Daniel writes ...
> Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you
> confusing color resolution with whatever
> "physical reality" is? If I grant that the
> phosphor response of monitors is flat between 0,0,240 and
> 0,0,255, how does this impinge on whether
> that color "real?" You are conflating two issues,
> so I can't follow what argument you are really trying to make.
I wasn't arguing anything ... merely stating a curiousity that is
also fact ... rather a "believe it, or not" type of curiosity, which I
thought, in the context of the original question was instructive.
When Bruce Fraser explained to me (during a conversation about L*a*b)
that many RGB "values" (e.g., 0-0-255) are manifestations of RGB which
have no real counterpart in nature, it triggered an "a-ha". It was
then when I realized what RGB pixel values are ... 16 million
possibilities, but only some of them actually are nature's real
colors. I dare say a big part (but not most) of RGB is out of
nature's gamut!!.
My own realization is that "RGB" is a human definition superimposed
on nature. It is much like the limitations of our own language, when
trying to make an abstract point (... is it true the French do it
better?? ...)
shAf :o)
>
>
>
> shAf writes ...
>
> > Frank writes:
> > And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color,
> > because I can SEE it.
> > ...
>
> How can you say you "see" 0,0,255 when 0,0,254 is the
> same color??
> ... I doubt you can start "seeing" any difference between
> these "pure"
> blues until 0,0,240 ... they are all the same ... especially in
> monitor space ... put up a gradient and prove it to yourself. Even
> without regard to monitor gamut, 0-0-255 falls outside the
> L*a*b gamut
> ... which is the only color definition defined to come even close to
> physical reality.
>
