It was pointed out to you from the very start. Please see below:
Again you are wrong and using sloppy language. From the start?
The post I quoted that you made (#5) was dated December 31, 2010, 09:25:44 AM. Now you bring this up, 3 days later (and god knows how many posts):
Quote from: joofa on January 02, 2011, 11:20:06 AM
I am not claiming that the volume of Adobe RGB is bigger than Propphoto RGB. Just that Adobe RGB does not seem to be fully contained in Prophoto, while still apparently being smaller than ProPhoto RGB in volume.
The main issue so many of us have with you is you don’t genuinely seem to be making an effort to communicate very well. Either totally disregarding questions or providing proof of concept, or just being insulting. Your argument would be easier to accept, well at least analyzed if you wrote more clearly and stopped moving the goal posts during the game!
We’ve gone from you initially saying: It does not
seem like that Prophoto RGB is always wider
than Adobe RGB. We have to assume you are talking about the gamut here, not someone’s hips!
Then you move onto bastardizing Adobe RGB (1998)’s native white point taking us into another direction.
Then we finally see its not so much bastardizing as ignoring how the WP’s map with these profiles in every application known to man and dog (unless can tell us otherwise, a question still not addressed after frequent requests).
What are those 3 unique and specified units?
Primaries, WP and TRC Gamma. I told you about this way back when, using Photoshop’s Custom RGB Working space dialog to see this and alter it.