Is not a gamut a limit? 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. Gamut is a broader term than it has been reduced to by some in this thread. Sorry if this doesn’t fit the model for some color scientists but that’s the way it goes. 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. Henry Davis
On Jan 13, 2020, at 8:54 PM, 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.