 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is it appropriate to use the word "gamut" to describe the visible
spectrum? Or should it be restricted to things like sRGB or CMYK?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.03.2017 um 17:16 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> Is it appropriate to use the word "gamut" to describe the visible
> spectrum? Or should it be restricted to things like sRGB or CMYK?
Typically the term "gamut" is used to denote the subset of colours that
can be reproduced by a given /device/ or /process/ (or, by extension, a
certain standard for such devices or processes).
You could argue that the shape you're currently trying to depict is the
gamut of all theoretically possible pigments or colour filters under a
given illuminant; I guess you might also call this the gamut of the
given illuminant itself.
As for whether the word "gamut" would be appropriate to describe "the
visible spectrum", I have a hunch that you may not actually mean "the
visible spectrum" but a related yet different concept.
"The visible spectrum" is not a set of colours, but rather a range of
wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
Even "a spectrum" (in the sense of power as a /function/ of wavelength)
is not a colour (in the sense used in conjunction with the term "gamut",
i.e. a particular visual stimulus), but rather /corresponds to/ a
colour, with multiple spectra corresponding to the same colour (metamerism).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2017 1:07 PM, clipka wrote:
> As for whether the word "gamut" would be appropriate to describe "the
> visible spectrum", I have a hunch that you may not actually mean "the
> visible spectrum" but a related yet different concept.
This makes sense, thanks.
>
> "The visible spectrum" is not a set of colours, but rather a range of
> wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> Even "a spectrum" (in the sense of power as a /function/ of wavelength)
> is not a colour (in the sense used in conjunction with the term "gamut",
> i.e. a particular visual stimulus), but rather /corresponds to/ a
> colour, with multiple spectra corresponding to the same colour (metamerism).
>
Good to know, thanks.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wikipedia I described one of my images like this: "Visible gamut
under D65 illumination plotted within the CIELUV color space. u and v
are the horizontal axes; L is the vertical axis."
Would it be better to say "projected" instead of "plotted"? Are there
any other issues with wording?
Thanks.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.03.2017 um 23:31 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On Wikipedia I described one of my images like this: "Visible gamut
> under D65 illumination plotted within the CIELUV color space. u and v
> are the horizontal axes; L is the vertical axis."
>
> Would it be better to say "projected" instead of "plotted"? Are there
> any other issues with wording?
Looks ok to me. "Plotted" should be clear enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
