Colour Science & Perception
what the eye settles, and what it cannot
Concept

Assertion — where it appears

A claim checked in code while a figure is drawn, which throws rather than printing a number that has stopped being true. Every identity this collection states is one, and each is additionally fed something wrong on purpose and required to refuse — an assertion that has never rejected anything proves nothing.

Named by 51 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two identical grey patches on different surrounds. Both inner squares are #818181. The one on the dark field looks lighter. The values are checked to be equal before the figure is drawn, so the claim is a fact about the drawing rather than a promise.

These two patches are identical

It is the most repeated and least checkable sentence in visual perception, because the whole point is that it does not look true. Every instance here is computed, and checked before the figure is drawn.

brain · Appearance One palette under normal vision and three dichromacies. The same 7 colours simulated by the Brettel–Viénot–Mollon construction at severity 1.0. protanopia and deuteranopia collapse the red-green distinctions, and tritanopia leaves them and collapses blue against yellow instead. This shows which discriminations survive, not what anybody sees.

Simulating what cannot be simulated

A colour-blindness simulation cannot show what anybody sees. What it can show is which discriminations survive, and that is a narrower claim, a checkable one, and the only one worth making.

limits · Limits The worst triple found, under ΔE2000. Three colours, plotted on the a–b plane of CIELAB. Going from a to c directly is 123.645; going via b is 60.528, which is 51.0 per cent shorter. A distance cannot behave that way, and this one is the formula every colour tolerance in industry is written in. The colours are far apart, which is where the violation is largest; the same search confined to tolerance scale finds a smaller one that has not gone away.

A difference is not a distance

Two earlier essays here said that CIEDE2000 violates the triangle inequality and left it at that. Searching for the violation finds a detour half the length of the direct route, a smaller one inside a five-unit ball, and a second defect nobody mentions — ΔE94 is not even symmetric.

difference · Metric One adapting colour, two answers. The left patch is what was stared at. The middle is the afterimage the cone-gain arithmetic predicts at 15 per cent adaptation; the right is the inverted code values. They are 22.1 ΔE00 apart. The gains that produced the middle patch are 0.95, 1.06, 1.69 on the long, medium and short cone classes — the reciprocal of what each class had been receiving, taken 15 per cent of the way.

An afterimage is an adaptation

The demonstration everybody gives is an inverted image, which is a statement about a file format. Running the receptoral arithmetic instead puts the afterimage of a saturated red sixty degrees of hue away from the inverse — and outside what any display can show.

brain · Appearance How far a judgement is from the settled one, second by second. The light changed from one white to another at t = 0 and nothing else moved. The model has one degree of adaptation and no clock, so the distance plotted is what a clock adds: 3.6 CAM16-UCS units half a second in, still 1.3 after a minute, and 0.11 after five. Every appearance number on this site is the value at the right-hand end.

The model has no clock

An appearance model takes a stimulus and a situation and returns what it looks like. It does not take a time, and adaptation is not instantaneous — half a second after the light changes a judgement is three and a half CAM16-UCS units from the settled one, and a minute later it is still 1.3.

limits · Limits How large a step changes the name, across the ab plane at L* 60. At each point, the smallest ΔE00 step in any direction after which the probability of two people using the same word has halved. It runs from 4.8 to 33.8 units across this one plane, in eight quantised levels: the palest cells are where a name is finest — a short step changes it — and the strongest are the middles of large territories, where a colour can move twenty units and keep its word. The ragged edge is the sRGB boundary at this lightness rather than a property of the vocabulary. The boundary softness is a stated parameter of the model, and the map barely moves when it is changed fourfold, because what sets this quantity is how far apart the centroids are.

A name is not a threshold

Two colours have to move about ten times a just-noticeable difference apart before people stop calling them the same thing, and how far varies threefold across one plane of the space. A tolerance and a word are answering different questions, and nothing in colorimetry converts between them.

brain · Appearance The drift window, asked about each channel in turn. Every spatial frequency a channel can resolve, drifting at v degrees a second, arrives at f × v hertz; the bar is the range of v over which all of them stay above a quarter of that channel's temporal peak. The luminance band is closed at both ends — 0.018 to 0.71 degrees a second — because its temporal sensitivity has a dip at zero to fall into. The chromatic bands have no slow edge at all, because chromatic temporal sensitivity is low-pass: a stationary chromatic pattern sits at the top of its own sensitivity. The mark is the measured drift, and it is inside all three.

The drift is a luminance mechanism

The eye's own drift was shown to sit inside a band of speeds that keeps every spatial frequency modulating, and the band was quoted as though it were about vision. Asked about colour, it has no slow edge at all — a stationary chromatic pattern needs no eye movement whatever. And a stabilised chromatic pattern is the first thing to fade.

eye · Cones Coming back from a bleach, against the clock already measured. A 94 per cent bleach, and the pigment returning at its own time constant of 120 seconds. The lower curve is the site's slow neural adaptation constant, 60 seconds, started from the same place — it is finished while the chemistry is barely half done. Regeneration does not speed up because the light went away: the rate constant is the same one it always was, which is why the recovery is slow while the bleaching was fast.

The slowest clock is chemical

An earlier essay here joined the afterimage to the adaptation clock and named what was still missing — a third gain, upstream of both, in the pigment itself. It is twice as slow as anything measured before it, it leaves a coloured after-tint from a white field, and at steady state it cancels exactly, which is why nobody has ever needed to model it.

eye · Cones Every filtered claim in these essays, read at a point and read as components. Each row is a comparison one of the essays makes. The bar is the ratio between the two readings — how many times larger the component answer is than the point answer, or the reverse — on a logarithmic scale. 5 of 7 disagree by more than half again, and 4 disagree about the direction of the effect rather than merely its size. The three marked as noisy are the ones with a noise field on one side of the comparison, and they are the three largest.

The list nobody made

The last phase found that reading a filtered signal at a point asks a question its thresholds were never fitted to, made it a standing rule, and admitted that nobody had gone back through the site to see which claims it touched. Here is the list. Every claim with noise on one side of it moves — and so do two that have no noise in them at all, which the rule said would not.

limits · Limits The hue circle cut into names, at L 60 and C 40. Left, the arcs each name claims, drawn at the colour of their midpoints; right, the same arcs measured in ΔE00 by integrating the difference along the ring rather than in degrees. The widest is 5.3 times the narrowest in degrees and 4.5 times in colour difference, so the metric accounts for 15 per cent of the inequality and no more. Only the eight chromatic terms compete on this ring: at this chroma the achromatic three would otherwise take the region where no basic English term sits, which is a defect of the model and is named in the essay.

There is no word for that colour

The naming model built this phase gives a saturated cyan the name green, calls part of a chromatic ring grey, and puts one of the eleven focal colours outside what a display can show. Each failure is a measurement rather than a disclaimer, and together they say what a vocabulary is that eleven points and a distance are not.

limits · Limits Where a pooled gain gives out, against where the eye does. The falling curve is how much of a pattern of each spatial frequency a local adaptation pool of 0.5° can see — and therefore how much of it a settled eye can cancel. It is half gone by 0.37 cycles per degree, which is a feature about 2.7° across. The three marks are the acuity limits of the luminance channel and the two chromatic ones. Every one of them is more than an order of magnitude finer than the pool, which is why a stabilised eye loses the fill of a picture and keeps its outline rather than losing the picture.

What a still eye stops seeing

A stabilised image is said to vanish, and nothing in a temporal filter predicts it — sensitivity at zero frequency is a quarter of the peak, not nothing. Give the adaptation gain a size and the answer falls out — fading is a high-pass filter that switches on over a minute, it takes the fill and leaves the outline, and a patch has to be about two degrees across before it goes at all.

eye · Cones The appearance model's three rooms, read as three moments. CIECAM16's degree of adaptation is a function of the surround and the adapting luminance and of nothing else — the model has no time in it. Solving for the moment at which an observer who will adapt completely has got that far turns each of the three tabulated surrounds into a reading on a clock. At 100 candelas per square metre they are 106, 49, 21 seconds. They are presented as three rooms. They are also one observer, in one room, at three times in the first two minutes.

A viewing condition is a moment

CIECAM16's degree of adaptation is a function of the surround and the adapting luminance and of nothing else, because the model has no time in it. Solving for when an observer who will adapt completely has got that far turns the standard's three surrounds into three clock readings — 107, 50 and 21 seconds — and the two readings are distinguishable by waiting.

brain · Appearance Every claim here that was computed with one model, recomputed with two. Each row is a claim one of these essays makes. The bar is how many times the two-model answer differs from the one-model answer, on a logarithmic scale. 3 of 13 have no bar at all: the first model's answer for them is exactly zero, not because it computed zero but because it has no variable for the quantity. Those are the rows where a second model did not correct an answer — it supplied one.

What a second model changed

Thirteen claims here, each computed with one model and recomputed with two. Ten of them move by half again or more. Three of them do not move at all in the ordinary sense — the first model's answer is exactly zero, not because it computed zero but because it has no variable for the quantity — and every one of those three is a join that supplied a state or a device rather than a spread.

limits · Limits Every change of light this site models, and how much of it a gain removes. Each row is a change of illumination. The pale bar is how far it moves an ordinary surface for an observer who does not adapt; the solid bar at its left end is what is left after the observer has applied the one gain adaptation gives them, which is the ratio of the two whites in the CAT16 basis and is not fitted to anything. Sorted by the fraction left rather than by the size of the change, because the two orderings are different: the largest change here is removed almost entirely and the worst row is a change less than a third its size.

What no adaptation can remove

A change of light is exactly a 3×3 matrix on tristimulus values, and adaptation is a diagonal one. Putting every change of illumination this site models through that distinction sorts them by how much of themselves they leave behind, and the smallest residual in the census belongs to a filter inside the eye.

limits · Limits Every published adaptation transform, and one computed from daylight, on every change. What each basis leaves an adapted observer with, row by row. Darker is worse. The last column is not a published transform: it is the basis in which a change from D65 to D50 is exactly diagonal, computed in closed form from the two spectra with nothing fitted. It is far the best on the daylight rows and it is beaten on the discharge lamps, which is the trade the published transforms are sitting in — they were fitted to data containing both kinds of light and are therefore optimal for neither. Over the census as a whole the winner is Bradford at ΔE00 1.14.

A gain needs a basis

Adaptation scales three signals, and which three is a choice. The basis in which a change from D65 to D50 is exactly diagonal can be computed in closed form from the two spectra, it beats every published transform on daylight by a factor of five, and it loses to all of them on a fluorescent tube.

brain · Appearance The same census, sorted by where the change of light came from. Each row is a change of illumination. The pale bar is how far it moves an ordinary surface for an observer who does not adapt; the solid bar at its left end is what is left after the observer has applied the one gain adaptation gives them, which is the ratio of the two whites in the CAT16 basis and is not fitted to anything. Sorted by where the change came from. The two kinds of light that existed before electricity sit at the top and leave the smallest share of themselves behind; the discharge lamps are worse, and the worst of them is d65 to a triphosphor tube at 33 per cent.

Which lamp changes are free

The changes of light that existed before electricity commute with one another to a couple of parts in a thousand, so one set of axes handles all of them. The lights the lighting industry invented do not, and the worst pair in the census is seventy-six times further from commuting than the best.

light · Light The same wall, applied once and applied twice. A room lit by light that has bounced off its own walls is a change of illumination like any other, and a corner is the same change applied twice. Squaring a reflectance sharpens it, a sharper change of light is further from being a gain, and the residual an adapted observer is left with therefore grows faster than the change does: the second bounce is 1.33 times the change and 1.96 times the residual. This is the adaptation half of what a corner does to a metameric match.

The same wall applied twice

A bounce off a painted wall is a change of illumination, and adaptation handles it about as well as it handles a change of colour temperature. A corner applies the same reflectance twice, which sharpens it — and leaves an adapted observer with 1.96 times as much for a change only 1.33 times as large.

scene · Scene The share of itself each change leaves behind, and the smallest is inside the eye. The residual as a fraction of the change rather than as a colour difference, which sorts the census differently. At the top is the macular pigment — the filter in front of the central few degrees of one's own retina — leaving 2.4 per cent of itself. It is a fixed transmittance multiplying the light and the white together, which is as close to a pure gain as anything here gets, and it is why nobody notices they have one.

The filters inside the eye

The macular pigment leaves 2.4 per cent of itself after adaptation — the smallest share of anything in this site's census of light changes, and less than half the next smallest. Fifty years of lens yellowing leaves 7.9 per cent, and the difference between the two says what a gain is actually good at.

eye · Cones The basis a camera balances in is a different basis for every light. A camera's white balance is a per-channel gain on raw values, which is a von Kries adaptation in whatever basis the filter dyes give it. That basis is not a property of the dyes alone: it is the dyes and the light in the room, and it moves when the light does. Each bar is how far the basis has turned, in degrees, from where it sits under D65. A sensor satisfying the Luther condition would have a bar of exactly zero on every row, because for such a sensor the light cancels — which is the one property nobody buys a sensor for.

A camera balances in another basis

White balance is a per-channel gain on raw values, which makes it a von Kries adaptation in whatever axes the filter dyes happen to give. Those axes are not a property of the dyes alone — they move with the light, by up to seventeen degrees across the adaptation census — and the sensor for which they would not move is the one that adapts worst of all.

imaging · Capture Media-relative colorimetry is a von Kries adaptation in the worst basis there is. Changing the paper is a change of the light reaching the reader, and the rule colour management uses for it — divide the tristimulus values by the substrate's — is a gain applied in XYZ. That is the one transform the table here describes as the oldest mistake still shipping. On the three stocks a press actually uses the penalty is real and small, because a sheet of paper-mill white is the smoothest change of light in the census. On blue it is 10.2 times the residual the same rule would leave in a cone basis.

Dividing by the paper

Media-relative colorimetry divides tristimulus values by the substrate's, which is a von Kries adaptation applied in XYZ — the one basis the table here describes as the oldest mistake still shipping. On a paper-mill white it costs a few hundredths of a unit. On a tinted sheet it costs ten times what the same rule costs in a cone basis.

applied · Delivery A tolerance of one unit, re-measured under every light in the census. Every one of the 23 pairs behind this figure is at exactly ΔE00 1.000 under D65 by construction. Each bar is what those same pairs measure under another light, after the observer has adapted to it: the line is the median and the bar spans the pairs. A tolerance is written as a property of a pair and it is not one — the light multiplies both members, and the difference between two products is not the product of the difference. The widest row is a lens at twenty against a lens at seventy, spanning 0.81 to 1.57.

One unit in another room

Twenty-three pairs built at exactly ΔE00 1.000 under D65, re-measured under every change of light this site models with the observer adapted to each, come out anywhere between 0.64 and 1.57. A tolerance is written as a property of a pair and it is a property of a pair and a room.

difference · Metric Which of these paints the display can show, and to how many people. Each row is a real surface under D65, and the bar is the share of 120 observers for whom a non-negative mixture of this display's three primaries reproduces it. The question has no observer-free answer: the paint is a reflectance, the primaries are emission spectra, and whether one matches the other is a fact about somebody's cones. A dot marks the rows the 1931 observer calls displayable. 2 of them are rows some real people cannot see, and 4 more go the other way.

A gamut has a population

Whether a display can reproduce a paint is a fact about somebody's cones, so the boundary of a gamut is not a curve but a band. On a laser projector, ten of twenty-eight boundary surfaces are ones the standard observer calls displayable and some real people cannot see — and the wider the gamut, the wider the band.

matching · Gamut The same twenty-four samples, measured two standard ways. How far apart a 45°/0° instrument and a sphere with its gloss port closed are, on samples running from three per cent reflectance to seventy. The whole of the difference is the interface reflection — four per cent of the light, returned without ever meeting a pigment, thrown away by one geometry and collected by the other. It is the same four points in every row, which is why the disagreement is a property of how dark the sample is rather than of what colour it is: ΔE00 8.7 on the darkest samples against 1.93 on the lightest.

An instrument has a geometry

Every reflectance here arrives through a model with a bandpass, a sampling interval and no position at all. Real instruments say where they were standing, and the two standard answers disagree by ΔE00 8.35 on a dark gloss sample — a difference that adds rather than multiplies, and that no adaptation removes.

matching · Gamut A sample with two reflectance curves, and neither below one. The apparent reflectance of an optically brightened sample, measured under D65 and A. It exceeds 1 — the shaded band — which no reflector can do: more light leaves at these wavelengths than arrives at them, because the sample absorbs in the violet and re-emits in the blue. And the two curves differ, so the sample has no single reflectance to store. The effect drawn here is a floor: most of the excitation band lies below 380 nm, outside the range computed here.

A surface that is not a multiplication

Every argument here about what light does to a surface begins by multiplying two spectra together. A surface with a brightener in it takes light at one wavelength and returns it at another, so it is a full operator rather than a diagonal one — and it does not have a reflectance at all.

scene · Scene A stabilised grating fades at a rate that depends on which way its bars run. What is left of a 0.3 cycle-per-degree grating, in multiples of its own threshold, as a function of its orientation, at four moments after the image was stabilised on the retina. The first curve is flat to floating point: at the instant the pattern arrives, orientation does not matter, because the filter that carries it has no orientation preference at this frequency. The anisotropy arrives with the fading, reaching ×2.09 after five minutes, and a pool with no axis predicts none of it.

A fading pool has a shape

Giving the local adaptation pool two axes instead of one costs a single parameter and produces a prediction the circular version cannot make — a stabilised grating fades at a rate that depends on which way its bars run. The obvious objection is the oblique effect, and the two act in bands that do not overlap.

eye · Cones How much of what a display can show each name owns. Every point on a 5-unit CIELAB lattice inside the sRGB gamut is given to its nearest centroid under ΔE00, and the shares counted. They run from 21.1 per cent for purple to 4.6 for blue, a factor of 4.6. The three terms that carry no chroma at all — black, grey and white — hold 20 per cent between them. A share here is a statement about the names and about the gamut they are counted over, and the gamut is sRGB.

A name in the model's own words

The eleven basic colour terms move when the room does, and the obvious objection is that they were being measured in a space with no room in it. Quoting them in an appearance model's own coordinates instead does not shrink the renaming — it grows it by four per cent — and the space alone renames an eighth of the gamut with the room held still.

brain · Appearance Three ways to dim a lamp, and only one of them is free. What an adapted observer is left with, as the same lamp is taken down to one per cent by each of the three methods. Duty-cycle dimming lies exactly on zero at every depth: it scales the spectrum, a scaling is a gain in every basis, and adaptation removes all of it. Current dimming moves the pump and the phosphor apart and leaves 0.15 at a tenth. A filament follows the Planckian locus, which is the largest chromaticity change of the three and leaves 3.63 — the ordering by chromaticity and the ordering by what a person sees are not the same ordering.

Only one dimmer is invisible

An earlier essay separated the three ways to dim a lamp by the chromaticity each arrives at. Asked instead what an adapted observer is left with, the ordering is different and one method comes out at exactly zero — a duty cycle is a scaling, a scaling is a gain in every basis, and adaptation removes all of it at every depth.

light · Light Four devices, and what each of them can do about a change of light. The mean over the census of what each device is left with. A press has no mechanism, so its number is the whole change — a printed sheet does not adapt to the room it is read in. A display can move its white point, which is a gain in its own primaries. A camera applies a gain in whatever basis its filter dyes happen to give it. And the sensor that satisfies the Luther condition exactly is worse than the silicon one — satisfying the condition means its channels are the matching functions, and a per-channel gain on the matching functions is the transform this site calls the oldest mistake still shipping.

Only one of these devices adapts

An eye, a camera, a display and a press all meet the same changes of light, and each has at most one thing it can do about them. The press has nothing at all, so its column is the whole change; and this collection's sensor built to satisfy the Luther condition exactly is the one that adapts worst.

limits · Limits Six functions of wavelength, and the six different places they stop. Every table this collection integrates against, drawn over the range the body that published it defined it on. The scale is logarithmic so that the ultraviolet and the near infrared both fit. The bottom row is the range used here before the infrared band was added, and it is the intersection of the two rows that matter for an eye looking at a reflector — which is the right answer only while everything in the integral is being multiplied together. The daylight basis runs 80 nanometres further down than that intersection, and it was published that way because the ultraviolet in daylight is what makes a brightened sheet of paper glow. The analytic row is drawn to the edge of the plot because it has no edge: Planck's law is a formula and is exact at every wavelength, which is why illuminant A needs no table at all.

The tables do not stop together

This collection integrates from 380 to 780 nanometres, and decided once, in writing, that the range could not honestly be widened. The argument was correct at the long end and wrong at the short one — the CIE publishes the daylight basis from 300 nanometres, and publishes it from there for exactly the reason it matters.

light · Light A fluorescent sample is a matrix, and a reflectance is only its diagonal. The Donaldson matrix of a brightened sheet: how much light leaves at each wavelength for light arriving at each wavelength. A reflecting surface has entries on the diagonal and nowhere else, which is exactly the statement that light leaving at 440 nanometres arrived at 440. The block off the diagonal is the fluorophore — it takes light between about 305 and 420 nanometres and returns it between 400 and 500, wherever in that band it was absorbed, which is why the block is a rectangle rather than a smear along the diagonal. A spectrophotometer that reports a reflectance is reporting the diagonal and folding the block into it at whatever weight its own lamp happened to give.

A reflectance is a diagonal

A reflecting surface returns light at the wavelength it arrived at, so its whole description is one number per wavelength. A fluorescent one returns it somewhere else, so its description is a square matrix — and the curve every instrument reports is that matrix's diagonal with the rest of it folded in at whatever weight the lamp happened to give.

light · Light Two sheets with the same reflectance and two different colours. A brightened sheet and a dyed one built to match it under an instrument with no ultraviolet. Under that instrument the pair agrees to ΔE00 0.00, which is a rounding and is true by construction — the dyed sheet's reflectance is the curve the brightened one measured. Under an instrument that includes the ultraviolet they are 7.1 apart, and under daylight 10.6. This is not ordinary metamerism: the two sheets do not differ in reflectance anywhere the eye can see, so no change of light puts them back together and no adaptation removes the difference. One of them is a curve and the other is an operator.

Two sheets that match until the window

Ordinary metamerism is two reflectances that agree under one light and not another, and it can always be undone by putting the first light back. A dyed sheet and a brightened one have the same reflectance everywhere an eye can see, agree exactly under any lamp with no ultraviolet, and separate by ten units under daylight — and no change of light puts them back together.

scene · Scene The best possible 3×3, and the patches it makes worse. Each row is one patch printed on a brightened sheet, measured under both conditions. The pale bar is how far apart the two measurements are; the dark bar is what is left after the best least-squares 3×3 over the whole set has been applied. It leaves 23 per cent of the mean, and — the part a mean hides — it makes 4 patches worse than doing nothing. The solids are the ones it damages: the ink blocks the ultraviolet, so a solid barely disagrees between the two conditions and the correction has no business touching it. A matrix has no way to apply itself only where the paper is showing.

A tolerance cannot cross a condition

If two measurement conditions disagree by seven units, the obvious repair is a correction matrix fitted between them. The best least-squares 3×3 over seventeen printed patches leaves 23 per cent of the disagreement and makes five patches worse than doing nothing — because the term it is trying to remove is proportional to how much paper is showing, and no linear map on three numbers can express that.

difference · Metric Outside the set of colours a reflecting surface can be. How far each stock sits from the boundary of the object-colour solid, as a fraction of the bound. The line at zero is the boundary: a perfect diffuser sits exactly on it, and every reflectance ever made sits to its left. The pale marker is the sheet measured with the ultraviolet excluded and the dark one with it included. Two of the six cross the line — they are brighter, in a direction that can be written down, than any reflecting surface of their colour could be. This is a proof rather than a hull: for each sample a direction is found in which the largest value any reflectance can reach is computed exactly, and the sample exceeds it.

A white that is not a reflectance

The object-colour solid is the hardest boundary in colorimetry — the set of tristimulus values any reflecting surface can produce, with no assumption about pigments in it at all. A coated press stock under a measurement standard's own lamp sits 1.5 per cent outside it, and a heavily brightened one 4.0, and with the ultraviolet removed both come back inside.

limits · Gamut Which of this collection's own claims survive a change of basis, and which are about the paper. Nine sentences this site says, sorted by whether they mean the same thing after the observer's three curves are replaced by a nonsingular combination of themselves. 5 of the nine do. The four that do not are not thereby wrong — they are statements about a chosen set of coordinates, and they are true of those coordinates. What they cannot be is statements about the eye, which is how every one of them is usually read.

Which of these is a convention

Nine ordinary sentences from this collection, put through one test — do they mean the same thing after the observer's three curves are replaced by a nonsingular combination of themselves? Five survive and four do not, and none of the four is wrong, because each is a statement about a set of coordinates being read as a statement about an eye.

limits · Limits Four cameras that all satisfy the Luther condition exactly. Four sensors whose sensitivities are linear combinations of the colour-matching functions — the theoretical ideal, satisfying the condition to machine precision, each with an adaptation basis that does not move when the light does. They differ only in which linear combination, which the condition does not constrain, and they leave 2.46, 0.97, 1.65, 2.37 ΔE00 after a white balance. The best of them reaches 0.974, which is the best any basis at all achieves. Being a perfect colorimeter costs nothing in adaptation; what costs is the mixing matrix, and the control measured here carries one nobody chose.

The condition chooses no axes

It has long been said here that a sensor satisfying the Luther condition exactly adapts worse than a silicon one, and offered a reason — that its channels are the matching functions, and a gain on those is the oldest mistake in the subject. The measurement was of one sensor. The condition leaves the axes entirely free.

imaging · Capture The same border signal, filled in with a boundary and without one. Two fields, each 6 degrees across. The signal is injected along a ring just inside a contour and varies around it, brightest on one side and dimmest on the other. On the left the signal diffuses and the contour is impermeable: the interior settles to 1.000 against a border mean of 1.000, which is the mean-value property of a harmonic function arriving as a prediction about appearance. On the right the same signal is handed to a Gaussian pool of 0.5°, which has no notion of inside: it reaches 0.040 at the centre, because a kernel weights the near rim more than the far one and a filled region does not.

A pool with an edge

A Gaussian pool says how much of a stabilised image survives and can say nothing about what the remainder looks like, because a Gaussian has no edge. Give the pool a boundary and the interior of a faded region takes the average of its own border — exactly, by the mean value theorem, arriving as a prediction about appearance.

scene · Scene A gap in the wall and a gap in the drive are not the same gap. What the centre of a region settles to under three conditions. With the contour closed it reaches its border's value exactly. Open a 16% hole in the barrier and leave the border signal unbroken and it still reaches it, to 1e-8 — a ring of driven cells encloses the centre whatever the wall outside it is doing, so nothing can escape. Break the signal too and it falls to 0.960. All of what a gap costs is the piece of border that stopped driving, and none of it is the hole.

A gap in the drive, not in the wall

Break the contour around a region and leave its border signal unbroken, and the interior does not move by one part in a million — a ring of driven cells encloses a centre whatever the wall outside it is doing. Break the signal too and the shortfall goes as the square of what is missing. All of what a gap costs is the piece of border that stopped driving.

scene · Scene The same optimum, along its narrowest direction and its widest. The adaptation objective along two straight lines through its own minimum, both of unit length in the nine coefficients. Along one of them the cost rises steeply; along the other the same step costs 8.0 times less, and a design constrained to move that way gives up almost nothing. That is why restricting the nine numbers to be the inverse of three realisable primaries — three degrees of freedom gone — costs about one per cent, while requiring them to hit the three dichromat confusion points costs seventy. Counting what a constraint removes predicts neither number; what matters is which way it points.

A constraint costs what it points at

Three primary chromaticities remove three of the nine numbers in an adaptation basis and cost one per cent. Three dichromat confusion points remove six and cost seventy. Counting what a constraint removes predicts neither, because an optimum is a long bowl and what matters is which way the constraint points.

limits · Limits Two slabs with one reflectance, and two colours through an aperture. Two constructed media whose bulk reflectance agrees at every wavelength to fifteen figures, and whose diffusion lengths differ by a factor of four. The upper curve is that shared reflectance — both slabs lie on it exactly. The two patches on the right are what a 4 millimetre radius returns from each, and they are 6.3 ΔE₀₀ apart. This is a metamerism with no observer in it: the two samples are the same colour to anybody under any light, and the instrument separates them because it is measuring a kernel through a hole rather than measuring a reflectance.

A pair the aperture separates

Two constructed slabs with the same reflectance at every wavelength, to fifteen figures — the same colour to any observer under any light — and 6.25 ΔE₀₀ apart when measured through a four-millimetre aperture. It is a metamerism with no observer in it, no illuminant in it, and no spectral difference to construct it from.

matching · Gamut The two tabulation choices over forty-two surfaces, under a tungsten lamp at 2856 K. Each column is one choice, measured over a family of forty-two analytic reflectances rather than on a single example: an absorption band of stated centre, width and depth. The four marks are the smallest, the median, the ninety-fifth percentile and the largest cost in ΔE₀₀, logarithmically. Under a smooth light the range is worth 6.3 times the step at the median, so a collection wanting one repair should widen its range rather than refine its step — and under a fluorescent tube the ranking reverses outright.

A neutral has no grid

A perfectly flat reflectance computes to exactly the same colour on every wavelength grid, through every slit, at every origin, and for every observer — not nearly, but to the last bit of a floating-point number. The condition is an identity rather than a limit, and what makes it one is the white point.

difference · Metric How far this collection's analytic observer is from the tabulated one. The construction every figure in this family uses is three pigment absorptances through one fitted 3×3, and this is the residual of that fit against the CIE's 1931 functions: root-mean-square error as a percentage of each curve's peak, and the colour difference it produces over forty-two surfaces. The short-wavelength function is the worst at 16.4 per cent, which is where a pigment template is weakest and where the ocular media are doing most of the work. The median colour difference is 1.42 ΔE₀₀, so this is an observer of the right shape rather than a copy of the table — and every departure in this family should be read beside that number rather than against zero.

The reference had to be built

A five-nanometre error cannot be measured with five-nanometre data. Interpolating the tables and integrating finely measures the interpolator, not the grid — so the audit of this collection's index had to be run against an observer made of formulae, and the price of that is a residual of 1.42 ΔE₀₀ that every number in the section is read beside.

limits · Limits The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

A neutral is everyone's colour

Two eyes differing by fifty years of lens yellowing, by a factor of three in macular pigment and by six nanometres of long-wavelength peak agree about a grey card to four parts in ten thousand billion. The agreement is an identity rather than a coincidence, and it says exactly what an observer disagreement is a disagreement about.

eye · Cones The three cone absorptances at two settings of the cone optical density. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of two standard deviations of the reported spread. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 18.8 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

A gain is not an observer

Multiply one eye's three cone sensitivities by 1.6, 0.7 and 2.4 and it is not a different eye. The white-point division is that multiplication's inverse, so the two agree exactly — and most of what a cone optical density change does is that multiplication, which is why the largest number in the table of individual variation is the one that matters least.

eye · Cones The arguments a standard observer does not have. Seven choices inside a set of colour-matching functions, each with the shape it takes and what it is worth in ΔE₀₀ on a red pigment under a 6500 K radiator. Six are measurements: a field size, an age, a macular density, a cone optical density, three peak wavelengths and a rod contribution. The seventh is not — a change of basis is a change of curves and not a change of observer, and its entry is exactly zero because the space an experiment measures is what an observer is. Printing that zero beside the others is the clearest statement of what the other six are measurements of.

Three curves for one space

Rotate a set of colour-matching functions by an arbitrary invertible matrix, undo the rotation at the end, and the computed colour is identical to eight parts in a thousand million million. An observer is a three-dimensional subspace, not a set of curves, and the literature keeps reopening a question that is a theorem.

eye · Cones What choosing a space to divide the white out in is worth. Three pairs of routes to the same colour, over forty-two surfaces: dividing the white out in tristimulus values, in a published cone space, and in the observer's own cones. The first two agree to 0.59 ΔE₀₀ at the median. Either of them differs from the observer's own cones by more than fifteen. That is why the two exact conditions in this round are exact only in the eye's own coordinates: the identity belongs to the receptors, and every published arithmetic works in a basis somebody else chose.

The identity is in the eye's own coordinates

Two conditions in this round are exact — a gain on each cone is not a different observer, and three curves for one space are one observer. Imposed in a published cone space rather than the eye's own they leave 13.0 and 8.11 ΔE₀₀ standing. The identities belong to the physiology and every arithmetic in use works somewhere else.

eye · Cones A departure against how far the sample sits from the light. The sample is mixed with a flat reflectance, from the flat one at the left to its own at the right, and two observers differing in the macular pigment look at each mixture. The straight line is the distance between their relative cone excitations, and it is straight to 0.0 per cent: the departure is a pairing, and scaling one factor scales the product. The curved line is the same sequence in ΔE₀₀, which is not a linear function of the excitations and cannot be — it has cube roots in it and a chroma weighting underneath. The identity is about the eye; the curvature belongs to the unit.

A departure is straight in the excitations

Walk a sample a quarter of the way from the light towards its own reflectance and exactly a quarter of the observer disagreement remains — in cone excitations, to two parts in a hundred. In ΔE₀₀ the same quarter leaves 0.347 where proportionality wants 0.428, and the discrepancy belongs entirely to the unit.

difference · Metric What this collection's grid does to its own observer audit. Two bars per light: the mean departure of the observer computed on this collection's five-nanometre grid, and the same computation on a quarter-nanometre one. For five of the six lights the two agree to two decimal places, which is what a well-sampled spectrum looks like. For the laser projector the coarse answer is exactly zero and the fine one is 1.80 — the largest in the table. On a five-nanometre grid a three-line spectrum with lines at 465, 532 and 638 nanometres is a one-line spectrum, and a single wavelength is a stimulus every observer agrees about to the last bit. The two departures do not compound here; the first conceals the second.

One wavelength is everyone's colour

A stimulus with a single wavelength in it produces the same relative cone excitations for every observer, exactly, whatever their age or field size. A display made of three such stimuli is where observers disagree most. Both statements are consequences of the same algebra, and the second is why laser projection has an observer problem.

matching · Gamut The directional solver reduces to the radiosity solver exactly. A solver with a new unknown in it is worth nothing until it reproduces the one it replaces. Setting every wall's bidirectional distribution to ρ/π collapses all thirty ordered-pair radiances onto their patch's radiosity divided by π, and the answer agrees with this collection's existing radiosity solution to 9.8e-16 relative — the floating-point floor. That is the check that makes every other number in this family a statement about lobes rather than about a new piece of arithmetic, and it is the reason the reduction is drawn rather than mentioned.

Thirty unknowns instead of six

A directional transport solver is worth nothing until it reproduces the one it replaces. Setting every wall's bidirectional distribution to ρ over π collapses thirty ordered-pair radiances onto six radiosities and reproduces this collection's existing answer to 9.8 × 10⁻¹⁶ relative — which is the only reason anything else it says can be believed.

scene · Scene The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

Two observers and one metamer

An observer departure is invisible on a single sample compared with nothing. It becomes a disagreement the moment two spectra are being asked to match, because a match is an identity between three integrals and a different observer takes different integrals. Everything in this round is a statement about pairs wearing a single sample's clothes.

eye · Cones The pairing against the direct computation, for each departure that admits both. Each departure can be computed twice: directly, by taking the difference between the fuller model and the integral one, and as a pairing — an inner product of the sample's deviation with the light's. The bar is how far apart the two answers are, relative to the answer, on a logarithmic axis. The three directional rows agree to a part in a thousand billion, which is the arithmetic of one shared quadrature. The lateral row agrees to three parts in a hundred thousand, and the gap there is the radial quadrature rather than the identity: the two integrals are taken over different grids. The pairing is not an approximation to the departure. It is the departure, written so that its two factors are separate.

Three audits and one shape

The tabulation, the observer and the scene solver have nothing in common as subjects. Each turned out to hold a departure that is a pairing of two deviations, vanishes exactly when either is empty, and had been invisible because its parameter had no call site. Three subjects, one shape, and the shape is the round's result.

limits · Limits The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

The conditions are the result

The round measured about twenty departures and established ten conditions. The departures are numbers that depend on a sample, a light and a construction; the conditions are exact, they hold under every substitution tried, and they are what a reader can act on. A size is a measurement and a condition is a mechanism.

limits · Limits

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Chromatic adaptationAdaptationStandard observerIndividual variationSpecificationThe von Kries transformInvarianceReflectanceIlluminantCone fundamentalsMeasurement errorMetamerism

All concepts