- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 18:54:26 +0300
- To: public-colorweb@w3.org
On 2021-06-08 08:32, Michael Smith wrote: > Hi colorweb members. > > Using extended-linear-srgb seems intuitive when colors are inside sRGB > gamut, if I want a yellow that is twice as bright as a regular bright > sRGB yellow, I use (r,g,b)=(2,2,0) instead of (r,g,b)=(1,1,0). That is outside the gamut, if you plot the 3D gamut in Lab space for example. I agree its hard to see on a 2D chromaticity diagram, precisely because chromaticity removes the effect of luminance. > > What if I want my application to use a nice saturated BT.2020 yellow > instead, which is out-of-sRGB gamut, for example (r,g,b)=(2,2,0) in > BT.2020 linear would translate to (r,g,b)=(2.145699727, 2.016698845, > -0.237459323) in extended-linear-srgb with a negative blue value. It would, yes. > Do we really expect users to specify negative color values? If that is the only way to get the color, then yes. There are things like CSS Color 4,and Canvas HDR, which are color managed and thus can accept inputs in a variety of color spaces and do the conversion internally. And then there are things like WebGPU and WebGL which are not color managed; you pick a single colorspace when setting up to draw and then everything has to be in that. Which means that other considerations (what is native to the hardware, which is the lower energy path) take precedence over, as you say, intuitiveness and forcing the user (or some tool) to dothe work of color space conversion. > I'm concerned that will be non-intuitive to users without a color > science background. I have seen negative values be super confusing to people, yes (until adequately explained). -- Chris Lilley @svgeesus Technical Director @ W3C W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2021 15:56:11 UTC