Talk:ScRGB

message: How can scrgb color space exceed 1931 color space ?
It doesn't make sense  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.210.167 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  color space diagram doesn't look right at all !! 

message: This entry mentions that ScRGB addresses "issues" of sRGB, but failed to menion what those issues are.  Could this be added to this entry?  Thank you! --24.249.108.133 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the sRGB issues? 

message: I attempted to decode the Microsoft document linked in the article into a conversion from the RGB primary levels into the code values. However for the non-linear version, they had a table of example results and it does not seem to match what the math functions describe in any way. The text I inserted is my interpretation of the mathematical description. It would probably be a good idea to figure out what, if either, is correct.Spitzak (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrgh, never mind, the table is correct. I had the sign of the 0.055 reversed for the negative case in my test code. Will try to fix the document.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitzak (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate Math for non-linear 

message: Is the phrase "the full range is -0.5 through just less than +7.5" correct? The graph shows at most +1.5, but as I'm afraid to introduce an error on an article I don't understand well and just passed by, I feel better asking here for someone to change it.
Joaopaulo1511 (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The poorly-labelled graph is presumably the classic constant-z slice through the CIE 1931 color space. So the axes are x and y. The article is talking about the red, green, and blue primaries. So you're talking about different quantities. --Imroy (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I made a new graph after extensive and somewhat painful work trying to figure out how to plot the corners of the cube. xyY space is more complex than you might think, since the coordinates are X/(X+Y+Z) and Y/(X+Y+Z) and are meaningless if X+Y+Z is less or equal to zero. Slices other than X+Y+Z==constant produced very skewed triangles, so I finally chose this one because it is the largest value where sRGB is also a triangle.Spitzak (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on the graph or on the text? 

message: What does scRGB stand for? 75.118.51.238 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronym 

message: The article makes the claim that "The 16 bit scRGB(16) encoding is the linear RGB channels converted by 8192 x + 4096. Compared to 8-bit sRGB this ranges from about 1/2 the color resolution near 0.0 to more than 10 times the color resolution near 1.0." which seems to imply that a conversion from 8-bit sRGB to 16-bit scRGB would be lossy. This makes no sense as only 12 bits are needed to represent sRGB in a linear 0.0-1.0 range without loss of information and the increased range of 16-bit scRGB only takes away 3 bits of resolution. This would suggest that scRGB would have more resolution at any place in the curve compared to sRGB. To verify this I wrote a program[1] that losslessly converts the entire sRGB range into scRGB and back. Am I simply misunderstanding what that quote is communicating?
[1] http://ideone.com/FhLkBS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Det (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the math got inverted. 8192/12.92/255 = 2.486 or more than twice the resolution. I suspect a math error inverted this and got 1/2. Fixing.Spitzak (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less color resolution than 8 bit sRGB near 0.0?