There can be no debate that if you shoot in AdobeRGB and share via web browser, or make wet process lab prints, you would have to convert your aRGB file to sRGB first or suffer muted colors.
Absolutely false. There
is a debate with you on this! More importantly not a single person here or on your video site has agreed with this and other incorrect statements! This kind of statement of '
fact' comes from someone who apparently has never used an ICC color managed application to make a print. One absolutely does NOT have to convert to sRGB from Adobe RGB to make a print! Expect perhaps for people like yourself who don't understand color management and have a history running a lab that have front ends that demand data in a tagged sRGB (and no other color space) and incorrectly think that the printer is an sRGB device. It isn't, no such device exists other than an emissive display.
Nowhere in the file did I say sRGB had more data.
No, in two places in the video, you said Adobe RGB has more colors than sRGB.
At 1:04 you say:
Both colors and the ends of the rainbows are the same (that's wrong Gary).
The difference between Adobe RGB and sRGB is that there are more colors inbetwen.
Here's another way of seeing my explanation. It's like saying, "you can shoot video in 4k, and it is better - provided you have equipment to express it... if you are going to upload to web, or view your videos in HDTV or smaller, shoot in 1080." So the mixed crowd of enthusiasts says, "huh? What's 4k? What's 1080p?" So you have to use metaphors to help the most people understand.
You still don't get the reason so many people are calling you out Gary.
Your message has merit! The way it's expressed is technically wrong in so many areas. If you had listened to the voices of reason and fixed the egregiously incorrect language, the video would have been maybe 30 seconds and all you would have to say is "
if you don't know anything about color spaces or the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998), just use sRGB".
Not a single person who posted on your video comments around the web would have argued or done anything but agreed with you. But how you explained your point is simple color management science fiction.
It's wrong. No one has backed you up because what you said was wrong.
You can still delete the video and all the negative comments and create a video expressing your valid message correctly.
You could spend a fraction of the time you wasted arguing with people who called you out and create a video we'd agree with and promote instead of creating a video that's flat out wrong and having all kinds of people around the internet see you are more concerned with defending flat earth theories and looking foolish.
You fail to see that some tried to help you.
You took it personally.
You called out the race card when it wasn't necessary.
You're now calling upon someone who's reputation for producing nearly equally incorrect information about color management to create yet another video to defend two of your video’s that can't be defended on a technical basis nor were peer reviewed.
Save yourself more time and shame, pull both video's. Create them again using the message that has merit but expressed using proper and correct color management science!
You'll get no blow back.
You'll get peer recommendation.
Your audience will not have to wonder if you're selling snake oil or false data points.
Your audience will get good education and information. Win/Win Gary.
But to continue to come into this lion's den of informed users and try to defend what you've done isn't helping you one bit. Just the opposite. That you don't see this after so many days is sad. Why are you going down this destructive route? When dozens of people tell you the salient points used to express a concept is technically flawed, is it possible they might be correct? Is it possible they might want to help you provide the message with merit correctly? Or everyone is wrong and against you? The comments about your lighting product was IMHO unfair and not deserved. The comments about the technically incorrect data points you express about color management are fair, this isn't an opinion or subjective, it's science.