upvote
Indeed, "Figure 3" from that article should be a realistic depiction of the differences between sRGB, Display P3 and BT.2020.

It is true that both the red and green primary colors of sRGB are bad (because they correspond with obsolete CRT phosphors that have not been used for decades), but in practice the defects of the green primary color are much less important, because the objects with saturated green colors are more rarely encountered.

Like I have said, objects with saturated orange/red/purple colors are very frequently encountered, even in most homes, e.g. flowers, fruits, clothes, blood.

Photographs or movies showing such objects that have been recorded using a wider color gamut look extremely differently on an sRGB monitor vs. a monitor supporting Display P3 or an even wider color gamut.

Only very rarely I have seen examples with obvious differences between monitors when showing green objects, e.g. some documentaries with certain vividly colored animals, like some insects, birds, frogs or lizards.

reply
> Only very rarely I have seen examples with obvious differences between monitors when showing green objects, e.g. some documentaries with certain vividly colored animals, like some insects, birds, frogs or lizards.

According to the article you get purified greens from transmittance through foliage, ie backlight in eg a maple forest. This makes me suspect that it may be more important than just exotic animals, and maybe we are more sensitive to ”greens” than we think? For instance, a lot of my photography of trees/forests tend to feel much more ”green brown mess” and loses structure when going from reality to screen. (Another explanation is that my photos are bad, but I like that one less)

reply
> According to the article you get purified greens from transmittance through foliage, ie backlight in eg a maple forest.

This sounds plausible. I think that in general for content that you record yourself, where you would record whatever is interesting, e.g. the more unusual things, especially outdoors, it is more likely for all the parts of the color space to be important.

My point was that for the content most frequently watched on a monitor, like commercial movies, it is much more likely that the main effect of using the obsolete sRGB color space is to see a lot of objects whose color is in the orange/red/purple area and which appear to have washed-out colors.

In almost any commercial movie, if I switch at almost any point between a Rec. 709 copy on an sRGB monitor and a Rec. 2020 copy on a Display P3 monitor I immediately notice some reddish objects that have become more vivid, looking like in real life, while on sRGB they look abnormally dull.

Until a dozen of years ago, I had used for many years sRGB monitors and I was content with them, but immediately after I used for the first time a Display P3 monitor I could no longer enjoy sRGB photographs or movies, because now their limitations had become obvious.

reply
I think the lack of depth perception in a 2D photo is another big factor in why the magic of a forest can’t be captured. There are so many different layers that all get flattened!
reply
There is so much going on in a modern digital camera between what the sensor captures and what is stored on the flash card that you might be a perfectly fine photographer and it’s the software in the camera that just doesn’t get your style.
reply