Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
- Subject: Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
- From: Henry Davis via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:16:54 -0500
Definitions help to avoid confusion, however, definitions aren’t concepts.
Concepts help to advance understanding and broaden knowledge.
Audio gear is often described in terms of range of sound. I have no trouble
thinking of that as a gamut of sorts. Receivers are designed to be sensitive
to a specific range of energy in the air and hand it over to an amplifier for
post processing. Range, gamut? They both ought to work for purposes of
discussion.
Technicians have their own jargon but I don’t see jargon as necessarily
facilitating understanding. This thread shows how jargon might frustrate
instead of facilitate.
Practical tasks have to do with emplimentation. A camera sensor is good for
what, practically speaking? Discussions about the capablility of a sensor that
is limited to number-speak may be useful for an engineer but it has very little
practical application for the end user.
Speaking about the color gamut of a sensor may not be a precise use of terms
but it does seem to relate a conceptual notion about it.
Henry Davis
> On Jan 9, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Iliah Borg <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Useful definitions help advancing knowledge.
>
> What is the upside of ascribing colour gamut to a sensor? What practical
> tasks are facilitated with that? What would be a strict, communicable
> definition?
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden