In terms of the history of sRGB, this very old post from the ColorSync list from the father of sRGB is interesting:
On 11/30/98 8:56 AM, "Stokes, Michael" wrote:
Jeff and Andrew,
I just ran across a couple of threads you wrote in response to a query about
sRGB. Being the color scientist behind this effort at HP, I would like to
clear up some apparent misconceptions.
1. sRGB is not base on "standard" "typical" or any other type of PC monitor,
but is directly derived from the HDTV standard ITU-R BT.709/2
2. sRGB does represent not only average PC monitors, but is within the
factory tolerances of almost all CRTs on the market today, including Barco
professional CRTs. This is due to the shared family set of P22 phosphors
which almost all CRTs use today. While this "family" of P22 phosphors has
some differences between manufacturers, these differences fall within each
manufacturer's factory tolerances. Saying that sRGB chromaticities are
"quite small" is simply saying that CRT phosphors in general are quite
small.
3. While the 2.2 gamma was directly derived from HTDV, it has been
independently verified by Sony, Barco and others to represent the native
physical state of CRTs today. It is also very close to the native human
perceptual lightness scale when viewing CRTs. This combination makes this
gamma the optimal for CRTs to physically operate at. This also goes a long
way in explaining the compatibility with Windows and PCs in general since
these systems have not imposed any arbitary or proprietary system
adjustments.
4. The white point again is derived directly from the television industry
and is the standard is televisions and also in many aspects of photography.
Achieving a bright enough D50 white point to comfortably adapt to continues
to be a technical challenge for CRT vendors.
5. I agree that there is a different in gamut shapes between sRGB and press
CMYKs. This is due the the difference in gamut shapes of CRTs in general and
press CMYKs in general. Since sRGB represents the native physical condition
of CRTs, this is an obvious outcome. I also note that the sRGB gamut in
general is significantly larger than press CMYK gamuts an most areas other
than cyan.
6. I agree that if I am in a high-end graphic arts D50 only workflow, that
sRGB is not the optimal solution and neither HP nor Microsoft claims it to
be so. On the other hand, it is the optimal solution for any display-centric
workflow such as desktop publishing in the office or home, the world wide
web or any assortment of workflows where a display plays an integral part.
7. Claiming that pure cyan in sRGB converts to 78% cyan in press CMYK is
completely dependent upon which gamut mapping technique you are using. I am
assuming you are using whatever is in Photoshop. I can tell you that this is
not the case for the gamut mapping in our own printers.
8. We've worked very hard with Pantone to provide a solid physical and
scientific foundation for their RGB representations. I am at a loss to
explain your criticims on this front and your implicit request that Pantone
base their CRT RGB palettes on something other than established standards,
physics and science. I would appreciate some input on this one.
9. Your statements that "However, I've been told that the original color
scientist from HP that
proposed this colorspace has stated that it has gone too far, that this was
a proposal ONLY for the web. . .not for printing or cameras or scanners.
I've also heard the even Microsoft is kinda backing away from sRGB for
ANYTHING other than the web." are simply untrue and I would appreciate
knowing where to go to straighten this out. I have never said that sRGB is
not for printing or cameras or scanners. I believe sRGB provides an
excellent, robust and fundamentally sound solutions for these mass markets.
HP has a lot of evidence both internally and with real customers to support
this. We also have many partners in the camera, scanner and desktop printer
businesses that have independenty confirmed this. I also believe that
Microsoft has not backed off from sRGB in any way.
10. A better web site for sRGB information is at
www.srgb.com
11. I would very much like to have a discussion on the difference between
display spaces and editing spaces. I agree that a larger editing space would
be helpful, but am skeptical from my own scientific research if this can be
done in a 24bit encoding by simply changing the chromaticities without
resulting in other problems. Would you and Rodney be interested in such a
discussion?
12. Characterizing our efforts as hoodwinking seems a bit stretched since
we've gone out of our way to conform to existing international standards,
sound physics, and state of art research results.
I just wanted to clarify a few things and hope this helps,
Michael Stokes
HP
[/QUOTE]