“Using a chromaticity plot to describe color capability is a relic of cathode-ray tube (CRT) displays and no longer valid. The Gamut Ring plot is the new standard and should always be used, especially for laser displays.” – Euan Smith
Shaw’s Volatile History
Steve Shaw’s dismissal of gamut rings as ‘hyped bollox marketing’ and ‘near useless’ – while pitying Portrait Displays’ David Abrams with ‘I really feel sorry for David’ – mirrors the toxic rhetoric that got him permanently banned from forums like Lift Gamma Gain. As color scientist Dado Valentic attested, forums were ‘hijacked by that lunatic… most smart people left’. Shaw’s arguments ignore that gamut rings solve real-world problems.
Shaw’s Points vs. Reality
Claim:
“602-point sampling is insufficient for true volumetric analysis.”
Industry Counterargument:
Yes, but gamut rings replace obsolete 2D CIE diagrams, not volumetric 3D graphs.
Claim:
“Gamut rings hide luminance-dependent gamut compression.”
Industry Counterargument:
True for QD-OLEDs/WOLEDs, but readability trumps perfection for reviewers, manufacturers and video professionals needing rapid diagnostics.
Professionals use both: volumetric 3D graphs for critical calibration and gamut rings for quick comparisons, benchmarking and intuitive performance analysis.
Diagrams, Not Graphs
When Shaw finally pledged to add gamut rings to ColourSpace, he dismissively vowed to implement ‘said graphing’. This wasn’t semantics—it was technical illiteracy. Gamut rings are standardized diagrams (like CIE 1931), not graphs. Diagrams simplify complexity; graphs plot raw data.
Why Shaw’s Dismissal Backfires
Speed vs. Snobbery
Generating 3D volumetric maps takes hours; gamut rings render in minutes.
Accessibility Matters
As Portrait Displays notes, volumetric 3D graphs require expertise to decode. Gamut rings let colorists, display engineers, metrologists, R&D teams and even consumers instantly spot gamut coverage gaps.
The Real Motive: Competitive Rage
Shaw’s rage erupted weeks after Portrait Displays added gamut rings to Calman – a tool he’d mocked for years. His sarcastic ‘said graphing’ pledge mirrors his ‘dodgy marketing’ broadside against Portrait Displays’ ND filter critique. This is territorial panic, not principled criticism: when rivals innovate, Shaw attacks, then copies.
The ND Filter Debate in Display Calibration: Light Illusion vs. Portrait Displays
The Daejeon Chronicles 