On 03/08/2011 07:50 PM, Bogdan Szczurek wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Bogdan Szczurek<thebod...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I also have high hopes for GEGL, but I'd rather have it use some
>>> more abstract color model for that. I know it's not so simple—maybe
>>> even undoable–that way, but I do like the idea of color model that
>>> has complete coverage of visible spectrum.
>> Using a color model with full coverage of the visual spectrum would be
>> an extension along the lines of RGB and the responses of the human
>> visual system/physics, entirely additive.
> Not entirely along the lines I'm afraid. First of all it strongly
> depends which RGB we're talking about. Even if we take scRGB into
> account there's still some considerable parts of visible spectrum that
> can not be described by scRGB's triad. I know scRGB is tempting for
> it's quite broad and seems easy to implement in RGB dominated world,
> but I've got a premonition that using device agnostic color space would
> pay off more. But again–I don't know that :).

If all you want is a color space that can encode all visible colors, 
i.e. the entire CIEXYZ color space, RGB is fine. Transforming from 
CIEXYZ to RGB (and vice versa) is a simple matrix multiplication, where 
the matrix depends on the primaries and white point chosen. It's just 
that sometimes the RGB components will be negative and sometimes greater 
than 1.0, but each color that can be perceived by a human can be encoded 
in such a boundless RGB color space.

If you want a color model that doesn't lose the information about the 
spectral power distribution of the stimulus, then RGB won't do, but from 
your reply above it doesn't sound like that is what you meant.

  / Martin


My GIMP Blog:
"Why GIMP 2.8 is not released yet"
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to