far as resolution goes(currently).
We in a way out perform visual equipment in moving color/contrast correction.
We do have image retention, this does allow us to see motion in movies. But also in the real world too. Just finer resolution that's all.

But our abilites to correct color is flawed in that we are all different, if by a small amount. We see the world through our own eyes. (In more ways than one).

Because of our auto color correction, that is, color weighting depending on what color or shade is next to it and our resolution/vision range we construct images in the real world. But it's our limitations that allow TV's, PC's and any visual equipment to work.

If we could see better, the older Red, Green , Blue CRT TV's would look like a series of ....Red, Green, Blue bars.
If we could see finer detail at further range the images we see on our projectors would look like old 640*400 video games.

For my projector which has a resolution of 1280*720, each pixel on my screen surface equals 1.32mm or 0.052in square.

Ok now my actual resolution thinking.

Paint pigment is tiny. How many pieces of pigment are there in one pixel of the above size?
I see the problem as a resolution issue. We see these small pigments as one. That is what makes the resulting blend of pigments a color...isnt it?

In this case, RGB as paint combined, to us is a muddy blackish color.
If we project an image on this straight mix we see virtually nothing as the opposite primary color will absorb.

Do you see it yet?

Resolution and separation.
At some point we see several colors as one or differently when the resolution and or separation changes.

You may have a real point there. I don't know how much difference the pigment particle size makes in our perceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by <^..^>Smokey Joe View Post

Like this series of pics I've made where the resolution is getting smaller.
The best way to see this effect is to make them your PC background and tile them.









I've then played round with different weighting and separation to try and create ilusions of color push.









When you tile them on your PC desktop some interesting things start happening at a certain resolution or perspective of resolution.
Try RGB2 and then view your pc at 40 feet.
Its the same as the smaller resolution when viewed closer.

So how does this apply to us?

Back to our pigments. The ratio of pigments to pixel is too high.
If we made the 3 bar pixel RED, green blue as separate colors within the one pixel, rather than the blend of tiny pigments.

When I get a chance I'm going to prove or disprove this by printing off an A4 sheet of the various RGB pics from above. Need to work out how to tile them in photoshop first. Otherwise it will be hours of fiddling.

If it works, how the hell will we paint this?

(One thing to keep in mind when you want to print off a sheet of the various RGB pics, your printer uses CYMK inks, not RGB inks.)

We can probably never get the projector pixels perfectly aligned with correctly sized painted color points on a screen, but if they are bit smaller than the projected pixel so that you don't have to have alignment? Hmmmmmm......


Quote:
Originally Posted by <^..^>Smokey Joe View Post

Working on the theory that blue scatters first then green and then red.
We paint the first layer(or 2) bright primary red.
Now we need Green tinted mica or glitter in clear where the flakes are 1/3 the size of one pixel on the screen surface. Not pigmented metallic.
Paint 2 layers of that.
The the same with Blue tinted mica in clear.

The final balance would be so that the result straight on image at close inspection would be like the RGB bars, but as Green, blue flakes and red background.
From a distance we see the RGB ilusion.

The PJ then has ample color separation and intergrated reflection for each pixel.

My wifey said to me last night....what are you thinking about dear?
Her eyes rolled at line 3.....

If you want your RGB chunks to be closer to the size of the pixels you are projecting, you might want to look into colored glass microbeads. They are about 0.5mm in diameter (can also be had in 0.8mm and 1mm diameter) and can be found in craft stores. They come in transparent, opaque and metallic colors. I believe that the color is in the beads, not coated on the outside.

Maybe you could paint a red background and scatter green 0.8mm beads and then blue 0.5mm microbeads on the surface before it dries, or let the red dry and then use an adhesive with a long "open" time and spread the beads on. If the result is too sparkly, you could topcoat it with a layer of matte poly.


Tgreenwood
post #274 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiddler View Post

I cleaned up my plots:


Tiddler,

The legend on the RG mix says that the result is RGBW, but that doesn't have any white in it, does it?

Tgreenwood
post #275 of 413
Mixed a quick sample, PR122 red & PG 36 green, 1:1 by volume.

Results: 37/39/48

In this mix, the original red and green cancel each other quite well. But blue, being shorter in wavelength, has a tendency to bounce, where red and green travel successively farther, and are more easily absorbed.

I would take this as a partial success, and good cause to continue work on the spreadsheet. The red are green are predicted quite well, so I think the algorithm is close - it just doesn't account for undertone.

Garry
post #276 of 413
Tiddler, i'll use my sprectrophotometer on any mixes and post the resulting graph. Let me know what you want me to try.

Also while in Vegas at a tradeshow I think I found some good PVC vinyl to use as is, but I will start another thread.
post #277 of 413
Don't worry about the legal threats if it is from who I think it is. He has threatened to sue so many people it is not funny .

Most of the legal threats were so outrageous it was actually laughable .
Someone was threatened to be sued when he talked to a manufacturer of a plastic supplier who simply wanted to purchase a piece of plastic and was told by this certain individual that he was the only one allowed to purchase plastic laminates from this manufacturer for the PURPOSE of making a screen

Bruce
post #278 of 413
Tiddler,

I been out of the loop for about 2 weeks. I went to Vegas for 1 week and then recovered the next week. I really don't know about any legal details about anything. I'm just trying to help. Let me know what I can do.

But I'm really interested in what you have done on here that got you into some legal problems.
post #279 of 413
Deleted
post #280 of 413
Wow!! What a day. Just catching up on some reading.

First, I find out Bruce has a 600 HP 440! Watch out Sasquatch cause if Bruce is cruising in that thing, he ain't gonna stop real fast.

Then, I see Alan closed 2 threads!! Way to go. Long overdue.

Then I read about some legal threats over paint!!! That's 3 exclamation marks.

And then, I see my neighbour's wife with .....err sorry.


So all of this has got the heartbeat up from a dead 50 BPM to a whooping 58 BPM and my palms are sweating. I'm gonna go apply for a patent on the use of interference powders mixed in a transluscent base for use as a screen paint and a sunscreen. Let's see the Man beat that!!!! Thats' 4 exclamation marks. I can't seem to add smilies today. Oh well.......
post #281 of 413
Here you go, Ben - these are for you:



Garry
post #282 of 413
Quote:


I find out Bruce has a 600 HP 440!

Get your facts straight 455 olds .

Bruce
post #283 of 413
Wow!
A very exciting day on the DIY screen forum! -j
post #284 of 413
(deleted)
post #285 of 413
Ya tiddler don't give up your work due to the actions on one nutcase. It's obvious what is true "diy" intentions always were now with the legal BS. Hopefully he will be gone for good so we can get back to some true DIY help.
post #286 of 413
Well I just skimmed a few pages of this thread.
I will try to go through it to try and get on the same page as the people who have been involved from the begining of this thread

I see most of the talk is still about colour and measurements of colour temp . I was wondering tiddler what you are trying to do with the the individual colours ?

Is this effort to make a "neutral grey screen " Or are you now trying to make an ambient screen by filtering out unwanted wave legnths?

I see Proff has pointed out rosco's colour filters I used to have a whole set of the filters a couple of years ago I will look to dig them out I initially was using them to colour correct Crt projectors .

Has anybody thought of trying to duplicate dichroic lense filters to filter out specific wave legnths and if so has anybody done any research into what are the desirable wavelegnths to filter out ?

I have to run But I promise to read more of this thread as to not go over stuff that has been done before .

Bruce
post #287 of 413
Deleted
post #288 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbassett View Post

I had a big long post on this last night, but I deleted it. We all are on the same page and saying and feeling the same way. We stand a chance of this thread getting bogged down and although M won't be making counter jabs at any of the comments and feelings being expressed, there are others still on here that could take up the cause and this thread could end up a warzone and closed... which in my opinion was the goal of all of this. So I for one deleted my post and if everyone is in agreement, especially Tiddler since this is his thread, I think everyone should delete their posts about this one certain topic and let's let it die like it will.

Okay... now back to the fun stuff...

I don't want to derail anything or try to change your direction, so when testing is done with Plaid, has anyone tried any of these paints?

Some of these look very interesting, and if they aren't in line for the tests being done here I think some other tests should be looked into as well. The Rosco Off Broadway White is the one Bruce was telling me about that is better than UPW.

Will delete per your request

Rich
post #289 of 413
Tiddler-
You have a PM. -j
post #290 of 413
tiddler - might be worth to break out the medium diffculty mixes as well. Some of us are looking for a solution to improve on our "out of one can" solutions but not ready for the level of 6+ part mixes that require special applications and spraying.
Some thing like 3 ingredinets that can be foudn locally and can be rolled.

Think there also needs to be some details on the substrates to be used and the priming/pre processes as well.
post #291 of 413
Per request, I have deleted all my OT posts from this thread, and this one may self-destruct in a day or two.

But I'd like to take a moment to compliment everyone involved. If all forums were populated by the kind of folks we have on this thread, we wouldn't even need moderators. Through the well-mannered efforts of dedicated DIY'ers, what could have been the largest flame war in the history of AVS has been completely defused, and the thread brought back on topic.

Bravo!

Garry
post #292 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiddler View Post

What color does the mix look like (photo)?

Looks very dark blue. Too dark to show up in a pic, really.

A yellow would counteract the blue, but isn't that defeating the purpose? Adding yellow will increase response to ambient incandescent lights.

How about reduce blue and add red?

Garry
post #293 of 413
Prof,

If you have any Cobalt violet PV14 could you do an RGB analysis on it?



It seems to have the peaks and valleys about where we want them, I'd just like to know if they are really where we want them.

Tgreenwood
post #294 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgreenwood View Post

Prof,

If you have any Cobalt violet PV14 could you do an RGB analysis on it?



It seems to have the peaks and valleys about where we want them, I'd just like to know if they are really where we want them.

Tgreenwood

A search found a few Cobalt Violets listed as PV14, but as best I can tell they are toxic due to the cobalt. Golden paints offers a Cobalt Violet Hue which does NOT use the hazardous Cobalt in its mixture.

If used true Cobalt Violet would require saftey measures for handling and most especially if sprayed. OSHA mask, gloves and apron and is not to be worked with in your home.

A short discription of the Golden brand follows with a link, which contains the CIE lab values.

Pigment History: First developed in 1859, Cobalt Violet is a general name for several violet color cobalt pigments. Cobalt Violets range from deep to pale shades with either a pink or blue hue. Toxic, costly, and weak, Cobalt Violets were soon replaced by Manganese Violet. When evaluating the weak and dull transparent nature of Cobalt Violets, GOLDEN first looked at the shade range to find a color unique enough to warrant re-creating for artists. By blending Diozazine Purple with Quinacridones and Zinc White, GOLDEN creates a subtle yet complex color not found in modern pigment families.

http://www.goldenpaints.com/products...1465infopg.php

Also Handprint has a PV14 listing of watercolors here;
http://personales.upv.es/gbenet/teor...or/waterv.html
post #295 of 413
MM: Why not move this post to a new thread, rather than put it here? I'm sure it will be noticed, and it will make comment possible without cluttering this thread.

Thank you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Hello everybody,

There seems to be a very off-base idea of what has happened recently, and the end results of such. Rumors and assumptions that are being adressed are wrong.

Just to be clear, I am not "banned' from contributing to "any" thread, this one included. This is as "per Alan" via a recent PM and not my own ascertation, so let's not continue to belabor the issue, OK? I would not make the statement if not true.

And to be clearer, in no way do I, or have I ever discouraged the effort of anybody, or a collective group from exploring alternative methods or materials in the quest for the better/best DIY Screen possible. Ambient Light capable or otherwise. Only that the reconigition of prior efforts that were/are particularly unique should be observed.

A big issue with Alan is the continued requests that discussions of "Patents" keep being made. Everyone knows I've been trying to discourage such, but even so, reports to Alan have included complaints to the contrary, primarily for the reason to stir up more trouble....unjustifiably. I will be making even more of a concerted effort to avoid the mention of such. Requests for clarification of my stance on this should be "emailed' to me, for even the use of PM's seems to not be truely what can be construed as "private"

Another bigger issue are the calls from some for him to dismiss himself from involvement in the DIY Forum because of a recent approval of the DIY SMX and it's own commercialising. I can see where such as that would PO him off, and no one can point to me as ever stating that such should be the case. yet once again, I was blamed for advocating exactly that. Instead, I pointed out that it was indeed a good thing for him to recconigize that something good can and does come from the DIY Screen Forums. Where the other stuff came from I don't know.

I hope to soon resolve all the issues that seem to be outstanding with Alan, and it would be hoped that no one would excercise any effort to thawart such. Let Alan decide if I merit any punitive action. I beleive that from the past, none of you should doubt that he will do what he thinks is the best for the forum.

Back on Topic...of a sort.

Everyone has available choices...., to try to find available paints/pigments that do the same job as what BF is currently doing and do so for the benifit of DIY'er alone, or come up with an entirely different approach to the issue.

My error was assuming that most/some would recongize that by everyone having the prior knowledge of BF having precidence, and that while enlisting the efforts of Commercial Paint companies to help provide assistance, that they perhaps encourage them by doing so to produce another similar product by stating they are welcome to use the knowledge posted on the DIY Forum is contrary to the established norms that govern such things. Everyone on this thread has prior knowledge of the past, and that knowledge should govern thier actions in the present and future. That doesn't mean stop doing the excellent work here on this thread, it's just a request that such work be identified as for the use of DIY'ers ONLY, if it indeed concerns the subject of Ambient Light Screens developed through the use of "paints and/or pigments". Am I wrong to suggest such? Hardly.

To suggest that business entities are free to take such publically related info and do with it as they wish is wrong if it in any way is in conflict with already published info that contained any notification of prior rights. We did that some time ago.

If anybody comes up with any different approach not involving paints or pigments, then of course they are free to give it away at thier discretion.

It's very difficult for me to understand why some feel I have no interest in DIY mandates anymore. I hope that everyone who matters will see that I'm not an adverse influance, nor determined to stymie any DIY effort. I only ask that some common decency and respect for the prior efforts made be shown, and that enthusiasium doesn't get the better of keeping the broader picture in mind.

Please. Keep up the good work. Qualify your efforts as being for the DIY'ers' benifit. Please do not spite us/me by making statements that you hope that if any Mfg. can use the info on this thread to thier advantage, and that they are free to do so. That's just not true if it involves properties enherent to BF. Never in the history of DIY has such a 'offer' been made, instead it was always clear that "published" info on DIY was STRICTLY for the benefit of DIY'ers. That such a statement has now been made and advocated as being true doesn't speak of any charity towards the various business entities that might avail themselves of such, but rather as an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of those who fortunately got there first with a unique idea. I know that for the most of you, your all "bigger than that" than to be so inclined to be spiteful. But as for anything else anyone 'developes", of course the latter does not apply.

I've sent a copy of this via PM to Alan, as I am doing with all such missives untill we have our private conversation soon to discuss every issue outstanding on the table....or under it. hopefully, no one will read into this post anything more than what it contains. and as stated in the title, this post will be deleted tomorrow as promised so that the effort on this thread will not suffer any examples of "explanations" or Rebuttals.
post #296 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by benven View Post

Richum, sounds like what I said in post 419. My gray sample looked like my white sample under light controlled viewing but better under ambient lighting. However, the gain of our screens sound like they different. Any white paint or primer will kill any brightness when using metallics. That's why I'm using clears with powders mixed in. You can certainly try topcoating what you did with some flat poly and metallic powders. It will damp out those deep dark blacks but will bring up the dingy whites.

benven,

When you say "Any white paint or primer will kill any brightness when using metallics" do you specifically mean those that contain titanium dioxide(TiO2).

As we all know TiO2 is a strong hiding pigment, that is its utility. The curves I've read (haven't viewed them all) posted by Tiddler base the white reflectivity on TiO2.

Suppose I use a more translucent white such as one based on an older Zinc Oxide formula, I wonder if it would be a metallic killer as you say above. Surfing around Zinc Oxide based paints are still in limited use and available.

This question is for anyone who might know the answer. The craft paints in the metallic pearl, do they use a white pigment and which one?

I'm thinking about making my own pearlescent from Zinc Oxide paint and pearl pigments and then mix in small amounts of one of the RGB pigments suggested here until I see a color shift and start experimenting by spraying samples.

So the basic approach would be;

Use the accepted combination of, poly, most hopeful RGB pigments, but with homemade metallic pearlescent and Zinc Oxide White paint.

Then again Zinc Oxide might not be reflective enough to be any help.

Rich
post #297 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richum View Post

A search found a few Cobalt Violets listed as PV14, but as best I can tell they are toxic due to the cobalt. Golden paints offers a Cobalt Violet Hue which does NOT use the hazardous Cobalt in its mixture.

If used true Cobalt Violet would require saftey measures for handling and most especially if sprayed. OSHA mask, gloves and apron and is not to be worked with in your home.

A short discription of the Golden brand follows with a link, which contains the CIE lab values.

Pigment History: First developed in 1859, Cobalt Violet is a general name for several violet color cobalt pigments. Cobalt Violets range from deep to pale shades with either a pink or blue hue. Toxic, costly, and weak, Cobalt Violets were soon replaced by Manganese Violet. When evaluating the weak and dull transparent nature of Cobalt Violets, GOLDEN first looked at the shade range to find a color unique enough to warrant re-creating for artists. By blending Diozazine Purple with Quinacridones and Zinc White, GOLDEN creates a subtle yet complex color not found in modern pigment families.

http://www.goldenpaints.com/products...1465infopg.php

Also Handprint has a PV14 listing of watercolors here;
http://personales.upv.es/gbenet/teor...or/waterv.html

Thanks Richum, I wasn't aware of the possible toxicity of a cobalt violet pigment. While thinking about toxicity, I was trying to think of colorants that wouldn't have any toxicity problems, and the only thing I could come up with were food colors or dyes.

We know that food colors can't have any toxic substances in them, or they wouldn't be allowed to be used in food items. They are also a water soluble dye, and we know that they stay true to color when diluted, because we can see the dilution effect when we dye our easter eggs with the stuff. It is certainly a colorant that is easy to get and inexpensive, any grocery store should have them.

According to wikipedia only seven artificial colorings are permitted in food in the USA. They are:
FD&C Blue No.1 - Brilliant Blue FCF (Blue shade)
FD&C Blue No.2 - Indigotine (Dark Blue shade)
FD&C Green No.3 - Fast Green FCF (Bluish green shade)
FD&C Red No.40 - Allura Red AC (Red shade)
FD&C Red No.3 - Erythrosine (Pink shade)
FD&C Yellow No.5 - Tartrazine (Yellow shade)
FD&C Yellow No.6 - Sunset Yellow FCF (Orange shade)

It might be interesting to find out what the RGB analysis might be on each of these dyes, who knows, we might get lucky.

I have no clue what the reflectance curves might look like for any of these food dyes, I haven't been able to find any information on it yet, but I'll keep looking if there is any interest in this idea.

Tgreenwood
post #298 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgreenwood View Post

Thanks Richum, I wasn't aware of the possible toxicity of a cobalt violet pigment. While thinking about toxicity, I was trying to think of colorants that wouldn't have any toxicity problems, and the only thing I could come up with were food colors or dyes.

We know that food colors can't have any toxic substances in them, or they wouldn't be allowed to be used in food items. They are also a water soluble dye, and we know that they stay true to color when diluted, because we can see the dilution effect when we dye our easter eggs with the stuff. It is certainly a colorant that is easy to get and inexpensive, any grocery store should have them.

According to wikipedia only seven artificial colorings are permitted in food in the USA. They are:
FD&C Blue No.1 - Brilliant Blue FCF (Blue shade)
FD&C Blue No.2 - Indigotine (Dark Blue shade)
FD&C Green No.3 - Fast Green FCF (Bluish green shade)
FD&C Red No.40 - Allura Red AC (Red shade)
FD&C Red No.3 - Erythrosine (Pink shade)
FD&C Yellow No.5 - Tartrazine (Yellow shade)
FD&C Yellow No.6 - Sunset Yellow FCF (Orange shade)

It might be interesting to find out what the RGB analysis might be on each of these dyes, who knows, we might get lucky.

I have no clue what the reflectance curves might look like for any of these food dyes, I haven't been able to find any information on it yet, but I'll keep looking if there is any interest in this idea.

Tgreenwood

I would not be afraid to use Cobalt based paints, its just that anyone who does should take protective measures and it leads to more complexity for making a screen. Most folks would be put off by that.

One warning I read said not to spray real Cobalt base paint, although I am sure it can be done using appropriate safety precaustions, which by the way should be taken with all paints that you spray.

I just mixed up some cobalt blue colored acrylic, zinc oxide white, poly and micropearl pigment and sprayed it on a mirror tile using a couple of dust coats. It is drying now and I will do some tests in a few minutes. I expect hot spotting so another light coat or two will probably be required.

Rich
post #299 of 413
Well the mix sprayed on the mirror tile was far from ideal. It has a decided blue push and I only added a the equivalent of two tear drops of cobalt blue to an ounce of zinc white paint, blue is a very strong tint. It made a very pale blue white color.

I does exhibit some ambient light tolerance but to no great degree, I suspect the zinc white and/or micropearlescent pigment are responsible for that giving more gain.

Tomorrow I am going to mix up zinc white and pearl pigment and test that as a control. I am concerned with TiO2 based whites overpowering the pearl.

Then zinc white, pearl pigment, with small amounts of magenta PR122 and Phthalo Green (ys) PB36 and give it a try also.

Also I am going to lose the mirror tiles and go for some other substrate.

Rich
post #300 of 413
No further comments on pigment size and the possiblity of tinted mica rather than pigments paint?
I still feel there is an issue here when creating the RGB mixes and pigments being too small.

The current curves are trying to peak at the RGB points. But I wonder if we really do need to keep our vision in the picture.

A theory.
The screen surface only recieves the final color as a mix of RGB. So in effect the spectrum of a color could look like the paint curves as we have seen posted.
That is, a resulting interference RGB mix.

With the current guesstimated mix, If a color from a LCD PJ falls at 580nm it will be drab relative to the 530nm and 620nm. The lower the picture contrast falls as in dark scenes the 580nm will cut away sooner.

I was looking at the curves and Raw umber has been talked about, but its low RV was/is considered to low.

But I placed it in and think it has a positive relationship with how we see and the spectrum response.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Screen Section
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › DIY Screen Section › RGB Paint Mix Experiments & Discussion