This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor articles
Gutza, your contribution about digital cameras and dynamic range looks like a valuable information for people interested in photography, but I'm not convinced that it actually belongs in a page about "gamut".
I'm not that much of an expert in photography terminology (I do know a bit about how cameras and CCDs work, though), but I think your discussion about "dynamic range" is about the range between the black point and the white point. Gamut refers to the shape of the area perpendendicular to that line. I agree with you that megapixel counts on digicams are misleading since typically 1/2 of the pixels represents green, and 1/4 red and blue, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the color reproduction. You mention uniformity in recording all colors in the spectrum at a given brightness.. Don't know what you mean, but gamut refers to how colors are reproduced, not whether they are recorded. If you photograph violet light (400 nm) with a film, the print will not look violet. Also, different brands/types of film have different behaviour in color reproduction, some being better for human skin colors, others better for use under fluorescent lighting. That implies that different films have different gamuts.
Your text is also a bit non-NPOV, with words such as "honest", "cheat", and "satisfy sale characteristics".
Sorry for the way-late reply, see my user page for details. For an explanation of my apparent POV, please see this page. Both streaming video encoding systems and digital camera manufacturers "cheat" with their products by encoding as little red and blue information in their resulting output as necessary to be unnoticeable. Film doesn't do this. Check it out with your own digital camera, take a random photo, zoom in to 200% and look at each discrete channel if your software supports this -- you'll see what I mean. This is not meant to be POV, it's the only wording I could find -- and they are cheating, because no camera manual will tell you this, yet they all do it and everybody in the business knows they're doing it. What would you call that? Anyway, if you find a milder wording which does convey the meaning of what I'm babbling in this paragraph, by all means, be bold! :) --Gutza 12:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
P.S. You might be right about the dynamic range issue, I'll try to look into that if I have the time. Please do fix it if you know for a fact that only brightness is what is meant by dynamic tange in film. --Gutza 12:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to see some references for the claims made in the article about which types of display systems have the largest gamuts. I not convinced that the gamut for a laser based system would be larger than that of a CRT. It may be, but it seems to me that unless a number of lasers of different colors are used, the problem with a tringular shaped gamut would still remain.
I wasn't too happy with the comparisons either, but I will observe that the area which can be covered by a triangular gamut varies depending on two factors: The saturation of the three primaries chosen (so, distance from the central white on the chromaticity chart) and the particular wavelength of the three primaries (so, positions along the edge of the chromaticity chart). In theory, a laser-based three-primary system should be able to achieve the largest gamut because, unlike chemical phosphors on a CRT screen, the lasers are always fully-saturated (because they can be truly monochromatic) and the wavelengths can be chosen pretty-much arbitrarily. As far as I know, you can't choose phosphor wavelengths arbitrarily while maintaining full saturation. I don't know how well this theory plays out in practice.
(And, of course, systems with more than three primaries can cover much larger gamuts, but I don't think there's any disagreement over that! :-) )
I have a feeling that the comparision between CRT and LCD isn't up to date, atleast when it comes to today's LCD screens. I also missed the plasma screens in here, and the projectors that use three light sources and mirrors to project images on a grey or white textile. This taps into a vast field of home entertainment technology, so perhaps a demarkation between the Gamut page and other pages/categories is in order first :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.241.252.14 (talk • contribs) .
I don't understand all that discussion about gamuts: my eyes have three different sensors for red, green and blue. Therefore, the only thing my TV/LCD screen/etc needs are subpixels with the colors red, green and blue to make me happy (= give me all colors I am able to see).
As i'm limited to these three sensors, it should be of no importance what spectrum my LCD backlight emits, as long as I get red, green and blue colored light beams to my eyes.
Also, my CRT/LCD screen should be able to represent all the colors you (=human person) can see in real nature, as (you already suspect it) you can see only a mixture of the colors red, green and blue.
who cares about the adding of an additional cyan subpixel in a TV, as I don't have a sensor in my eyes to exclusively see this color. I have green- and blue-sensors in my eyes to do this job. And therefore cyan should be obsolete, as the green and blue subpixel in the TV can already fake this color.
in a nutshell: please explain, why gamuts and/or gamut enhancements are important - i won't see the additional colors anyways, or will I? A bigger gamut will not give me more colors than a smaller gamut that already covers RGB.
thank you so much! --Abdull 18:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a specialist in CRT/LCD displays, but I will tell you this: a bigger gamut will definitely give you additional colors -- it just depends on what you mean when you say "color". It won't if you mean "primary color", but then you should be happy with a display system which can only render pure red, pure green and pure blue. But you wouldn't be happy with such a display system, because you wouldn't be able to see any distinction between dark red and light pink. If you define "color" the way women do when they go shopping for clothes (and which is the generic definition of the term), then yes, a bigger gamut will certainly give you more colors. --Gutza01:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you have specific sensors in your eyes to do that job, you are exceptional -- see Color vision for an explanation of how the eye works! As for CRTs, look at the sample CRT gamut image on the article page -- the gray area represents all of the possible frequencies of visible light, and the triangle the colors the CRT is capable of producing. The part of the gray area that is not covered by the triangle represents frequencies that the CRT is not capable of producing! (As a trivial example, a CRT cannot produce monochromatic red like a laser can.)
Similarly, your eye can detect variations that a four-color printing process cannot produce (but that, say, spot color can), or variations that printing technology cannot produce at all. Gamut is a technological limitation, not biological. Of course, if you do not believe that your eye is capable of calculations of frequency at a higher accuracy than those CRTs or printing processes are capable of reproducing then none of this will convince you, but it remains that your eye is capable of that. — mendel☎ 04:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The underlying process you're failing to recognise is that the human eye doesn't have "pure" red/green/blue detectors; the wavelength-responses of the detectors overlap significantly. This means that any physically realisable light source (ideally a monochromatic source) *still* cannot excite a single colour-channel in the eye. Even with three optimised monochromatic r/g/b sources you still cannot reach the full gamut of the eye. Real-world phosphors etc fall short even of that optimum... looking at the CIE Colour Matching Functions should help aid your understanding. 80.189.149.14113:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Andrew http://www.techmind.org/colour/[reply]
I'd like to chime in with an example: light that is at the wavelength where your red receptors are most sensitive will register as red. But it will also excite the green receptors in your eye to a small extent. If your eye is then exposed to light of a longer wavelength (in the direction of infra-red), the red receptor will still be excited, but the green less so. Therefore, these two red frequencies are seen as different colors. If you have only one source of red light and one of green and want to mimick the proportional excitement of the receptors seen with the two reds, you'd have to use more light and therefore get brighter colors than the true ones. This therefore limits the range of colors available. 129.241.252.14
Samsung's 40” LCD TV (LE40M61B) was honoured with an EISA award for its premium display technology in terms of contrast ratio (5000:1), color expression (6.44 billion colors, 92% color gamut for NTSC) , viewing angle (178 °) and response time (8 ms)
I understand that EBU and ITU709-4 are gamuts in the RGB color space which almost exactly copies sRGB, but then I'm confused with references to NTSC gamut. Is there a standard NTSC gamut defined somewhere, or maybe they are talking about CIE RGB (1931)?
PS. Don't bother, I've found a reference to NTSC RGB here [4] and then right on the RGB color space :)
According to Poynton (www.poynton.com), the original NTSC used a more saturated green phosphor than any television produced in the past 30 years. The original phosphor fell out of use owing to being too slow (long persistance) and maybe cost. Remnants of the old specification persist in documents and standards, but have little practical relevance these days.
When a colour-space is described as such-and-such percent of NTSC, we're talking of area of the gamut in CIE 1931 x,y space ... which is far from perceptually uniform. Consequently, in my opinion, %NTSC should be consigned to specmanship and marketing blurb, and has no place in technical discussions! 80.189.149.14113:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Andrew http://www.techmind.org/colour/[reply]
Good point. Using CIELAB or CIELUV would be a far better choice for gamut size evaluation. DIN99 would be the best alternative at the moment. CIE94 and CIEDE2000 are only color difference formulae and not useful for color space size comparisons.
I'm trying to understand gamut here, so tell me: is this relevant to the concept? It seems to have to do with the capacity to more accurately reflect brightness ranges, and brightness is a component of color. So would the described monitor have a higher gamut than a normal CRT? —Simetrical (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a bit of a tough time figuring out exactly what that article is talking about, but I think they've just overcomplicated things. Dynamic range in that context is luminance; it's a one-dimensional measurement. If a display can produce darker blacks and brighter whites than another then it has a higher dynamic range.
There's really no concept of a "higher" gamut, because a gamut is a description of exactly which colors a display can capture. You'll notice that the CIE gamut graph on the article only goes from white to pure colors (although the gamut graphed on it doesn't reach the pure colors at the edge of the graph). If one device's gamut is a superset of another's -- that is, it can produce all of the colors that the other one can produce, and then some -- then you could say that its gamut was "better", but usually gains in some colors mean losses in another.
So the dynamic range of a device is the range between the darkest dark and the brightest brite of a display, while the gamut is the range between white and pure color, for all colors, that a device can display. There's more at high dynamic range imaging and high dynamic range rendering but both are in a bit of a state of disrepair.
Oh, also see the section in the article about a 3D gamut; the third dimension is brightness, and that axis measures dynamic range (and therefore a normal 2D gamut graph omits dynamic range). — mendel☎03:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it a bit better now. So in theory, this monitor would have a larger gamut than a typical LCD screen. I still don't get why we can't get a wider range of color—isn't the only property of a photon frequency/wavelength,
And amplitude, for brightness! (Yes, waves and particles, but you know what I mean.)
and can't we produce a photon of any wavelength?
Not in every medium, no. Gamut details exactly how a particular medium fails to produce or reflect photons of any wavelength. It's an engineering problem, not a physics problem; it's expensive to produce computer monitors that display far more color than a user would typically need, so instead they produce them with smaller gamuts that will suffice.
But what about pigment? Is it just prohibitively expensive to have enough primaries to reproduce a near-perfect gamut in commercial color printing, or is it actually impossible with current technology? Again, I'd imagine pigments with a huge variety of reflective properties can be created. —Simetrical (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly it. CMYK has a limited gamut but it's a limited gamut that's satisfactory, so it gets used. When people need a wider gamut they throw more money at the problem and use 6-color or higher separations, or spot color, or something that has a gamut that better meets their needs. Four-color is good enough and cheap so that's what's widespread. 6-color printers are showing up in the home market these days, though. To ask why a device doesn't have a wider gamut is like asking why an engine doesn't produce more horsepower and torque; gamut (or engine output) is one of the things designed into a device and balanced against cost, reliability, and so forth. Of course there are some absolute limitations in particular mediums as well. — mendel☎14:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'd be interested in seeing a side-by-side photo comparison of two monitors with different gamuts showing the same image. Could this be easily simulated in PSP or something? I think it would be useful for the article. —Simetrical (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not accurately, because you'd be looking at both through a device with its own gamut. An example would be useful but it'd have to be an extreme one, I'll see what I can think of. — mendel☎23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but both will have their different gamuts reduced by the same amount in display on the end-user's monitor, preserving the difference between them. Rather like this picture from the article I linked: the HDR monitor is technically being displayed as a sort of gray rather than pure black, just like the normal monitor, but the normal one is grayer—the difference remains very noticeable. —Simetrical (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.techmind.org/colour/rogues.html explains the effect is an artifact, and presents "fixes". Wikipedia probably can't use his alternatives because of the usual copyright crud, but I can render equivalents (for many devices) and toss them into the public domain if this would be deemed useful for this article. mdf18:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me (and the image in the article claims to be in the public domain, so you can free any derivative works you create).
An initial rendering is now available for comment - see at right. The addition of text to the graphic make it less neutral, but in this case I think it's addition is justified. I also think the dark background makes the gamut itself stick out better than if the background was white. The out-of-gamut region has been rendered as grey for similar reasons. Note that many gamut's can be rendered at will, and a large 3x4 or 4x4 table of gamuts is also possible with minimal effort. mdf19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this image better than the ones currently on the page. I think it might be even more useful to show in L*u*v* space, which is a bit more perceptually uniform, while still being a pretty simple transformation of XYZ/xyY. --jacobolus(t)06:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This diagram could use some improvement, as it is not clear what is being shown. What are the units on the x and y axis? What are the wavelength for the three corners of the triangle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.127.237 (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"in addition, for subtractive color systems, such as printing, the range of intensity available in the system is for the most part meaningless outside the context of its illumination."
Sure. "Subtractive", being the appropriate technical term, can't really be changed here, but "in addition" has many synonyms: "moreover", "furthermore", etc. I'll fix it right now. -- Stebulus21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even with laser sources you need at minimum 5 different wavelengths to cover the gamut of the eye, and ideally 6. The section kinda implies that it is easy to get a good gamut with lasers, but it's not at all. (reference, Hans, Practical Holography)
Actually you need an infinite number (theoretically, practically a high number) of laser sources to cover the full gamut. But you can approximate the gamut well enough with 5 to 7 sources, depending on the primares' locations. The 1931 chromaticity diagram is perceptually not very uniform, so in reality the Green-Cyan portion is actually much smaller. One additional primary in the saturated yellows and one more in the greens can considerably widen the gamut. --Albedoshader (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisions between gamuts does not discuss the discretisation of the colour space. RGB for example, is limited to 16777216 colours. While a lot, it can only distinguish 256 shades of grey. <a href="http://r0k.us/graphics/colSpace.html">this page</a> says that we can "probably" distinguish 85 shades of grey, while <a href="http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~rockmore/m5s01/MATH5pk/index.html">this page</a> has an example of 256 shades of grey. It seems the border between shades is still detectable, even if they look the same when apart.
Also, as <a href="http://www.techmind.org/colour/">this page</a> says, the number of distinguishable colors in a given part of the chromaticity diagram is not constant. This means some discretisations will be better than others. The large part outside the triangle in the chromaticity diagram is such an area of low resolution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.241.252.14 (talk • contribs) .
(Just FYI) "RGB", per se, does not imply 8 bit quantization so only 16777216 discrete colors. That's just one common implementation of RGB encoding. For example, analog RGB obviously is only limited by the signal-to-noise ratio.
This is why the wrongly called RGB values are actually R'G'B' values, meaning they are gamma corrected to mimic the eyes' nonlinear response to brightness. The eye can't distinguish between light greys as well as between dark shades of grey. The gamma exponent simply compresses the lightness scale and uses less levels in the bright region but more levels in the dark region to compensate this fact. The detection threshold for lightness differences is about 1% between two lightness levels. An RGB value of R'G'B' 255 in a program like Photoshop means RGB 255 in the linear-light domain (used in colorimetric calculations). R'G'B' 192 means RGB 224 in linear light, 128 means 186, 32 means 100 and so forth. To safely stay under the detection threshold you need about 10 bits (or more) resolution per channel. 10 bits is also the resolution range for look-up tables used in better monitors for internal color calculations (like color calibration). Thus the use of 16 bit images in Photoshop makes sense, especially when using a wide gamut as working space. I this case a high color resolution is important to avoid quantization errors because at lower bit resolution the differences between each color coordinate can get big enough to be visible as banding and other artifacts.
The corners of the triangle in the chromaticity diagram are the primary colors used in the RGB display. Because of the shape of the diagram, to be able to represent all visible colours, one would need one or two primaries that were outside the visual range. Paradoxial, wrong logic or a trivial limitation of the RGB approach? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.241.252.14 (talk • contribs) .
That is correct; it's a well known property of RGB colorspaces that they can't represent all colors using real primaries (real primaries are primaries that correspond to non-negative spectra; the primaries you'd need to hold all colors are not "outside the visible range", they just are not real, so the question of visibility is non-applicable). I think it was Maxwell who first clarified that, but I could be wrong. Dicklyon03:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, the appropriate move when there are other meanings of a term is to say what this article is about and refer the reader to the disambiguation page. That's what the "this" template is designed to do. If there's a MoS guideline for also expressing an opinion about which of the other uses is more important, or historically earlier, I'm not aware of it, but I'm willing to listen. In the mean time, I'll resist calling special attention to the musical gamut in the dab link. Dicklyon03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dicklyon, are you willing to listen? OK. The simple fact of the matter is that the musical sense is primary: historically, etymologically, and semantically. There are many derived senses for the word gamut, and the one that this article deals with is just one of those. OED's first two meanings, which are musical, are given as "Obs. exc. Hist." (obsolete except historical); in fact, though, Wikipedia and many other encyclopedias do deal with the relevant history, so these meanings are not in these contexts obsolete. But then OED's third meaning is clearly current, and is this:
3. Hence in later use: The whole series of notes that are recognized by musicians. Sometimes also used for: The major diatonic scale, or the ‘scale’ recognized by any particular people, or at any period.
And as a subsidiary to that:
b. The compass or full range of notes which a voice or instrument is capable of producing.
OED then records that the term is used in a transferred and figurative sense (and I reproduce its examples also, in this case):
4. transf. and fig. The whole scale, range, or compass of a thing.
1626 T. H. Caussin's Holy Crt. 14 Chaunge the Gamuth, and say, He is noble, he hath therfore the more obligation to be perfect. 1753 Hogarth Anal. Beauty xii. 97 The painter's gamut. 1824 F. Jeffrey Ess. Beauty, Encycl. Brit. Suppl. II. 193/1 Various learned treatises upon the natural gamut of colours. 1859 Dickens T. Two Cities ii. i, The sounders of three-fourths of the notes in the whole gamut of Crime. 1864 Burton Scot Abr. III. i. 122 He ran over the gamut of Latin metre. 1883 Harper's Mag. 822/2 The stocks were running up and down the gamut from $1 to $700 a share.
Add to this evidence of the current OED the evidence from the current Britannica, which begins this way:
gamut [I]n music, the full range of pitches in a musical system; also, the compass of a particular instrument or voice. The word originated with the medieval monk Guido of Arezzo (d. 1050) to identify his system of solmization, i.e., of using syllables to denote musical tones in a scale. [...]
And at the end of the article, Britannica allows that the word may have figurative senses as well.
Now, given all this, I am ready to make a concession. In fact I have already done so. I could quite reasonably push hard for the term gamut to redirect to Gamut (music) (which I admit needs development, and is presently itself just a redirect to Diatonic and chromatic). But I do not do that; nor do I insist on the term ending at a disambiguation page. Rather, I acquiesce (for now, and provisionally) in the use of the term to label the present article. But a reasonable concession would be to help the reader who is searching for the term in its original and primary use with an annotation such as I have added, and you have deleted. We are here to meet the needs of readers, aren't we?
For now, I'll leave it to you to consider what I say here, dispassionately, and perhaps to reverse your decision about my edit (which is, by the way, by no means an edit lacking precedent). But I reserve my options, as I'm sure other editors will. Whether or not there is a Wikipedia guideline to invoke, or the absence of one (which absence we might invoke), is not of primary importance here. Helping our readers is of primary importance, and a simple examination of the facts, combined with goodwill, often points the way to how we might best achieve that.
What I was seeking was some relevant policy about such things. I have no argument with your wanting the musical meaning to be "primary" in the sense you describe. Are there some relevant guidelines about dab links? It seems like you're just making up an unnecessary extra bit of noise for this article, which, historically in wikipedia, seems to have got the title first. Isn't the policy to leave it that way and disambiguate? If not, point me at the relevant policy. Dicklyon06:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, Dicklyon, let me just check how this works for you. Your being "willing to listen" amounts to this:
The makers of this article got there first with the title "Gamut".
There's no Wikipedia policy that says things must be otherwise than how those editors have set things up, therefore nothing needs to be done.
The dominant meanings of words as used in current English, as given in the current OED and Encyclopedia Britannica, count for nothing.
The reasonable expectations and likely needs of readers are not a relevant consideration.
OK. Fine for now! I'm just sorry I wasted my time in an attempt at reasoned and dispassionate discussion, and at presenting solid evidence and argument, and at making concessions towards a consensual compromise. That's all.
I'll listen generally, but what I said about this issue was "If there's a MoS guideline for also expressing an opinion about which of the other uses is more important, or historically earlier, I'm not aware of it, but I'm willing to listen." As far as I can tell from your responses, there is no such MoS guideline, and therefore no good reason for a guy who is into music to impose his opinion about the important of a particular other use on this page about color. I think I'm also being reasoned and dispassionate, but trying to follow wikipedia policy. Now if you want to discuss "dominant meaning", we can do that, but I don't see that it has a lot of bearing on how this page should look. In my opinion, the dominant meaning of this word has shifted in the last 15 years or so. It's a word that I never heard in decades of hanging out with musically literate people, but which I hear all the time in talking with people who are into photography and visual arts in the computer age. I have no argument with the OED, but I think this shift in usage is real, and large, and somewhat dilutes your points that don't seem to have much place in the decision of how to disambiguate anyway. It feels like you are trying to hijack a wiki page in support of a campaign to prop of the fading importance of the previously dominant meaning a word that you care about; that is, it feels like you're on a soapbox, pushing an opinion or POV; that's not what wp policies encourage, as you know. Better to be even-handed, and disambiguate in the standard way.Dicklyon16:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're overreacting, Noetica. Perhaps "Gamut" should be a disambiguation page (that's open for discussion), but either way, this article doesn't need to specifically list musical gamut at the top, per wikipedia policy on disambiguations. In other words, you're debating against wikipedia policy, and not for the change you *actually* want to see, and so there is understandable resistance. No need to get upset though. --jacobolus(t)07:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear and accurate about this, jacobolus. I have worked hard for a consensus on a small point that would nevertheless help our readers. I have made concessions where I could easily not have made concessions. I have worked to show evidence against the practice of editors at this page, who have come back with zero evidence for their case – only obstructive and dubious legalisms. I am not "upset": I simply find it regrettable that argument and solid evidence, and a readiness to compromise, carry no weight here. That's not my problem, is it? I've done what I can, and I now back off – an appropriate response where reasonable argument, evidence, and goodwill do not prevail.
Yes, but you are mis-directing your energy. It would make sense to include some of this information about etymology of the word, and the relation between various meanings on the disambiguation page, and it might even make sense (it is certainly something which could be discussed) to make "Gamut" link to the disambiguation page, or to even (though I would strongly disagree) make "Gamut" point at the musical definition. But in any case, that information does not belong at the top of this article about the usage w.r.t. colors (and such additions go against reasonably clear wikipedia policy). Again, assume good faith on Dicklyon's part. He seems like a generally pretty nice guy, and he's not just disagreeing with you for the sake of it. :)
In other words, to be completely clear, no one here disagrees with you that this information is useful or important; just that it doesn't belong on the article about colors. And moving this page to "Gamut (colors)" or similar and then making "Gamut" be a disambig page, is a separate issue to discuss, unrelated to the question of what goes at the top of this article. So if you want to have that discussion, let's have it. I could be convinced either way. :) --jacobolus(t)08:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a certain measure of energy to this task, and I have now backed away. It is clear to me that people have a proprietary sense about this page, and that this clouds their judgement. This is quite common at Wikipedia, and it is hard to fight against. It is also quite difficult to detect and rectify in oneself. I don't say that anyone is not a "nice guy", just that the situation with articles concerning various senses of the word gamut is irrational and unhelpful to users. If editors here can't see that, given the evidence I have adduced, there is nothing more for me to do. As I say, it isn't my problem; and I have already done everything I reasonably can towards a better and less biased arrangement of titles and links between articles. It is always possible to be disruptive and obstinate, aided by legalistic appeals of one sort or another. But in this case at least, count me out. Others can be obstinate, legalistic, and proprietorial – without me either helping or hindering them.
Oy ve! You're completely missing the point (and putting words in others’ mouths). No one has disagreed with you about the "bias" or lack thereof. There has been no attempt to silence you, or anything of that nature. No one is being "irrational", "obstinate" or "legalistic and proprietorial (sic)" (did you mean territorial or proprietary perhaps?), and for you to assume bad faith, or make sarcastic comments about what is "common at Wikipedia" accomplishes nothing. There is no attempt to get you to "back away" from making arguments for a different arrangement. The only concern is that this information does not belong at the top of an article about colors, but instead belongs on the disambiguation page. You have not done everything you can towards a better and less biased arrangement of titles; indeed, you have not even suggested (as far as I can see) rearranging the titles, or what your preferred rearrangement would be. Instead, you added the same link to the top of a page about colors, where it certainly does not belong, multiple times. If you want to move pages around, to better titles, please make that suggestion. I think I speak for Dicklyon as well in saying we are open to the discussion. --jacobolus(t)09:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobolus, you are wasting time, and I don't want to be drawn into wasting more time than I have. I will answer everything you say here, and then I must stop, OK? Your remarks in italics, followed by my points:
You're completely missing the point (and putting words in others’ mouths).
Missing whose point? I understand what you have said, and what Dicklyon has said. I don't see why you think I have not.
No one has disagreed with you about the "bias" or lack thereof.
Have you understood, though? There is bias in the status quo, because as I have cogently argued, with impeccable evidence, the article that naturally calls for the title Gamut is not the one whose topic is merely one of the many derived and figurative senses, in a specialised field. If you do not disagree with me about that, why not actively see to it that a disambiguation page bears that title, instead? That would be far more useful to most readers.
There has been no attempt to silence you, or anything of that nature.
Nor did I claim that there was any attempt to silence me. But there was an unreadiness to listen to reasoned argument, in the interests of readers.
No one is being "irrational", "obstinate" or "legalistic and proprietorial (sic)" (did you mean territorial or proprietary perhaps?),...
You could at least have checked a dictionary before accusing me of using a word incorrectly, jacobolus. SOED has this for proprietorial:
proprietorial /[...]/ a.M19. [f. prec. + -AL1.] 1 Of or pertaining to a proprietor; characteristic of or resembling a proprietor or owner, possessive. M19. 2 = PROPRIETARY a. 1. M19. [...]
... and for you to assume bad faith, ...
I did not do that. I encountered bad faith, when I presented evidence and argument cogently and at length, and found it ignored. And when I proposed a simple compromise, and had it rejected.
... or make sarcastic comments about what is "common at Wikipedia" accomplishes nothing.
That is not sarcasm. It is an observation drawn from extensive and reflective involvement at Wikipedia. If it accomplishes nothing to share that with you, so much the worse for your capacity to learn. There is nothing I can do about that. For reasons of exactly that sort I do not want to engage further here. I am, as I have said, backing off.
There is no attempt to get you to "back away" from making arguments for a different arrangement.
I do not claim that there is such an attempt. I simply choose to withdraw.
The only concern is that this information does not belong at the top of an article about colors, but instead belongs on the disambiguation page. You have not done everything you can towards a better and less biased arrangement of titles; indeed, you have not even suggested (as far as I can see) rearranging the titles, or what your preferred rearrangement would be.
The point is that this article does not merit the single-word title Gamut. As I have argued, it deals with just one limited and derived sense of the word. It would be far better if the reader found a disambiguation page, as you seem ready to accept. (If one more specific page had to be selected for Gamut to redirect to, it should surely be a dominant sense, from which others spring: and that is a musical sense. But in the interest of compromise, I have not suggested that.) I have sought minimal disruption, and have therefore made the modest suggestion that the dominant meaning be given a mention at the head of this article, suppressing my own strong feeling that more could and should be altered.
Instead, you added the same link to the top of a page about colors, where it certainly does not belong, multiple times.
Multiple times? One initial minimally disruptive intervention last month; two similar follow-up interventions just recently, followed by a long and careful discussion (in which I've brought far more material to the table than any other participant), followed by an explicit withdrawal from any sort of edit war. A page about colors? Yes! A page about colors with a misleading title, that clearly belongs more properly as the title of a disambiguation page, as I have cogently argued, with evidence from eminent authorities.
If you want to move pages around, to better titles, please make that suggestion. I think I speak for Dicklyon as well in saying we are open to the discussion.
The evidence so far is that you are not. I put a strong case, with argument and evidence, for a modest compromise. This was met with a legalistic appeal to the supposed fact that Wikipedia has no formal principle compellng any change. I think you and Dicklyon miss the point.
But enough! I have no more to say on the matter. If you want "rights" to a title that belongs more properly elsewhere (a disambiguation page), in the interests of readers and the rational organisation of Wikipedia, and if you will not accept a modest compromise that I have offered, such as we see at some other pages, so be it. I'll leave it in your hands. No more, thank you.
There is bias in the status quo, because as I have cogently argued, with impeccable evidence, the article that naturally calls for the title Gamut is not the one whose topic is merely one of the many derived and figurative senses, in a specialised field. If you do not disagree with me about that, why not actively see to it that a disambiguation page bears that title, instead? That would be far more useful to most readers.
Suggest this as a proposal, then. To put the disambiguation page at "gamut". In fact, I will suggest it, in a new section below. :)
You could at least have checked a dictionary
Heh. I look pretty stupid don't I?! I apologize! :)
A page about colors with a misleading title, that clearly belongs more properly as the title of a disambiguation page, as I have cogently argued, with evidence from eminent authorities.
But that's not the change that you made! Instead you added a link about sounds to the top of a page about colors, when there are multiple uses of the word "gamut", and no compelling reason to include information about a particular one of them on the top of the page about a particular other.
The evidence so far is that you are not. I put a strong case, with argument and evidence, for a modest compromise.
Yes, and in my view the compromise is no compromise at all, is worse than the "radical" solution, and is against wikipedia convention/policy. So that I don't like your "compromise" suggests absolutely nothing about my general feelings about making "gamut" a disambiguation page. To make that decision, it would be useful to figure out the usage statistics for the two senses, which one is mostly likely the intent of a link to gamut from somewhere else on wikipedia, which one is most likely intended by users navigating to gamut, etc. If the musical sense is still in very common usage, I would have no problem with making the page gamut be a disambig page. But in no case would I agree with cluttering up the very top of the page about colors with arbitrary facts about sounds. It just doesn't belong. I think you sell yourself, the rest of us, and the project short when you assume bad faith.
such as we see at some other pages
Do you have some examples? Which pages do this, and why are they similar to this case? The only one I can find is "Java", which says:
This article is about the island Java. For the programming language, see Java (programming language), for other uses, see Java (disambiguation).
It seems that Noetica would like to move this page to gamut (color) or some such title, so that gamut (disambiguation) can be moved to gamut. His evidence suggests that multiple senses of the word gamut are significant enough in common usage that the disruption for wiki users seeking the musical sense of the term, needing to follow two links, is more significant than the disruption which would be caused by making all searchers for gamut follow one redirect. I would like to see some discussion about the number of wikipedia articles linking to gamut which in fact intended the musical sense of the term, and I would also like to see some indication of general relative usage, as provided by number of google results, or similar, before such a change is made. But I would certainly consider supporting such a proposal.
Also, it might actually be nice to see a page called gamut (music) or similar, if this is such a significant musical term (instead of one minor section on another article, which additionally gives the impression that the musical use is archaic).
Deciding to disambiguate: Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate or add a link to a disambiguation page.
and later:
Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. In many cases, the template {{Otheruses}} is appropriate to link to that page.
Yes, from looking around on Google, the only uses of "gamut" in the musical sense are referring to Medieval music. Indeed, there seem to be more results discussing artists whose music "runs the gamut" of musical genres, than actually using the term in its musical sense. There are some references to Gamut Magazine, and similar proper names. This is in contrast to searching for gamut w.r.t. colors, which turns up at least several pages of relevant results (the term "color gamut" has nearly 500,000 Google results). So I think I agree with Dicklyon that the definition in terms of colors can go under the title "gamut", with other uses relegated to the disambiguation page. I've modified the disambig page a bit to reflect the etymology that Noetica pointed out. --jacobolus(t)21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, jacobolus. Thanks for making those small changes elsewhere, which look fine. I think the move you have proposed here is a correct one. But myself, I would still be content with the compromise I suggested at first. You found a precedent at Java. I would defend that one as a good compromise also. These things are not readily tracked down when you want them, but I also found these without really trying: China, The Doors, Time, Space, Sex, and Fire drill. The mention of a salient alternative use doesn't clutter a page much, let's face it. It may be felt as interference with "territorial rights" – a feeling we all suffer from, from time to time, and one that is well worth overcoming.
I've spent more time on this than I can justify. As I have said, I don't want to do any more here, thank you, though I am interested in the content. (I have been a substantial contributor to Color in the past, and I do go back there to preserve it from vandalism.) Now I'm concentrating on Wikipedia's many music articles, in which there is a huge amount to do. I intend to start a proper article for the musical gamut, in due course, and that's why I wanted things sorted out with links and such.
I'll now leave any changes with "gamut" to be managed according to the goodwill of editors here, having laid out the case for such changes.
Why do we need two images of the CIE chromaticity diagram, one showing (some particular) monitor's gamut, and the other showing fake colors for the whole chart? As far as I can tell, there is no particular use in having the second image at all. And indeed, a little bit up on this talk page is an even better-looking image, which has some of the specification of sRGB shown on the image itself. --jacobolus(t)06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Dicklyon (and others?): I changed the wording because there is no indication on the image of how a conversion was made from xyY to RGB for the second image (what rendering intent, etc.). So the statement that there is a faint triangle which is accurate is given no particular justification. And with no contradictory information, I would assume the chart is inaccurate (most of it certainly is inaccurate, and there's no reason to trust the "faint triangle"). --jacobolus(t)06:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The colors for this diagram were generated using the RGB color space in Adobe photoshop. The transformation from xy chromaticity coordinates was done using the sRGB color space specification on the [X,Y,Z]=[x,y,1-x-y] tristimulus values, then multiplying by a constant so that one of the R, G, or B values was maximized. Assuming that one's monitor converts Adobe photoshop RGB according to the sRGB color space (probably a good assumption) then, within the sRGB gamut, the chromaticities are correct, but are incorrect outside the gamut.
This still doesn't answer how the particular values were arrived at; What is meant here by "RGB color space" and "Adobe photoshop RGB", and how exactly were each point's RGB values determined? But in any case, given that the area outside the gamut is by necessity completely wrong (i.e. misleading), I think only displaying colors inside the sRGB gamut makes most sense. Also worth noting: if this image was created as I would guess it was created, then there should be no "faint triangle" boundary on an sRGB display; it should just blend together smoothly. On a non-perfectly-calibrated-to-sRGB display, such a triangle would appear. --jacobolus(t)08:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the change Dicklyon made w.r.t. chromaticity diagrams is a reasonable one. I still think I prefer the image earlier on this page, which does not have the "Y" artifact from (sort of) looking down at the outside edge of the gamut, instead essentially taking a planar slice through xyY space, and thereby getting a smooth gradient between the three corners. But choosing to show "white" on the chart can be at least be defended.
I would also still like to see an image of the sRGB gamut in CIE L*u*v* space, which is based on u' and v' which are a projective transformation of XYZ, so that interpolation between colored lights still follows straight lines, but which at least attempts to approximate perceptual uniformity. Maybe I can figure out how to make such a picture sometime, if none exists or can be made easily by someone else. --jacobolus(t)18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Gamut" is just a word. "Color gamut" is an encyclopedic topic, which the article covers. Has anyone else suggested changing the title? Thoughts (I mean after the long discussion above -- has the idea been dropped)? -- DavidH (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, it what sense exactly does the title "work"? Exactly how does the evidence that one allegedly finds with your Google query support your claim that it "works"? As before, you are very quick to dismiss this sort of question. Why?
DavidH, as far as I'm concerned the long conversation you mention is in hiatus. It is not over. I wrote this earlier:
Rather, I acquiesce (for now, and provisionally) in the use of the term to label the present article. But a reasonable concession would be to help the reader who is searching for the term in its original and primary use with an annotation such as I have added [giving Gamut (music) as a specific alternative locus], and you have deleted.
I am not happy with this apparently uncompromising territoriality. The matter is not closed.
It remains unclear to me why you are not happy. When I removed your custom note at the top I said in my summary I gave no opinion about what's primary, but the convention is to link to a disambig page this way, not to talk about one selected other meaning. Are you unhappy with this convention? Is there an alternative convention you can point us at?
Haven't I made it abundantly clear, earlier? Read again. I am not happy with this article appropriating the word gamut as its unqualified title. All major dictionaries give the musical meanings as primary (especially one current meaning), and then list various various secondary and metaphorical meanings. Most barely mention color; some not at all. The meaning color gamut is recent and important, but not sufficiently for this article to use gamut as if the notion begins and ends in modern talk about color, with only a justifying "prehistory" account of the musical senses of the term. As you know, I edit at the article Color myself, and I know this terrain from more than one angle.
You speak of "convention" speciously. The relevant over-riding convention at Wikipedia is to adapt to moderate and reasoned requests from other editors, in meeting the needs of readers. You have not budged an inch to do that, but have given short and dismissive shrift to a closely argued appeal for cooperation.
Furthermore, please stick to the topic and answer the obvious questions prompted by what you write above. Once more: Exactly how does the evidence that one allegedly finds with your Google query support your claim that it "works"? As before, you are very quick to dismiss this sort of question. Why?
I wouldn't mind if this article were retitled "color gamut", but in that case, "gamut" should redirect to "color gamut", with a similar disambig notice at the top to the one there now. Not sure the change would make much practical difference. --jacobolus(t)20:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to make my answers longer and more complete. The Google Book Search on gamut was just to illustrate that in most modern books, the word gamut is used, without the elaboration as color gamut, to refer to what we are talking about in this article. The title Gamut therefore "works" for this article in that it is a conventional name for the topic being discussed; that's all I meant, and illustrated with some quick evidence. I chose to use Google Book Search rather than web search, because it draws on a base of mostly reliable sources, rather than a lot of junk.
You say this article has "appropriated" the word gamut as its title; true, but is there some reason that is not appropriate? Isn't the convention to title each article by the simplest term by which the topic is generally known, and to provide a disambig link if there are other uses of that term?
As to dictionaries, here are some online definitions, most of which are about the color definition; it is interesting that most actual dictionaries do use the music definition instead; I wonder why they are so far behind the usage. But even though that's what dictionaries say, is there some convention that says this article shouldn't use the word as its title?
I think we should focus on wikipedia conventions, not on your "happiness". I'm not sure what you mean by me speaking "speciously", but since that's not on topic, but about me, let's just ignore that, and talk about the topic and wikipedia, not about you and me please. If there are other relevant conventions, please point us at them; or if you don't know about the conventions I mentioned, let me know and I'll look them up. Dicklyon (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First concerning happiness, Dicklyon. You chose to personalise this issue: "It remains unclear to me why you are not happy." But my focus is not on my happiness or any other editor's. It is on collaboration to help the readers, as I have said. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear to me that you are territorial about this article. Be proud of your major role in its development, by all means. But if your connexion to it risks interfering with dispassionate evaluation of issues, that is a legitimate concern for anyone to raise.
It easy to select web searches to support one thing or another. A bit like statistics! Dicklyon, you write: "it is interesting that most actual dictionaries do use the music definition instead; I wonder why they are so far behind the usage." But it is not a question of "the" usage. Respected major dictionaries (assiduous and dispassionate in their research), and various Google searches, show that metaphorical applications like the gamut of emotions predominate: over both color applications and music applications. Neither music nor color science owns the word gamut. So what if current books and current web content have a lot about the color gamut? That simply reflects the technical orientation of a great number of people who produce things on the web. No surprise that they should influence web usage! But their concerns are not good evidence concerning the needs of web users, including those who consult Wikipedia.
Viewed dispassionately, the suggestion from jacobolus has merit. This article should be called Color gamut (already a redirect), since that concisely and immediately shows everyone what it is about. What could be wrong with that?
It is a further question whether the disambiguation page should redirect here. As the Wikipedia offerings now stand, perhaps it should: the usual automatic annotation at the top of this page would then show the reader what has happened, and give an opportunity to re-trace if something else was sought instead. The crucial difference would be this: the title seen after the redirect would show exactly where they have got to, rather than inveigling them into reading something that may be irrelevant to their search.
One struggles to see why anyone would resist this amendment. I am not, for the moment, concerned to get legalistic or adversarial about any of this, and do not want to go looking for official rulings and policies. The case does not call for that: it calls for common sense and goodwill. The change has been argued for cogently and at length, above. You now have further argument before you. Yet again, I appeal to you to accept a sound amendment, in the interests of our users, and against the legitimate interests of no one.
Well, to begin with, there's no article about the musical term, and all of the links pointed at "gamut" are from articles referring to the usage w.r.t. color, with a fraction of those pointed instead at "color gamut". So the status quo is certainly the best option for getting users quickly to what they're looking for when they search for "gamut" or click on a link. As for dictionaries, they always decades if not centuries behind current usage, and the term color gamut has substantially grown in importance and usage since the adoption of RGB displays, color management, digital imaging, etc. About the musical term, and other uses (odors?), there is much less to say, for an encyclopedia. --jacobolus(t)21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point, too: the status quo works just fine. And Noetica is trying to paint me as personalizing the issue or being territorial, having started out today with a statement about his feelings and an accusation of me when he said "I am not happy with this apparently uncompromising territoriality."
What I don't want to see if for "gamut" to become a disambig page; that's an easy next step after it has been taken away as the title of this article and made a redirect. I'd rather just leave it, and haven't heard any compelling reason to think that anything needs to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobolus:
You write this:
I wouldn't mind if this article were retitled "color gamut", but in that case, "gamut" should redirect to "color gamut", with a similar disambig notice at the top to the one there now. Not sure the change would make much practical difference.
But then you write this:
So the status quo is certainly the best option for getting users quickly to what they're looking for when they search for "gamut" or click on a link.
Why the shift? I think you were closer to the truth the first time: "Not sure the change would make much practical difference." Let's analyse this specific question, coolly and steadily.
First, it is hard to think what harm there could be in making the change you mention. This article gets a focused, accurate, informative title. That's no harm! Second, the readers who search on the term gamut but are after some musical meaning (the number of whom is disputed but irrelevant), while they still end up in the wrong place, are at least immediately informed of this by the title Color gamut. That's no harm! In fact, both of these are improvements, aren't they? You and I may disagree about how much of an improvement, but we can surely agree that there is no likelihood of any harm, and some likelihood that things will work better. Your answer to this, please?
As for your remarks on the relative coverage of the musical sense of gamut versus the color sense, you are quite right. But I have three things to say about that:
The disparity has zero relevance to the argument I have just presented.
I agree that there is no stand-alone article on the musical gamut. There should be. Being a musician and a music theorist (as well as a serious contributor to Color), I know this all too well.
As one who writes and contributes to music articles, I know how difficult this sort of wrangling can become; and I know how off-putting the prospect of writing a proper stand-alone article would be if in all likelihood there would be disputes with other parties who have appropriated the title Gamut – for an article concerned with just one sense of the term. An uncooperative attitude inhibits Wikipedia development by inhibiting Wikipedia editors. I myself would like to work on an article devoted to the gamut in music, but am reluctant to do that while this present problem stands in the way.
I would appreciate your focused response to these three points also, please.
Dicklyon:
You write, yet again, "the status quo works just fine." I disagree. All you can show is that the status quo works well in taking everyone who searches on gamut to this article. But in any case, how would the change mooted above also not work "just fine"? You give no case against it; and I give a case for it. If the two competing arrangements work equally well for those seeking the present article, exactly what is your objection?
I ignore your latest personal remarks (and your analysis of those, which I could dispute but will not). I agree that such a line of discussion is not helpful. You write:
What I don't want to see if for "gamut" to become a disambig page; that's an easy next step after it has been taken away as the title of this article and made a redirect. I'd rather just leave it, and haven't heard any compelling reason to think that anything needs to be fixed.
The proposal is that Gamut be a disambiguation page with an automatic redirect to an article called Color gamut.
The proposal was this: that the current article should be moved to Color gamut; that Gamut should simply redirect to Color gamut; and that there be a disambiguation page Gamut (disambiguation), as there currently is.
How is this unreasonable? It is a compromise, and really quite a concession! The term is ambiguous, and has at least two senses that readers might be trying to track down. So what do we do? We disambiguate; and rather than merely sending everyone to an article with an inaccurate and misleading title, we send them to a best-guess destination with an informative title. But of course you'd rather just leave it! This, despite the fact that you have heard detailed and clearly articulated reasons that would compel change, in anyone not attached to this article, or anyone ready to listen to unbiased discussion about how to improve the whole of Wikipedia as opposed to just those articles concerned with color. The slippery slope argument that you offer unfairly and unreasonably shores up an uncompromising status quo that is not in the interests of Wikipedia. If you were confident that the color sense of gamut is the "natural" sense, you would not need to offer such a politically driven reason for rejecting a fair compromise solution.
If we can't resolve this by consensus and compromises (two of which I have so far offered, to no avail), then the matter will have to addressed in other ways. Unfortunately that could well turn out to be protracted and time-consuming. Please reconsider, and do please address the specific points that I make, rather than dismissing them with one-liners or refusals to see the valid concerns that are being exposed, and the easy, flexible solutions that we have available.
I can't picture what you mean by a "disambiguation page with an automatic redirect"; it can be one or the other, not both; and I oppose it either way. I'm not saying it's unreasonable, just that there's no compelling reason for the present article to relinquish its use of the title. There's already an effective disambig, and a link to it, and there's no other article on gamut anyway. So I have a hard time understanding why you want to change it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, I apologise. I was writing so much that I got mixed up. See my correction above. I think I was thrown by your own wording, above: "What I don't want to see if [sic] for 'gamut' to become a disambig page" (which, very strictly, it could not become, under that exact name). I reproduce the proposal here:
The proposal was this: that the current article should be moved to Color gamut; that Gamut should simply redirect to Color gamut; and that there be a disambiguation page Gamut (disambiguation), as there currently is.
I am at a loss to see why you claim not to understand the reasons for this proposal, which are outlined in painstaking detail, above (for the most part without slips!).
I have no alternative, therefore, to doing this by official means. I withdraw offers to compromise, and will propose something less compromising but nonetheless reasonable. I do hope we can proceed without too many words, and without acrimony, disingenuous refusals to understand clearly articulated points, or refusal to address what others say.
I'll wait to see if jacobolus will reply to the points I ask him to respond to, and if things cannot move forward from that, I will go ahead and make my less concessive proposal without further delay.
I really don't think such a change makes any practical difference (readers are going to figure out pretty fast that this article is about "color gamut"; it says so clearly in the first sentence), but I don't care strongly either way; it seems like a non-issue to me. I frankly don't see why you (Noetica) want it titled "color gamut", or why Dicklyon doesn't. Anyway, I'll let you two work it out :). --jacobolus(t)08:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You surprise me, jacobolus. I had asked you to respond to particular points. If you had turned your mind to those points as requested, you could not have remained in doubt about the reasons I have for proposing this modest change. Anyway, thanks for your answer. I'll now proceed with a less accommodating proposal, since my conciliatory attitude has obviously been met with solid and implacable resistance.
I took out the "mention" of input device gamut, as it didn't make a lot of sense, and didn't make it clear that the cited source was just a proposal for how one might define an input gamut. In general, input devices do not have gamuts, or are not described in terms of gamuts, since they are able to take ALL colors as input. If they produce the same output for two different input colors, that's called observer metamerism, not a gamut limit. How cameras map spectra to colors is complicated, and does not admit description in term of the gamut concept. Now and then you see people mention camera gamuts, but they never define it. They may be thinking of the gamut of the color space that the camera is rendering to, but that's usually selectable, and does not provide any limit to the range of colors representable in camera raw data. Since this concepts is never applied to cameras in scientific papers or books, let's not do it here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the only problem was that I didn't mention it was a proposal, one could simply change a word or two. The gamut of input devices should be addressed though, since it is a reasonable question to ask. I already gave one reference, here is another, with a definition it seems: DOI:10.1002/col.20317. (I can't access this one.) --Adoniscik(t, c)05:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article seems to basically be about other authors using the term “camera color gamut” without a clear conception of its meaning, and how that lack of precision leads to misunderstandings. It says:
“[…] However, the term color gamut is more problematic when applied to a scanner or digital camera (sans film), where I have seen it used in various venues, including referred articles1 and conferences.2 In such discussions, the definition is always assumed and never stated. […]
“[…] I have found it hard to grasp what could be a camera color gamut, because any light (visible or not) maps to some point in the camera color space […]
“[…] One could define […] Alternatively […] difficulties […]
“Already from this first attempt we see that the term ‘‘camera color gamut’’ is a misnomer […] Jack Holm2 has coined the term ‘‘camera color analysis gamut’’ to apply to what others simply call a camera color gamut. […]
“Given the earlier discussion, here is my suggested definition: Camera color analysis gamut: Attribute of a set of spectral power distributions (SPDs) (A), a camera (B), and an algorithm (C) that maps camera values to CIE XYZ triplets, that attribute being the set of CIE XYZ triplets for each of which there is an SPD in (A) that, when acquired by camera (B), produces camera values that, when processed by algorithm (C), produces that XYZ triplet. The gamut can be represented in a color space derived from XYZ triplets (such as CIELAB), or in a reduced space such as chromaticity (x,y). (The alternative term camera color gamut is also used).”
But isn't there some analog to gamut for input devices? There are certainly colors whose intensity cannot be discerned by camera sensors, as limited by their dynamic range, etc. Is there some way that this can be described so as to inform readers, without being misleading or oversimplified? It seems like such a discussion would be reasonably appropriate here, to help them understand the whole pipeline between real-world scene and final printed/projected image. --jacobolus(t)06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction is a saying: "somewhat of a holy grail", but what this means? Please state plainly for people in non-christian community. In fact, Japanese version has been made upon this English version, and the direct translation of "holy grail" in Japanese embarasses readers. -Sibazyun (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, the Japanese edition has been changed, and now states the affair in straight saying. In the Japanese wikipedia is also a page for 'seihai' i.e. holy grail, and it states the legend in detail, but I, a simple reader, could not imagine the hidden meaning. --Sibazyun (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article would be improved by adding gamut comparison pictures to the section "Comparison of various systems". That would make the difference between the systems clearer. One could also add sample gamuts of inkjet printers, printing presses and so on. Or maybe this could be put on a page of its own. 83.145.207.155 (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really possible that paint has a lower gamut than some screens, like that article says? Deeper saturation is obviously possible than with additive color mixing. And if you mix in fluorescent substances u can create neon colors too.
"Wide color gamut" redirects here but there is no discussion of this term. Yet it shows up frequently in tech articles on HDTVs and other discussions of computer graphics. Can a WP editor familiar with the topic please add a section?
Ross Fraser (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to a discussion on the Talk:Primary_color page, I don't understand the use of "complete" in the lede. Why is a gamut not merely a "set of colors"? Doesn't that cover all possible uses of gamut and is consistent?
"Systems that use additive color processes usually have a color gamut which is roughly a convex polygon in the hue-saturation plane. The vertices of the polygon are the most saturated colors the system can produce. In subtractive color systems, the color gamut is more often an irregular region", yet the CMYK (a subtractive system) hexagon in the picture below is a convex polygon.Maneesh (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..png){kind=small}
