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! On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 17:54 Graeme Gill via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> 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 (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/wire%40lexiphanicism...
This email sent to wire@lexiphanicism.com