Talk:Gamut

message: "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."
Can this be reworded to avoid using "addition" and "subtractive" in the same sentence?  I can't think of anything all that elegant.  69.16.168.94 21:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  -- Stebulus 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding unintentional puns. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Limitations of color representation 

message: 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. Dicklyon 03:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamut trivia? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for immediate editing in plain words. - Sibazyun (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome, only now I am very curious what the translation means, but I guess this is not the palace...--Thorseth (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  holy grail? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gamut comparison pictures 

message: 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.
After all, in theory you can turn any material into paint. So wouldn't the range of possible colors be almost unlimited?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.14.157 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Ideally these should be listed & comparable in a manipulable gamut diagram or set of diagrams or indices.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomTrottier (talk • contribs) 17:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the defined color gamuts - sRGB, AdobeRGB, ... ? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  No discussion of wide color gamut 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of "complete" and "convex" 

message: See Talk:Lab color space#Definitions: coordinate space, color space, gamut for a debate on alternative definitions of "gamut". I.e. can the range of visible colors also be called a "gamut"? SharkD  Talk  20:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative gamut definition