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: Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:47:48 -0700
On Jan 13, 2020, at 7:14 PM, Henry Davis via colorsync-users
<email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Is not a gamut a limit?
The discussion here is color gamut. Color gamut defines a range of colors. Even
more specifically (not that it should be necessary after so many days of this)
but one more example:
https://color.viewsonic.com/explore/content/Color-gamut_6.html
“The color gamut describes a range of color within the spectrum of colors that
are identifiable by the human eye (visible color spectrum)“.
> Restricting gamut to certain coordinte systems doesn’t make it any less a
> limit. Restricting ‘gamut’ to a jargon definition doesn’t erradicate ‘gamut’
> as an applicable term for describing color bounds or capabilities.
Color gamut has a limit based on what is and isn’t color.
Absolutely not joking and fact: I had a dog who’s name was Gamut. He had
absolutely nothing to do with color gamut.
> Gamut is a broader term than it has been reduced to by some in this thread.
We don’t need a broader term for color gamut, just color gamut and it’s well
established and excepted (by most) definition. There’s yet another above.
> Sorry if this doesn’t fit the model for some color scientists but that’s the
> way it goes.
Many color scientists have stated the facts about color gamut and the lack
thereof from input devices like digital cameras.
> If a group wants to own language then they’re bound to run into ignorant
> people like me. It’s the price you pay for ownership.
I don’t speak for the group or anyone but myself but you'll hear some posters
speak for others. I am very clear on my understanding on color gamut because my
understanding comes from a pretty significant number of color scientists and
experts and all agree; I’ve copied and pasted their text which, much of which
was paramount in my understanding of color gamut. Unlike just a few here,
disagreeing with so many esteemed and well respected experts on color is way
over my pay grade.
I absolutely agree with Graeme: That topic has been cleared up over and over
again.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
> Henry Davis
>
>
>> On Jan 13, 2020, at 8:54 PM, Graeme Gill via colorsync-users
>> <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Henry Davis via colorsync-users wrote:
>>
>>> The threads I’ve been reading here have insisted that sensors do not have
>>> gamuts. No
>>> one has yet to clear up this contradiction.
>>
>> That topic has been cleared up over and over again. I'm not sure that
>> repeating the information will improve comprehension, but here's another
>> short summary:
>>
>> If by "gamut" you mean a well defined volume of tri-stimulus space, then
>> no, input devices don't have gamuts. This is due to the nature of
>> the many-to-one spectral to tri-stimulus transform that they perform
>> allowing for colors that can be be accurately captured if having
>> one spectra, but not being accurately captured if they have another.
>>
>> If by "gamut" you mean that they have limits, then yes, input
>> devices have limits. Just not of the sort that can be defined by
>> a volume of tri-stimulus space.
>>
>> That's it. You can stop wondering if sensors have gamuts.
>>
>> Graeme Gill.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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