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

Corresponding colours — where it appears

Pairs of stimuli, under two different lights, that a person judges to look the same. They are the data every published chromatic-adaptation transform was fitted to, which is why those transforms are best described as the axes a diagonal model works in rather than as receptor sensitivities.

Named by 7 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 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 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 One grey scale, three backgrounds. CIECAM16's lightness against the luminance factor of a neutral sample, with only the background changed. A grey reflecting 19% reads 46.7 on a near-black background and 32.8 on a near-white one. The three curves are not three shapes: each is the same curve raised to a different power, because the background reaches lightness only through the exponent z, which runs 1.621 to 2.374 across the three.

A dark background moves every difference and no match

CIECAM16's background is one number, and it reaches lightness as one exponent. That is enough to change what a grey looks like and not enough to change which of two greys is lighter — so a match survives the background exactly, a corresponding colour is invariant to it, and a tolerance is not. The effect the background is usually invoked to explain is absent from the model entirely.

brain · Appearance A crispening term puts the peak where the background is. How much lightness the model returns for a small change in the sample's level, against the sample's level measured as a log ratio to the background's — so that all three backgrounds share one axis and a peak at the background is a peak at zero. The pale curves are CIECAM16 as it stands, which has no peak anywhere: they rise slowly and monotonically because a background that enters as four constants fixed before the sample arrives cannot know where the sample sits relative to it. The solid curves are the same model with a term of amplitude 6 and width 0.5 added to lightness. Each peaks at zero to within 0.000 of a log unit, and the peak's height is 12.00 lightness units per log unit of level — the amplitude divided by the width, exactly.

The cancellation is exact and cheap to lose

CIECAM16 has no crispening, and adding one was expected to be expensive: the background's exactness in a corresponding colour comes from its being a common exponent, and a function of the sample's own level is not one. It is expensive in kind and not in size. A term that raises a straddling pair's lightness difference by half moves a corresponding colour by five thousandths of a tristimulus unit — a thousandth of what stating the background differently at the two ends already costs.

brain · Appearance Which two lamps to stand a mesopic match between. Every pair of the five lights, by how far a match made under one and set under the other moves as the rod signal's weight into the S channel goes from nothing to equal — the median over forty-two surfaces, which is the signal an experiment has to resolve. The best pair is daylight against phosphor LED at 0.58 ΔE₀₀; the worst is tungsten against fluorescent tube at 0.09, a factor of 6. The count at the right is how many settings it takes to resolve the weight to a tenth at half a colour difference of scatter per setting.

The reference lamp must not move

To measure an uncertain weight, use the condition in which the answer depends on it most. That is right about half of an asymmetric colour match and exactly wrong about the other half: a match measures a difference of two displacements, and a reference field that also moves with the weight cancels the signal the test field carries. Daylight is the least sensitive of five lamps and belongs in every one of the three best pairs — 75 settings against a phosphor LED, 2,804 against the pair of lamps the principle as stated would have chosen.

eye · Cones How far a mesopic match moves as the S weight opens: two rooms against one field. For every pair of the five lamps, the median over forty-two surfaces of how far a match moves as the rod signal's weight into the S channel goes from nothing to equal: pale for the two-room match, each half adapted to its own lamp; dark for a bipartite field whose two halves share one adaptation. The field's signal is larger for every pair, by ×1.5 to ×7.7.

One field keeps what two rooms divide out

An asymmetric match can measure how strongly the rods feed the blue-yellow pathway, but set with the observer adapted to each lamp in turn it needs seventy-five settings on the best pair of lamps and hours of waiting between them. Putting the two lamps on the two halves of one field was proposed as the quick version, at the cost of a weaker signal. The signal is not weaker. Under one shared adaptation it is three times stronger for daylight against a white LED, and the best pair needs six settings. The adaptation that makes the slow version slow is also what was dividing the rods' contribution out of each half.

eye · Cones

Named alongside it

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

Chromatic adaptationCone fundamentalsModelling assumptionCIECAM16Colour appearanceIdentifiabilityViewing conditionCAT16Colour differenceCrispeningInvarianceLightness

All concepts