Dude, look in the mirror. You're calling someone arrogant who actually knows this stuff and explains why oversimplified "explanations" that could just as well describe why Rec.2020 isn't the bees knees don't elicit expressions of joy among the nerds on this site. If the industry were serious about gamut, they'd just use the Lab color space, which can actually encode the colors that fireworks create. The technology that this man's company sells still couldn't put colors on the screen that look like actual fireworks though. Literally everything in that article is either wrong, simplified to the point of being useless as an explanation to anyone who doesn't already know what's going on, or completely beside the purported point of the article. Hey, Rec.709 can't show firework colors. Neither can Rec.2020, or quantum dots, but let's all buy new TVs anyway. Don't tell people that wide gamut requires proper color management or you'll get either comically oversaturated colors or no benefit at all. Like I said, people who aren't impressed by useless incantations of "science words" see through an attempt to sell a "whiter white".

Well, he's technically right, but the context is that he's pitching his product and that product can't show the wavelengths either. Rec.2020 can't even transmit the information and the perception of those color can't be replicated by either standard or his product. He's trying hard to create a different impression though. That's why he's technobabbling. (What he actually meant there is that many TVs can't recreate the perception of those colors, and his product can get closer to recreating the perception of the very saturated colors in a fireworks display. No wavelengths necessary to explain that.)

No, you can see the colors as your display shows them. What I'm saying is that you can decide if you really need even more saturated colors than you can see on your display. That's all a wider gamut provides: More saturation. But that doesn't sell new TVs, does it. You have to technobabble people with stuff they don't understand. Tell them what he's actually selling and they'll shrug it off.

Comes with the knowledge.

Excuse me, I understand it. It's still technobabble.

"The chemical compounds most commonly used in fireworks emit wavelengths that aren’t within the physical possibility of being seen by many TVs."

I know what he means there, but that's an oversimplification. The wavelengths of almost all colors aren't within the physical possibilities of TVs and other display devices, old or new. That's because display devices recreate a perception of a color, not a color. They create a mix of three (rarely more) discrete colors to create the same visual perception as the original continuous spectrum of light. No color can be recreated except the ones which happen to be linear combinations of the spectra in the three primary colors of the display device.

"Those colours were based on phosphors that beamed light from the back of a set onto the glass screen."

Seriously? Y'all had projection TVs? Anyway, that's not how a CRT worked.

"BT.2020’s colour gamut is far wider than any existing TV technology, able to capture more than 99 per cent of all the colours in the world as measured by a researcher called MR Pointer"

He's careful not to say that it can capture more than 99% of all colors, because that would be a lie. You can see the color gamut of ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 on Wikipedia. It misses quite a bit in the cyan/green and purple departments, as usual. It covers roughly twice as much of the CIE xy colors as Rec.709 (which is also the basis of sRGB), but unless you like looking at extremely saturated greens and cyans, you're not going to see much of a difference. So sure, let's compare a gamut to something a researcher measured in the 1970s and then use fireworks as an example, even though that is still outside that gamut.

Do try this for yourself: Open a color picker widget, set the saturation to maximum and select any hue. Do you really need a more saturated version of that? Because that's what Rec.2020 offers over Rec.709.

"Yurek’s company[...] has developed quantum dots"

Yes, it's a sales pitch. To his audience, all of that is technobabble. I know enough to see through it. I'm not his audience.

OLEDs are known for very intense colors, but obviously the contrast ratio isn't infinite, because the screen still reflects some ambient light. There's also the problem that the actual primary colors often don't match the primary colors of popular color spaces, so there needs to be some mapping from the encoded colors to the actual color space of the screen. The easiest way to do this is to reduce the saturation enough for the primary colors of the encoding color space to fit inside the gamut of the screen. Or you could just map the encoded primary colors to the screen primary colors and accept that the colors are a bit off. And now you know why OLEDs often look a little strange.

Color gamut is limited by two things: The primary colors and the black level. It is impossible to create all colors with just three real primary colors. Color spaces which cover the entirety of real colors use virtual primary colors which cannot exist in reality. This is due to the overlapping spectral sensitivity of the color receptors in the human eye. A television screen with just three primary colors can not reproduce 99 percent of all the colors in the world, even if the color information is transmitted in reference to a color space that can. If you've ever seen the CIE xy chromaticity diagram (shaped like a horse shoe), the reproducible colors of a system with three real primary colors (e.g. a TV screen) are all within a triangle that has the three primary colors as corner points. Colors outside that triangle can't be reproduced by these primary colors.

The other thing that limits the color gamut is the black level. The purer the color the less light is present in other wavelengths. The purest colors are on the curved edge of the chromaticity diagram, and they consist of just one wavelength of light. A high black level shifts all colors inwards toward gray. Even if a TV set has very pure primary colors, a high black level shrinks the reproducible color gamut. If you want purer colors, the first thing you want to look for is a high contrast and a low black level, not some encoding standard with a bigger theoretical gamut.

When someone throws some technobabble at us to explain why what we have isn't good enough, we like to let them know we see through the bullshit. The dynamic range of TVs is fine for fireworks to look nice, if you know how to shoot them, and post-process them and encode them correctly. Have you ever pointed a camera at a sunset and found the result to be lacking? Would you conclude that good pictures of sunsets are impossible, or are you just a shitty photographer? Filming is an art. If the argument is that a TV screen can't accurately reproduce the luminous flux of the setting sun or the color purity of glowing metal oxides, then you're missing the point.

Stop trying to be Apple. They're a fashion company and you're not.