|
|
|
|
|
by thequux
772 days ago
|
|
There is something blessed about red, green, and blue: they're close to an orthogonal basis for the L, M, and S receptors in our eyes. However, there's nothing particularly special about any particular set of R, G, and B primaries. In fact, there is no set of three primaries that are both physically realizable and completely cover the set of colors we can see. This is why different color spaces exist: for photos archiving and graphical work by professionals who understand color gamut limitations, ProPhoto gives you the ability to represent nearly any color you can perceive at the cost of being able to represent many colors that cannot exist. sRGB has primaries that are easy to make out of phosphor, so it was a good baseline that every monitor manufacturer could hit without needing fancy color correction hardware, but has a small gamut. Adobe RGB is designed to cover the CMYK gamut better than sRGB. And so on, and so on. In particular, this is why you can't get HDR by just turning up the brightness: the primaries are different. The bright red isnt just brighter, it's "redder than red", and the same for the other primaries. Imagine an HSV color picker, but you can turn S up to 200% Which, I suppose, is basically what you said, but I've spent the last couple days diving far further into color science than my little battery monitor really needs, so the details were on my mind. |
|
You probably already know this, but there is such a thing as "the reddest red." A single wavelength of light is fully chromatic. As you mention, most color spaces use a "less red red," because it's easier to produce.
Some color spaces do use impossible primaries in order to capture more area but, as the name suggests, they are unphysical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPhoto_RGB_color_space
Supersaturated colors do somewhat exist, but these rely on human visual oddities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color