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

Bidirectional reflectance — where it appears

How much light a surface returns in one direction for light arriving from another, as a function of both. Every single number quoted as a reflectance is this function integrated against a weight the instrument or the room chose, and the weights differ enough that two correct readings disagree.

Named by 14 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The six arguments a surface's response has, and the one this model keeps. A surface's response to light is a function of six arguments: the wavelength, direction and place the light arrives with, and the wavelength, direction and place it leaves with. The model every colour here is computed from keeps one number per wavelength, which means it takes the diagonal of the first pair, integrates the second away, and assumes the third pair equal. Each departure drawn here restores one of them. The fourth departure is not on the diagram: the wavelength grid is the range of the index that was kept rather than an index that was dropped, which is why it is the cheapest of the four to fix and was still not fixed.

The model has six arguments

Every colour computed here is an integral of a reflectance against a light against three curves, and a reflectance is one number per wavelength. A real surface's response is a function of six arguments — the wavelength, direction and place light arrives with, and the three it leaves with — so the model keeps one of them, takes a diagonal, integrates two away and assumes two more equal.

limits · Limits Eight conditions under which the model equation is exact, and how exact each one is. Each of the four departures vanishes if either of its two factors is empty, which is eight conditions. The axis is logarithmic in the residual that is left when the condition is imposed. Three of the eight are identities: the fluorophore's loading is zero so the emitted term is an empty sum, and a Lambertian surface or a uniform field makes the pairing's second argument identically zero. The other five are limits — a Gaussian excitation band has no edge, an opaque sample still has a kernel a few microns wide, a four-metre aperture is still finite, and the observer is small rather than absent at 380 nanometres. Each limit is drawn with the sequence its residual falls along as the condition is pushed, because a small number is not evidence of a limit and a falling sequence is.

Either factor being zero

Four different departures from the colour integral turn out to have one algebraic form — each is an inner product of something the sample does that the model has no slot for with something the light does that the model assumed away. Either factor being zero makes the departure exactly zero, and the sizes of the two factors decide neither how large it is nor which way it goes.

limits · Limits Five fields, by how much light arrives from each elevation. The radiance arriving at a surface from each direction in one vertical plane, for five ways of lighting it. The vertical axis is logarithmic, spanning the three decades between a sun and the sky around it. The number beside each name is the share of the light that would have to be moved to make the field uniform: zero for the overcast sky, 0.93 for a lamp on a stand. A uniform field is the condition under which a reading is the sample's own reflectance, and the only place it exists is inside an instrument.

A room is not a sphere

An integrating sphere reads a surface's own reflectance exactly, and the exactness is a theorem rather than good engineering — under a hemisphere of constant radiance, reciprocity makes the reading the sample's directional-hemispherical reflectance whatever the surface is. Every room fails that condition, and a viewing booth and a window get the sign of the error wrong in opposite directions.

scene · Scene Four departures from the model equation, each at an ordinary strength. What each of the four assumptions inside a colour integral costs, in ΔE₀₀, on a stated sample under a stated light. The wavelength index is a coated printing paper measured with and without the ultraviolet of D50; the range is the same paper integrated from 300 nanometres and from 380; the place index is a pigmented plastic through a four-millimetre radius; the direction index is an eggshell paint beside a window. The spread is a factor of 7.0. This is a ranking of four examples rather than of four departures — each of them can be made larger by choosing a more extreme sample, and the marble in the same collection of materials reaches 12.7 on the index that comes third here.

Which index to buy an instrument for

Four departures from the colour integral, ranked by what they cost and by what it would take to remove each one. The ranking by cost and the ranking by price are almost exactly reversed — the two largest are removed by specifying a lamp and by widening a table, and the two that need new hardware are the two smallest.

applied · Delivery What the Lambertian assumption costs a room, against how rough its walls are. The horizontal axis is the roughness of the two coloured walls; the right-hand end is nearly matt, which is what a radiosity calculation assumes. One line is the distance in ΔE₀₀ between the floor's colour and what radiosity gives for the same room — 4.89 at an eggshell finish, falling to 0.97 at the matt end. The other is the chroma of the bounce, which falls as the walls get glossier: what an interface returns is a Fresnel reflection and carries no pigment, so the fraction of the return that goes into the lobe is a fraction that arrives at the floor white. The lobe is taken out of the body term rather than added beside it, which is what a real finish does.

The solver had no slot for gloss

Every scene result in this collection is computed by radiosity, and radiosity is not an approximation that could be made more accurate. Its unknown is one number per surface, and a surface that returns light differently in different directions does not have one. A missing slot cannot be wrong by a small amount.

scene · Scene 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 What the floor receives, matt walls against walls of roughness 0.2. The spectral radiance leaving the floor towards the front of the room, computed twice. The matt curve peaks at 530 nanometres, where the walls' pigment is. The glossy curve is higher everywhere and higher by relatively more away from that peak, because the extra light is a Fresnel return and a Fresnel return has the lamp's spectrum rather than the paint's. That difference in shape is the desaturation, drawn before it is reduced to a number, and it is the reason the two lines cannot be brought together by any exposure change.

A lobe takes colour out of a bounce

A gloss wall sends more light to the floor and less colour. The extra light is a Fresnel reflection at the interface, it carries the lamp's spectrum rather than the paint's, and it arrives at the next surface white — so a green room in satin paint is less green than the same room in flat paint by nearly a colour difference of chroma.

scene · Scene Where the viewer stands, at a wall roughness of 0.2. The chroma of the light the floor sends towards each of the five other faces of the room, at one roughness. The spread is 2.00 ΔE₀₀ between the extremes. A radiosity solution assigns one radiosity to the floor and therefore cannot have a spread at all — the whole width of this chart is a quantity the method has no slot for, rather than one it approximates badly. The two side walls see the most because they are where the coloured light comes from, and the direction the lobe favours is the direction it came from.

The floor is a different colour from the door

With a lobe on the walls the floor sends chroma 18.76 towards the front of the room and 20.94 towards the side walls, a spread of two colour differences. A radiosity solution assigns the floor one number, so the whole of that spread is a quantity the method has no slot for rather than one it estimates badly.

scene · Scene Two ways of putting a lobe on a wall, and the sign they disagree about. The chroma of the floor's return against the wall's roughness, computed twice. In one the interface's return is taken out of the body term — light reflected at the boundary never reaches the pigment, which is what a real finish does. In the other it is added beside the body term, which is what a microfacet model does if nobody couples the two. The first says a gloss wall makes the room less coloured and the second says more, and the gap at the glossiest end is 2.87 units of chroma. Neither is a numerical error; the difference is a modelling decision that is usually made by omission.

Two ways to put a lobe on a wall

Take the interface's return out of the body term and a gloss wall makes the room less colourful. Add it beside the body term and the same wall makes the room more colourful. Same solver, same room, one line of energy accounting, and the two answers differ by nearly three units of chroma at the glossy end.

scene · Scene Where a point-sampled patch stops resolving a lobe. The horizontal axis is the wall's roughness, logarithmic; the vertical is how far the answer moves when the cone quadrature is refined from eight directions to sixteen, also logarithmic. A patch in a cube subtends a cone of angular radius 25.8° at the face opposite, and a microfacet lobe of roughness a is about a radians wide, so a lobe below about 0.15 is narrower than the quadrature that samples it. The movement at 0.05 is 21.2 ΔE₀₀ and at 0.3 it is 0.033. This is where the method stops, not where the paint does: matt, eggshell and satin finishes are inside it and a high-gloss varnish is not.

Where a patch stops being a point

A patch in a cube subtends a cone of 25.8° at the face opposite. A microfacet lobe of roughness 0.05 is about three degrees wide. Point-sampling the second inside the first returned a chroma of thirty-four thousand and a negative lightness, and the boundary between working and not working is measured rather than declared.

limits · Limits The room's reflected light and its colour, against how glossy the walls are. Four changes against the matt room as the coloured walls are made glossier, from roughness 0.8 on the left to 0.15 on the right. The room's reflected light rises by up to 19 per cent and its chroma falls by up to 9.1 per cent. The walls' own outgoing chroma falls fastest, by 14.6 per cent, and the floor's follows the room's. A lobe does not move colour from one face to another: the room as a whole has less of it.

A gloss finish takes colour out of the whole room

A gloss wall makes the floor's return less colourful seen from the front of a room and more colourful seen from the coloured walls, which leaves open whether the lobe removes colour or only moves it. A ledger of every flux between the room's faces answers it. At an eggshell finish the room's reflected light gains 16 per cent in quantity and loses 8.3 per cent of its chroma, and the loss is nearly the same for blue, green and orange walls while the walls' own losses range from 13 to 25 per cent. Only the painted walls receive light as colourful as before.

scene · Scene The glossiest finish the solver can report, against what it costs to report it. Six quadratures, each with the roughness at which its answer stops being stable, on logarithmic axes. The line is a fit and its slope is -0.350: the reachable roughness falls as the cost to the power of about a third, so reaching a finish twice as glossy costs about 7 times the work. The solver used here sits at 108 directions and reports down to a roughness of 0.145, which is where its own note put the boundary by inspection.

The boundary belongs to the quadrature

The directional solver stops at a roughness of about 0.15, and below that its answers are not imprecise but unphysical. The boundary is where the lobe stops being resolved by the sampling, so it belongs to the discretisation rather than to the room — and moving it is a purchase. Measured across six quadratures the reachable roughness falls as the cost to the power of a third, so a finish twice as glossy costs seven times the work and a polished varnish costs two hundred and thirty-six times.

scene · Scene What survives holding the lightness still. For each of five groups of rooms sorted by how much light the wall returns, the rank correlation of the finish's share with three properties of the paint, taken with the wall's luminance factor held. The wall's chroma runs from -0.90 among the darkest walls to 0.81 among the palest, crossing zero in the middle — the reversal. The band's width, which was the predicted mechanism, never leaves the range -0.15 to 0.22, and the census already contains four families whose bands are all the same width.

The finish adds the room's own colour

Among dark walls a more saturated paint loses a smaller share of its colour to a gloss finish, and among pale walls a larger one. The mechanism proposed for that reversal was spectral concentration — a narrow tall band — and the census that found it already contained four families of paints whose bands are all the same width. Holding lightness still, the band's width orders the losses at a rank correlation of 0.01. What does order them is that the light a finish adds has already bounced off the walls.

scene · Scene Where chroma stops protecting a wall, in five rooms. The seventy-two paints in each of five rooms, sorted by how much light the wall returns and read in overlapping windows of eighteen: the rank correlation of the share of colour a satin finish takes with the wall's chroma, lightness held. Below zero a more saturated paint loses less; above, more. The dots are where each room's curve crosses: cube at 0.36, corridor at 0.37, low room at 0.38, one wall open at 0.29, two walls open at 0.24. Solid lines are closed rooms of three shapes; dashed are the cube with one and two walls opened.

An open room hands over sooner

A gloss finish takes the least colour from a saturated dark wall and the most from a saturated pale one, and in a closed cube the sign changes at a wall returning about a third of the light. The prediction was that a less enclosed room would move that point up the lightness scale and that a room with a window would have no pale end. Opening one wall moves it down, from a luminance factor of 0.36 to 0.29, and opening a second to 0.24; stretching the room into a corridor or flattening it nudges it slightly up. The ambient does whiten, as predicted. A whiter ambient does not delay the colour term — it weakens it, so the other term takes over sooner.

scene · Scene

Named alongside it

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

SpecularRadiosityInterreflectionModelling assumptionAlbedoChromaQuadratureReflectanceStructural choiceAuditColour bleedingConvergence

All concepts