[kurthr]

If you're using sRGB with 16bit color you already have problems. It is an 8bit per color hack that worked perfectly well with CRTs and early LCDs. There were multiple different hacky versions with different vendors that were visually indistinguishable on displays of the day.

Even most modern displays are not really capable of more than 10bit color (RGB miniLED and QD-OLED barely are). Even REC2020 doesn't need 16bit.

sRGB doesn't even have a consistent gamma, and it's not anywhere close to uniformly covering the color volume. Why use it? DCI-P3 works fine.

[SideQuark]

Your eye also doesn’t have a consistent gamma, nor does the camera, now does any viewing technology. If you’re complaining about the slight linear section of many gamma curves, they are very important for avoiding various artifacts.

[kurthr]

Well, there's all sort of different problems, but most modern display technologies both in software visual profile and hardware implementation use LUTs. When sRGB was born the monitors were unable to even meet it as a spec so some crazy simplifications were fine. Now we're using those bits to drive HDR monitors over much larger color volumes and dynamic range, but it's hard to move on from the "good enough" legacy of sRGB.

Certainly, eyes don't have a consistent gamma, they don't even match between people, much less outside the foveal field.

[SideQuark]

LUTs don’t magically add color volume, change the possible colors or dynamic range, or add much at all to the physics of a display. They’re usually used to reduce bit depth. They do not add more low or high colors than the screen physics started with.