I'm glad the ICC exists, Wire. ICC profiling may not be bullet proof but it's a set of tools that's better than no tools at all, to deal with the complexity of "color" 😊 / Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users <colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com> On Behalf Of Wire ~ via colorsync-users Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 6:13 PM To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Subject: Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?) As you the original point of how many colors the human eye can see: This topic has become a big red herring. The original quandry was about the term "billions of colors" and in the context of the original post on the value of a 10 bpc data path to a display, the use of that term is completely fine. To have a basic understanding of the technology is to have no trouble with it. (omg 100 posts later in a contest over the word gamut). If you get super precise about this jargon, then the name of the ICC is absurd. Where is this so-called "color" they talk about but in the eye of the beholder? It should be the ICCC, the International Conjecture of Color Consortium because all they have is a vast approximation. The CIE doesn't suffer this because they steadfastly stand apart from the terminology of the qualia and stick to the physics. They knew what they were up against. It's commision on light—well, light the way the Swiss think about it in French, anyways... I appreciate Rodney's reading list. Thank you!