Talk:ProPhoto RGB color space

"This means that potential color accuracy is wasted for reserving these unnecessary colors."

Someone please explain to me what this means.

Certainly file space can be wasted by storing unnecessary data. And I can imagine that color accuracy might be compromised if colors are allowed to stray into the no man's land of imaginary color space.

But, how exactly can color accuracy be "wasted"? Am I missing something?

(Objection cross-posted at Talk:Adobe Wide Gamut RGB color space)

70.236.225.228 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It means that if only 87% of the the color address space can even be used (imaginary), the gradations between real colors are 1.15 times coarser than if all the colors were real. This is if you used the same number of bits for both. Sagittarian Milky Way 05:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ProPhoto Abandoned?
This appears to have been abandoned by Kodak. Please leave a note if you have indications to the contrary.

The links I have found at Kodak's web sites www.kodak.com, graphics1.kodak.com to the ProPhoto color space are broken. I've sent a sum of 3 or 4 messages to Kodak via each web site, with no meaningful response. Further search for the existance of this color space on the WWW has yielded naught. Eshouthe (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Web is brimming with references to ProPhoto! Or do you mean pictures tagged with ProPhoto. If so, that's because most Web browsers do not support ICC profiles, so people are stuck with sRGB. ProPhoto is the color space of choice when all others are too small. Maybe Kodak does not support it, but that does not mean anything. It's just a bunch of numbers, after all. --Adoniscik(t, c) 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The ProPhoto RGB is still the third most frequently used color profile after Adobe RGB and sRGB. Even Adobe's software prefers the use of ProPhoto RGB rather than other RGB profiles when converting RAW photos. Tktt (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowadays, all TWO browsers are heavily icc managed from and to icc profiles. All flickr is full of ProPhoto RGB stuff. 109.252.94.59 (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of ProPhoto RGB with Adobe Wide Gamut RGB color space Articles
Do any proponents of merging wish to explain? It seems to me undesirable to merge. If they were merged, it could happen in the future that it would be appropriate to diverge them again. Better to keep them separate. Eshouthe (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Better than xvYCC?
Is ProPhoto RGB colour space better than xvYCC colour space? Urvabara (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is much bigger. 109.252.94.59 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Corners outside cie scope?
Going by the image, the corners of the triangle are outside the colors provided by cie. I was under the impression that this was impossible. (Excepting use of points with higher/lower frequencies than normally included.)

The article would benefit from an explanation, as this must come as a surprise to many. 80.226.24.12 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is very much possible. For most color spaces there are out-of-gamut possibility, in this case it is outright out the visible light. Remember, we can see some ultraviolet monochromatic light. 109.252.94.59 (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

UCS for comparison of primary chromaticities
While there is some validity in presenting primaries of various systems for comparison in the CIE 1931 x, y chromaticity diagram, a more meaningful comparison would be provided by plotting the primaries in a uniform chromaticity space, such as the CIE 1976 u', v' Uniform Chromaticity Scale. Lovibond (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Gaurav Agrawal's Android-crashing photo
Is it worth mentioning that Gaurav Agrawal's Android-crashing photo of 2020 is in ProPhoto RGB, and what are the implications of it? - https://www.flickr.com/photos/117605304@N07/48746079687 2A01:4B00:F411:4D00:2DAC:90B1:18C0:FCFC (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not 100% ProPhoto RGB, white point was slightly different. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Output referred
Leaving aside whether there should be a hyphen there, that's a phrase which merits explaining, linking, or working around with different words. In the first paragraph. I'd do that myself, but I don't know what it means. Midgley (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)