The point is that it still only covers 100% of the table surface, and more than that is physically impossible, whether the tablecloth itself has 2 or 200 times the surface area. Covering the same surface twice still results in 100% of the surface being covered.
The problem with this comparison is that the dci-p3 color space is not the total possible color space (the table includes the total possible color space of the table), but only a part of it. So you can cover more than the dci-p3 color space. However, a statement like “154% of the dci-p3 color space” is somewhat illogical, because you are still covering a maximum of 100% of the dci-p3 color space plus another portion of the total color space (apparently in terms of “area” is comparable to 54% of the dci-p3 color space), but it's a compact way to write this, so I understand why it's written that way from a marketing perspective.
The comparison is: I have a floor, and I've drawn a triangle on that floor and put a rug over that triangle. This fabric could potentially cover a larger area than the triangle, but more than 100% of the triangle is never covered (which is not possible). The rest of the fabric covers more floorBut this lies outside the triangle. Saying that the fabric covers 150% of the triangle is illogical, but most people will understand that you mean: 100% of the triangle and 50% of the area outside the triangle.
“Coffee buff. Twitter fanatic. Tv practitioner. Social media advocate. Pop culture ninja.”
More Stories
Years later, Google is still making money through the cloud and earning more with YouTube ads – IT Pro – News
ByteDance: TikTok doesn't even sell without an algorithm – IT – News
The regional airports in Antwerp, Kortrijk and Ostend will also receive a digital control tower