You said it quite correctly. In fact, historically, color reproduction systems, such as color film, have used the trick of narrowing the spectral responses to be much sharper than any standard observer curves, in order to increase the eventual color saturation of the output. This kind of thing works quite well as long as the illumination and object reflectance spectra are reasonably broad (e.g., Color Checker chart, daylight or incandescent), failing only for special cases (like film depicting the old fluorescent lighting as greenish) or extremely narrow-spectra objects. I wrote a paper for SMPTE on limitations of wide gamut imaging that explored how narrow spectra can be before they cause trouble with narrow camera sensitivity curves. The powerpoint presentation can be downloaded here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact... The text version from the Journal is here: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7269291&url=http%3A%2F... Regards, Wayne -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+waynebretl=cox.net@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+waynebretl=cox.net@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Ben Goren Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:47 AM To: 'colorsync-users?lists. apple. com' List Subject: Re: Quantum Dot Tech - cheap wide gamut but is it ready for mainstream? On Mar 28, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Wayne Bretl <waynebretl@cox.net> wrote:

The display is one side of it. A perfect system for the individual requires a camera with that individual's matching functions also.

...and cameras are quite significantly different from humans, such that no camera I'm aware of is even close to any human. If you want to do that sort of thing at the input end, you've got to go the multi-spectral route such as what Dr. Berns and his gang at RIT do. You don't necessarily need especially exotic equipment. A standard RGB camera plus a couple carefully-selected Kodak / Wratten color filters can give you "good enough" spectral resolution. And you can use more and more filters to narrow down the spectral resolution to whatever your need is. There're academic papers freely downloadable from the RIT Web site for those interested in the details...but, in practice, it's of little interest to anybody outside of the curatorial or forensic fields. But all this misses another, more fundamental problem. So you've got something perfectly suited to your own visual system. What good is that going to be for anybody else? Somebody else is going to see differences you'll ignore, and ignore differences you might obsess over. That's a big part of the advantage in the standard observers. They're guaranteed perfect for nobody, but they're also pretty much equally "close enough" for everybody, too. ...and, again. Graphic arts isn't a precision science. Yes, 1 DE _can_ be distinguished in certain circumstances, but the error from paper that doesn't lie quite flat is typically a lot more than 1 DE. Almost no real-world environments are actually that sensitive. If your total system has a low-single-digit average DE error, if there aren't any double-digit DE errors in areas people care about, if everything is consistent edge-to-edge...there're plenty advantages to tight controls in color management past that (better shadow / highlight detail, for example), but not in areas that are going to be seen in terms of fidelity of color reproduction. Cheers, b& _______________________________________________ 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/waynebretl%40cox.net This email sent to waynebretl@cox.net