Do yellow pixels on a monitor really improve vibrant colors?

I’ve read some tech reviews that positively rave about the picture, including one journalist who went to review the new 3d TV’s, but got sidetracked by what he said was the best picture he’d ever seen.

Apparently it’s not the yellowness of the pixels. The yellowness is a byproduct of the important part of the process which has something to do with translucency of the denser part of the light-transmitting modules. The reviews i have seen have all been stunning.

Adding a yellow pixel is pure marketing and has no effect on the picture quality. All video is produced in the sRGB color space, which almost all TVs can fully reproduce. The marketers are claiming that they get better colors. But none of the content is produced in their “enhanced” color space. If the picture looks different, it is because they are not faithfully reproducing the colors as the director intended them to be.
I haven’t heard @dpworkin claim before. It is an interesting claim, but presupposes that the distance between the red, green, and blue pixels are enough that they can be distinguished on most TVs. My eyes are pretty good, and they can’t see the individual colors.
TV marketing hype has gotten out of control. Refresh rates are overstated. Contrast is laughable. Localized dimming looks splotchy.

This was discussed earlier.

@arpinum I am nothing if not skeptical, especially about advertised electronics, but let me see if I can find some reviews for you which would explain the technology less clumsily than I.

I looked at some of the tech specs. All of the actual advantages are due to Sharp’s uv2a manufacturing process and not due to the yellow pixel. Sharp also states that the panels by default with ship with settings which do not accurately reproduced the color spec standards.