If red is off from green, it's off. Doesn't matter what caused it. If blue is off from green, that matters less than red. Still doesn't matter what caused it, other than doing geometric correction. Half pixel geometric correction ads a small amount of blurriness to that color. Green is the most important, since we're most sensitive to green.
Interesting. Others have said we are most sensitive to red. Either way, this is what I mean. In a DLP projector for example, the light shines onto the mirrors that make the pixels, then the mirrors reflect the light out of the lens. So wherever the pixels are on the mirror device, you will get the full light from that pixel. Whereas chromatic aberration seems to be a situation where the light shines out the lens, but then there is an imperfection in the lens, so some of the light angles off over the screen screen somewhere it's supposed to.
But is this the full light from the pixel, or only for example half of the light's wavelengths, that are affected by the lens imperfections, while the other half would not affected? In a case like that, maybe misconvergence would be worse than chromatic aberration because with misconvergence, you're getting the full red, green, or blue light from the projector going to the wrong place, concentrated in the wrong place, whereas with chromatic aberration, it could just be the lens spreading out part of the red, green, or blue light from the projector to the wrong place, but not all of it.
I don't know if it works like that, but that is what I was asking about. At first glance, of course, half of red off is half of red off, who cares what caused it. But maybe it actually does matter what causes it. I have a projector that cannot have misconvergence, but it has a little chromatic aberration, and some of it does like more "faded" than misconvergence I've seen in the past. It seems not as concentrated. If you imagine a drawing of a red line on a piece of paper, the chromatic aberration looks more like if you shaded some extra red shadow on the side of the crisp line, whereas, again I dont know for sure, but maybe misconvergence would be more like the entire crisp line is in the wrong place, where the shadow would be.
With misconvergence, we know that the half pixel that is misconverged is missing from the place it's supposed to be, and showing up in a place it's not supposed to be. But with chromatic aberration, is the lens aberrating the light from where it's supposed to be to somewhere it's not supposed to be, or is the light still going where it's supposed to be, but now the lens is spreading it out further and also
sending it where it's not supposed to be? Whereas with misconvergence, it would probably be both
missing from the correct spot and in the wrong spot.
But again, maybe for chromatic aberration to show a half pixel where it's not supposed to be, it will mean it is also missing from where it should be. But say it'sa green pixel, maybe only half the green wavelengths are affected by chromatic aberration, so then at least you still have half of green in the place its supposed to be, instead of none, and the other half off to the side. See what I mean? So that is what we need to figure out, then we can leave the thread to the search archives for anyone else who wants to learn about this.