[old_tv_nut]

I'm afraid you are making a mistake in what you are attempting.

The color range that you can demonstrate in a posted image is dependent on the narrowest colorspace bottleneck that the image passes through. In the past this has often been the viewer's display, but these days most monitors are sRGB (or close), so sRGB wil be the limiting factor. In addition, sRGB is the usual space for jpg images, and the assumed space for most web browsers.
In fact, if you simply copy the digital values of a wider space (such as P3 or Adobe RGB) into an sRGB jpg file for the web, the colors usually will be reproduced with distorted, lower saturation, because most browsers ignore any auxiliary color gamut info in a jpg file that would tell them to convert to the monitor profile. Properly color managed software like Photoshop or Lightroom converts the colors to sRGB before exporting a jpg file.

A correctly color managed program like photoshop takes the image data from your camera, and knowing the color space it is in, translates it to a very wide working space (e.g., Lab), and then translates it from the working space to your monitor profile for viewing, or to the proper output space for your printer or for export to jpg (in that case sRGB).

There is NO possibility to make the NTSC colors show up on anyone else's sRGB monitor. The only thing color management can guarantee is that colors that are within sRGB in the original camera file will be reproduced correctly on a correctly profiled monitor. Colors beyond the sRGB gamut must be moved to fit inside sRGB, as those are the only ones that can be reproduced by an sRGB monitor.

So, no, we cannot see the Kelly greens, but we should be able to see the less saturated colors better.

If you want to share the Kelly greens with someone, they need to have a color managed wider-gamut monitor and viewing software that recognizes the color profile embedded in the file you share (which usually would need to be some other format than jpg).