There are several errors in this comment.

1. The CIE XYZ color space is different from the CIE RGB color space.

2. "Dynamic range" is not about gamut but the ratio between white and black. A monochrome display can have high dynamic range.

3. Neither the CIE XYZ nor the CIE RGB color space correspond to human vision. CIE RGB color space uses three monochromatic primaries (700 nm, 546.1 nm, and 435.8 nm) and so there are visible colors that it can't represent without using negative numbers (such as the blue color of an Argon laser). The CIE XYZ space is a linear transformation of the CIE RGB space designed to represent all visible colors without using negative numbers, the trade-off is that most of the colors in XYZ are imaginary -- they cannot be perceived by humans, recorded by cameras, or displayed by monitors. The color space closest to human perception is CIE LMS, which still contains many imaginary colors.

If you want better colors look no farther than Rec 2020, which is probably going to come around soon. It still won't represent Argon-laser-blue but the cost of representing all colors on a real, physical display is prohibitive (to the point that no prototypes even exist). Agreed that sRGB is a rather small color space but improvements on color representation have to take into account the engineering needed to make it happen. The question, "Which primaries should I use?" was thoroughly explored during the development of Rec. 2020 and I suggest you read their rationale.

Well, if you want to be pedantic, "dynamic range" (DNR) is not about white and black, it means the ratio of the largest/smallest values of a changeable quantity. This can be sound, it can be light, it can be a neuron response. The bits of a color component give you how many finite pieces you can slice up the range into. An encoding (linear/exponential/etc) give you a projection from that bit representation into the range of reconstructed values. My general point is, it's not purely about the # of bits, it's also about the range and projection function used.

But yes, you are right about the other stuff. But I'm not concerned about what can be achieved with real physical display panels today. I was talking about idealism, not incrementalism, I want to look at a display and almost not notice it's there, like looking through window on my wall. is Rec 2020 going to get us there?

You're asking for something that nobody is prepared to deliver, and nobody has plans for delivering it, and nobody knows what kind of technology would even be used to create such an experience.

1. Natural contrast ratios are so far beyond the limits of current display technology that it would take a complete revolution in material science just to figure out what to make the actual screen out of.

2. Natural colors are have a gamut that cannot be reproduced using the fixed primary model. You would have to do something like put a dynamically tunable laser inside each pixel.

It's like asking for a USB port on your computer in 1949.

However, if you're prepared to make some small compromises:

1. Okay, contrast ratios are limited by glare from ambient light.

2. Okay, we'll use three primaries: red, green, and blue.

THEN, Rec. 2020 is what you want.

> "dynamic range" (DNR) is not about white and black, it means the ratio of the largest/smallest values of a changeable quantity.

In the context of displays, the changeable quantity is the amount of light. White is the name of the largest value, black is the name of the smallest value.