Bill618, I'm not talking about the 3 channel collection method. That is generally the same pan-humanoid, unless there is a disability. Of course, we being organic beings will have variations in every organ, in every array of cells, in every bundle of neurons. And no, "how that info is subjectively dealt with after leaving the primary visual cortex" is NOT solely up to the frontal lobe. Because knowing colors is a form of language, and being able to distinguish one color from another is no different than learning to differ obsidian and black onyx, or the shades of meaning difference between poignant and tender. It all becomes structure. Either way, if you acknowledge differences between subjectivity, then you already agree with my argument.
You're conflating matters/arguments. Obviously the relationship between lightness and chroma matters, and is widely known. But it requires no great knowledge of colorspaces to learn. It is literally the first baby step to learning about color. As soon as you get your first set of colors, you find out that the full strength of your red is the reddest red you will get. And adding white or black to change its value will dull it down.
The matter of software glitches is merely a technical problem. But good that you answered it. And sorry if it seemed I was discouraging the answering of such questions.
Of course Science wants to know the true extent of color space... if there was such a thing. It is no different than wanting to know where the colors fall in the EM spectrum. Why else all the attempts to make the best model of color space for lo these many centuries. This goes beyond the use of color spaces in art or for regulating global printing standards or for computing. (Yes, different color spaces developed over the years for technical or business reasons spaces different uses, but if you use photoshop to make art, most of them never come into play.) That color and value turn out to have differing mechanisms for interpretation in the brain, and that normal human color perception has typical organic variation are recent realizations comparatively, which have only served to confirm the problem of "true" color space as intractably subjective.
Show me how you've done this in your work. Let's see it. I mean really, you are sweet on the science of color, no doubt, good on software, but you are so clueless about art that it boggles the mind.For science to say that if you want to create a painting with the vivid effect of a particular lighting and atmosphere, this is how you can build in the mathematical relationships that will do so - is not.
And incidentally, the program you are using to map color gamuts is not professional quality. You may be encountering some problems with your interpretations because of this. Try ColorThink instead. The interface is much more useful and the processing algorithms are more powerful. Its a program I use constantly and is much better for visualizing gamuts and color notes floating in color space. Although it too, limits how many points it can plot per image, though not as severely as the program you are using. The workaround is to cut any particular image up and load in the pieces as individual images and create a compiled gamut of all the gamuts of all the images.