It’s really a pity, calling people names and ridiculing them as ignorant. You’d think such ‘educated’ people would have learned a thing or two about that. Some of these ignorant people are quite thoughtful with their comments and heaven forbid some of them may even be credentialed as well. With all of the back and forth I’m still not convinced that, within ordinary usage, a sensor doesn’t have a gamut. Now, if you take gamut to mean some specialized, non ordinary meaning and usage then I suppose bounds and limits can’t be described as gamuts under those restrictions. I’m ok with that if at least once somebody would admit to a special use of the word. It’s actually laughingly funny that nobody has yet admitted that they have a special, unique definition of gamut - and that they own it! Actually, the rest of it, the name-calling and snarkiness, is funny too. The ignorance that generates it must be powerful. Sadly, defensiveness can reach a level that might be called clinical (using a specialized definition of course). Exchaning ideas is often fun and enlightening - as some of this has been for me. I’ve picked up some ideas here that have caused me to think about things a little differently even though I’m still unconvinced. That might be progress. Henry Davis
On Jan 13, 2020, at 9:09 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
In original context the point was about cameras having gamuts, where the definition of a camera was left open-ended but reasonably interpretable in context as a modern digicam.
This got distorted into a point about sensors where the distinction and ambiguity could be exploited rhetorically.
Eventually the original context was ejected, partly because rhetorically it didn't suit a certain power dynamic and partly because of a resort to ad hominem tactics. Fair minded observers saw this and chimed in to recenter the conversation and explore their own ideas about how to think about the subject.
And here we are.
I apologize for feeding the flames.
Carry on peoplez!