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

CAT16 — where it appears

The chromatic adaptation transform inside the current appearance model, and a set of axes for a von Kries gain. It is fitted to corresponding-colour data containing several kinds of light, which makes it optimal for none of them in particular.

Named by 23 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Four adaptation transforms, measured against CAT16 (D65 to D50). Twenty-seven colours moved from D65 to D50 by each transform, compared with the current recommendation. Bars are the worst disagreement in CIELAB, the number beside each is the mean. Plain XYZ scaling — still shipping, still called von Kries by people who have not read von Kries — misses by up to ΔE 13.7, which is many times any tolerance a supplier would be held to.

Four ways to move a white point

Every chromatic adaptation transform is the same three lines with a different matrix. The matrices disagree by more than any tolerance a supplier is held to, and the oldest one — still shipping, still called von Kries — is not a cone basis at all.

brain · Appearance An afterimage, as the local pool coming back to equilibrium. The local pool has adapted to the patch and the global pool has not, so the gain change is exactly the local share of a full von Kries change — which is why afterimage's free strength parameter is not free here. The dwell is 20 seconds. The swatches are the predicted appearance of the test surface at four moments. They are predictions of hue and direction; there is no response compression in this model, so the chroma is a ceiling rather than an estimate.

A gain has a time constant

An afterimage and the clock on chromatic adaptation were built in different files from what the last phase said was one mechanism. Joining them removes a free parameter, reproduces both, and predicts a third thing — that two people in one room, at one moment, looking at one patch, do not agree about its colour.

brain · Appearance 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 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 Where each published matrix puts the confusion points, whether or not it meant to. Every matrix from tristimulus values to cone responses commits itself to three confusion points, because the point is the direction the other two rows annihilate. The first row is the construction from the measured points and returns them exactly. The rest were chosen for other reasons and land elsewhere — Hunt–Pointer–Estévez, which this collection uses everywhere, misses the deuteranope's point by 1.28 in chromaticity. The worst here is 4.09.

The cones an appearance model uses

CIECAM16 adapts in three axes whose rows are labelled L, M and S, and they were fitted to corresponding-colour experiments rather than measured on receptors. Run the dichromat construction backwards on them and they commit to a deuteranope confusion point 1.45 away in chromaticity from the measured one — which is a test the axes were never asked to pass.

brain · Appearance Four different bases, one adaptation model, one number. The middle row of the basis built from the confusion points multiplied by 0.21, 1, 3.7 and 11 in turn, with the resulting adaptation residual drawn as a bar in each case. The four bars are the same height to 9e-16 of a ΔE00, because the row's scale cancels exactly between the gain and the inverse. Three of the nine numbers a colour match leaves free are invisible to an adaptation model, which is why the six the dichromat data supply determine it outright with nothing left to fit.

The three numbers a gain cannot see

Colour matching leaves nine numbers free. Three dichromat confusion points fix six of them and three choices of unit fix the rest — and it turns out that a von Kries gain is exactly blind to those last three. So the dichromat data do not merely constrain an adaptation basis. They determine it, with nothing left over to fit.

eye · Cones How cone-like a basis is, against how well it adapts. Each basis placed by how far its own implied deuteranope confusion point falls from the measured one (horizontal) and by how much an adapted observer is left with in it (vertical). The construction from the confusion points sits at zero on the horizontal by definition and near the top on the vertical. Nothing near the left of the picture is near the bottom: the closer a basis is to the receptors, the more a von Kries gain leaves behind. The unconstrained winner sits at 1.63 on the horizontal, further from the measurement than any published transform except CAT02 and Bradford.

The best axes are not receptors

If the axes that make a von Kries gain work were nearly the cone fundamentals, the published adaptation transforms would be cone-like and their departures would be slack in a fit. They are not. Minimise the residual over all nine free numbers and the winner sits further from the measured dichromat confusion points than any of them.

eye · Cones Every basis against both objectives at once. A scatter with the mean adaptation residual across the illumination census on the horizontal axis and the mean axis ratio of MacAdam's ellipses in a lightness–chroma space on the vertical. Lower is better on both. The two winners sit at the two ends of an empty diagonal: the basis that adapts best leaves 7.70 on the vertical and the basis that discriminates best leaves 1.79 on the horizontal, each worse on the other objective than every published transform. The basis built from the dichromat confusion points is at (1.65, 2.60) — best at neither and within a factor of two of both floors, which no other entry in the picture manages.

No basis is good at both

The same nine numbers decide how well a von Kries gain reproduces a change of light and how nearly a lightness–chroma space makes the discrimination ellipses circles. Minimise either one and the other collapses. The basis built from the receptors is best at neither and is the only entry in the table respectable at both.

brain · Appearance How far from circles every basis leaves the ellipses. Eight bases ranked on the mean ratio of the long to the short axis of MacAdam's twenty-five discrimination ellipses, measured in a lightness–chroma space built on that basis. The range runs from 1.61 for best for discrimination to 7.70 for best for adaptation. The ordering is not the ordering on the other objective and is nearly its reverse.

One matrix doing two jobs

CIECAM16 adapts in CAT16 and then applies its response compression in the same axes, so a single matrix decides both how well the model handles a change of light and how uniform the space it produces is. The two jobs have different best answers, and the matrix was chosen against only one of them.

brain · Appearance Every change of light in the census, under three bases. Fourteen changes of illumination, each drawn three times: the residual left by a gain in the basis built from the dichromat confusion points, in CAT16, and in the basis that minimises the average. The ordering between the three is the same on nearly every row, and — the part an average hides — the worst row is the same row for every basis nobody fitted, which is two bounces off the same wall. The difficulty belongs to the change rather than to the choice of axes — except for the fitted winner, whose worst row is D65 to a triphosphor tube instead. What a fit buys is not a uniform improvement; it is the abandonment of the one change everybody else is beaten by.

Which changes of light pay for it

A fitted adaptation basis beats the receptors by 0.68 units on average, and an average is a poor description of what it does. On six of fourteen changes of light it is worse, and the whole of its advantage comes from four — a tungsten lamp and three coloured walls.

light · Light Every change of light in the census, under three bases. Fourteen changes of illumination, each drawn three times: the residual left by a gain in the basis built from the dichromat confusion points, in CAT16, and in the basis that minimises the average. The ordering between the three is the same on nearly every row, and — the part an average hides — the worst row is the same row for every basis nobody fitted, which is two bounces off the same wall. The difficulty belongs to the change rather than to the choice of axes — except for the fitted winner, whose worst row is D65 to a triphosphor tube instead. What a fit buys is not a uniform improvement; it is the abandonment of the one change everybody else is beaten by.

Everyone is beaten by the same wall

Eight candidate adaptation bases, fourteen changes of light, and seven of the eight have their worst row in the same place — not a lamp, but a green wall reflecting twice. The one that does not is the one that was fitted, and what its fit bought was permission to give up on that row.

light · Light The cheapest direction to give ground in is the flattest one. Six bars, one per direction the adaptation objective can see, showing how much of the other objective a fixed budget of adaptation buys if it is spent along that direction. The rate is the slope of the second objective divided by the square root of the first's curvature, so it rewards a direction the second objective wants and punishes one the first is stiff in. The flattest direction wins at 10.68 against 3.29 for the next best and 0.54 for the stiffest — a factor of 20. Spending 1 per cent of the adaptation optimum there moves the anisotropy from 7.70 to 5.02.

The trade only runs one way

Standing at the basis that adapts best, one per cent of adaptation buys forty-four per cent of the way to the discrimination floor. Standing at the basis that discriminates best, the same one per cent buys under two. The scatter that shows two objectives pulling apart looks symmetric and is not, and the asymmetry is what a committee choosing between them would most want to know.

brain · Appearance Best on the average, undefined at the edge. Two rows of bars sharing one set of labels. On the left, each adaptation basis's mean residual over the fourteen changes of light the census lists — Bradford is the shortest bar at 1.14 ΔE00 and is what colour management uses. On the right, the same bases against the worst change the same family of painted rooms can produce. Three of the five have no bar there at all, marked instead with the gain that replaced it: under a deep narrow notch their reading of the white passes through zero, so the diagonal is a division by nothing and the model stops being defined rather than merely doing badly. Bradford's middle gain reaches -1.0e+19. CAT16, which exists because CAT02 was withdrawn for going negative in practice, is one of the two that survives.

Best on the average, undefined at the edge

Bradford has the lowest mean residual of any adaptation transform over the census of illumination changes, which is why colour management uses it. Inside the family that census was drawn from, its middle row's reading of the white passes through zero — so the gain is a division by nothing, and the model stops being defined rather than merely doing badly. CAT16, which exists because its predecessor did this, does not.

applied · Delivery What the confusion points charge, across a population. A histogram of 200 members of a population of eyes, each scored by what the adaptation basis their own confusion points determine leaves after the gain. It runs from 1.22 to 2.24 ΔE00 with a median of 1.78. Vertical marks show the unconstrained floor at 0.97, the published transforms, and the single observer this site quotes at 1.65. The distribution straddles Hunt–Pointer–Estévez and reaches below CAT16: 18 per cent of members are better served by their own receptors than by a matrix built to make a gain behave, and 2 per cent than by the current recommendation.

The price is also the person

The receptor construction costs seventy per cent above the unconstrained floor, which is a number usually quoted as a property of the construction. Propagated across a population of eyes it runs from a quarter above the floor to a hundred and thirty per cent above it, and the population's own spread is wider than the entire gap between the published transforms the seventy per cent was being compared against.

limits · Limits How far a fitted transform is from anybody's eyes. Five groups of three bars: for each published adaptation transform, the distance from the population's own cloud to the confusion point that transform is committed to, measured in the population's standard deviations on that point. On the protanope's point every one of them is between 2.2 and 14.4 out, and on the deuteranope's between 3.7 and 11.8. On the tritanope's, 5 of the five are within three standard deviations — indistinguishable from a member of the population. The claim that these matrices are not cone responses is safe, and the evidence for it is two points out of three.

Two points out of three

Every published adaptation transform implies three dichromat confusion points, whether or not it was fitted to any. Measured in the population's own standard deviations they are two to fourteen out on the protanope's point and four to twelve on the deuteranope's — and between half a standard deviation and two and a half on the tritanope's, which is inside the population. The claim that these matrices are not cone responses is safe. The evidence for it is two points.

matching · Gamut Every adaptation number here assumes a complete adaptation. Three curves and their mean: the colour difference an adapted observer is left with after a change of light, against the degree of adaptation from zero — no adaptation at all — to one. Every adaptation figure in this collection is computed at one, the right-hand end. The appearance model's own formula puts the degree at 0.941 for an average surround at a hundred candelas, marked, where the residual is 2.21 ΔE00 rather than 1.27 — larger by a factor of 1.74. The left-hand end is exactly the unadapted change, which is not an approximation but an identity, and is what says the curve interpolates between the two things it claims to.

A discount nobody measured

Every adaptation number in this collection assumes an observer who adapts completely. The appearance model's own formula says they do not — it puts the degree at 0.94 in an ordinary room — and the difference is not a rounding. It is a factor of 1.7 on the residual every one of those figures reports.

brain · Appearance The winner survives the census's own construction; the middle of it does not. One row per perturbation of a constant the adaptation census is built from — the imaginary wall's centre wavelength, its width, its depth, its base, the macular filter's density and the two lens ages — each moved by an amount plausible for that quantity in its own units, up and down, and then all of them together. Each row shows where the five published transforms rank under it. Bradford holds the first column in all 14 rows. The second and third columns, which the table as built separates by six parts in a thousand, change places in 2 of them — so that ordering was never a fact about the transforms.

The census is a construction too

Five of the fourteen changes of light this collection scores adaptation transforms against are not measurements of anything — they are a wall somebody invented, at a wavelength somebody chose. Moving those constants by amounts plausible in their own units moves the mean residual by two fifths and never changes which transform wins.

light · Light At a published matrix the slope arrives long before the bowl. One row per basis in this collection's table. Each row is a logarithmic axis of distance in the nine coefficients, with two markers: the radius at which the objective's curvature becomes as large as its slope, and the distance from that basis to the optimum. The first is between 3.2 and 108 per cent of the second. So over almost the whole journey from a published matrix to the best one, the surface is a slope and not a bowl — and a table of eigenvalues taken there describes a neighbourhood the optimum is nowhere near. XYZ scaling is the exception, at 1.08 of the distance, because its slope is the steepest in the table.

The slope arrives before the bowl

The adaptation transforms colour management actually uses are not optima of anything. At every one of them the objective has a slope, and the slope is the larger term over almost the whole distance to the best matrix — so a table of curvatures taken there describes a bowl nobody meets on the way anywhere.

applied · Delivery Downhill from every published matrix, one step at a time. Each curve is a steepest-descent walk from one of this collection's published bases, plotted as the objective against the distance walked in the nine coefficients. The horizontal line is the optimum. The first step of each walk is the long one — XYZ scaling closes 41 per cent of its whole gap in one — and every walk then flattens without reaching the line, because the valley floor is nearly flat and the steepest direction is nearly across it. Bradford starts closest and closes least: it is already in the flat part.

Downhill from a published matrix

Walking steepest descent from each adaptation transform in use closes between a quarter and nine tenths of its distance to the best one, and most of that in the first step. The direction it sets off in is eighty to eighty-seven degrees away from the answer, and that turns out not to be an artefact of the three directions nothing can see.

applied · Delivery 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 Each departure over forty-two surfaces rather than one. The same six departures measured over a family of forty-two analytic reflectances — an absorption band of stated centre, width and depth — with the smallest, the median, the ninety-fifth percentile and the largest marked. Every one of them spans more than a factor of three, and the ranking between them is not stable across the family: what decides a departure's size is which sample it is asked about, because a departure is a pairing and the sample is one of the two factors. Quoting any single number for what an observer's age is worth is quoting a choice of example.

The census under another observer

This collection's largest computed result is an adaptation census — fourteen changes of light judged over a hundred and twenty-five constructed surfaces. Every number in it was computed through one observer, and the observer's own departures are between one and two and a half units on the same surfaces, which is the size of the effects the census reports.

brain · Appearance 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 appearance model takes XYZ

CIECAM16 predicts how a colour looks, and its input is three tristimulus values computed through a standard observer. Everything this round measures happens before the model is called, so an appearance prediction inherits six observer departures and a choice of cone space before it begins.

brain · Appearance

Named alongside it

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

Chromatic adaptationThe von Kries transformBasisCone fundamentalsIlluminantAdaptationThe Bradford transformCIECAM16White pointColour appearanceColour constancyStandard observer

All concepts