ΔE — where it appears
Named by 84 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
How far apart are two colours
ΔE is meant to be a distance with the property that the same number means the same perceived difference everywhere. Three successive formulae have tried, they disagree with each other by more than a just-noticeable difference, and the disagreement decides real matching questions.
MacAdam measured it
In a perceptually uniform space the just-noticeable-difference contours would be circles of equal size. MacAdam's ellipses are neither, by a factor of eighty — and transforming them into each candidate space settles which spaces improved matters and by how much.
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.
Two spectra, one colour
Metamerism is usually described and almost never demonstrated. It does not have to be — the metameric black space is enormous, so a matching pair can be constructed to order, verified, and then made to come apart by changing the light.
A threshold is not a unit
MacAdam measured the smallest difference anyone could detect. ΔE2000 was fitted to how far apart plainly different colours look. The two are quoted interchangeably, and the contours they produce are not even the same shape.
A tolerance is a shape
A total colour difference below one, or every component within one — the two sound like the same requirement stated twice. They are different shapes, they disagree about most of what either accepts, and which one a supplier is held to is worth money.
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.
What the instrument reports
A spectrophotometer sees a sample through a slit of finite width, at a finite number of wavelengths. What it writes down is the truth convolved with its own bandpass, and nothing in the file says which values were measured and which were invented.
How many colours are there
Sixteen point seven million counts code values in a file format. Ten million distinguishable colours is a volume divided by the size of a just-noticeable difference — and the two difference formulae this site implements disagree about that size by a factor of nearly five.
Where the formula is not smooth
A colour difference formula is a distance, and a distance ought to vary gently. CIEDE2000's does not everywhere — it carries a hue-rotation term with a hard edge in it, and the discontinuity sits where a great many industrial samples live.
Two paints that stop matching
A metameric match is an identity between three integrals that are linear in reflectance. A second bounce carries reflectance squared, and no linear identity survives being squared — so two paints certified identical on a flat chart come apart in a corner, by an amount the geometry decides and the colorimetry cannot express.
Rendering in three numbers
Almost every renderer ever shipped bounces red, green and blue rather than a spectrum. The error that costs is exactly zero at the first product and grows at every one after it — because three numbers cannot carry a product they were never given the factors of, and each bounce is another product.
Paint is not a filter
Stacking two filters multiplies their transmittances. Stirring two pigments together does not multiply their reflectances, because a mixture is one scattering layer rather than two in series — light meets whichever particle is nearest. Treating the two as the same operation is a 15-unit error, and which way it errs turns out to depend on whether the comparison holds the amount of pigment fixed.
A colour that moves with the viewer
A thin film has no pigment in it. Its reflectance spectrum is an interference condition containing a path length and an angle, so tilting the sample moves every maximum to a shorter wavelength and changes the colour by 40 units of ΔE. A pigment's spectrum contains neither, and cannot do this at all — which is the cleanest separation between the two kinds of colour there is, and it is geometric rather than chemical.
A scene has no white point
White balance is one transform applied to a whole image, and a scene lit by two lamps has no single answer for that transform to be. The failure is structural rather than a matter of a better estimator — and every colour-managed workflow in existence takes exactly one white point as an input, with no field in which to say there were two.
Gloss changes the measurement
The same sample measured with the specular component included and excluded returns two different numbers, and both are correct answers to different questions. Colour is one of four appearance attributes and the only one most instruments report — so a specification that names a colour has silently named a geometry too, and usually does not say which.
The camera has its own metamers
Two surfaces a camera records as identical can be plainly different to a person, and two a person cannot tell apart can be recorded as different. Both pairs are constructed rather than found, from one projection, used for both.
A camera profile is a fit
Since no matrix is exact, the one a manufacturer ships is a least-squares compromise over a set of surfaces somebody chose. Fitted on desaturated patches it is excellent on desaturated patches — and the sample set is a hidden argument to every camera profile in existence.
No matrix is right everywhere
The best three-by-three this sensor admits, fitted and tested on the same twenty-four surfaces, leaves a worst case of ΔE00 2.85. A control sensor built to satisfy Luther's condition reaches ten to the minus seven under the identical computation, which is what makes the first number a measurement.
Correcting colour costs noise
The matrix that turns a sensor's raw into XYZ has large off-diagonal terms of both signs, because that is what correcting a sensor which fails Luther's condition requires. Differences of large numbers are where noise grows, and the full correction amplifies photon noise by 1.66 times.
Five nanometres is a choice
Every integral here is taken in five-nanometre steps, and the interval has never had to be defended. Coarsening it to twenty costs daylight two hundredths of a colour difference and a fluorescent tube six and a half — and which way of coarsening is used decides a further factor of six.
A gradient is a path
Two colours fix the ends of a blend and nothing else. The middle is decided by the space the interpolation happens in, and four spaces in daily use put the halfway point of one ordinary gradient as much as thirty-seven units of colour difference apart.
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.
A difference has no size
A colour difference formula answers a question about two large patches seen side by side. Applied to a pattern, it reports fourteen units where the eye is left with less than one — and the ratio depends on nothing but how finely the difference is spread.
Colour stops at the edge of sight
Cone density falls twenty-one-fold between the centre of gaze and ten degrees out, and the three channels give out at three different rates — so a colour difference in the periphery does not merely shrink, it turns. At the exact point of fixation there are no short-wavelength cones at all.
White is a region
A lamp is not sold as a chromaticity. It is sold as 4000 K, and what that means is that its chromaticity fell inside a quadrangle — which two lamps can occupy at opposite corners, eleven ΔE00 apart. In a room with either of them, the same twelve surfaces differ by one unit.
Which of two is worse
Two colour-difference formulae disagree about which of two pairs is the larger difference in thirteen per cent of comparisons overall — and in forty-three per cent of comparisons among pairs sitting near a tolerance of one unit, which is where every acceptance decision is actually made.
A difference has no place
A colour difference formula answers a question about two patches somebody is looking straight at. Move the same pair ten degrees into the periphery and a third of it is left — and it has turned twenty-four degrees of hue, because the three channels give out at three different rates.
Nobody here has two eyes
One person's two eyes differ in macular pigment and lens density, so the same light produces two colours — a whole ΔE00 apart for an ordinary pair, seven for one replaced lens. Adaptation hides it exactly, which is why nobody notices and why nothing in colorimetry has a term for it.
A colour has a name
Every quantity here is a number, and the question a reader arrives with is what colour something is called. The eleven basic terms of English divide the space into territories that differ by a factor of five, the metric accounts for fifteen per cent of that, and one of the eleven focal colours cannot be shown on this page at all.
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.
A catalogue is not a vocabulary
A colour order system is a regular lattice, because a person has to be able to find a page. Sorted by what its chips would be called, that lattice comes apart into piles differing by a factor of three — and a fifth of all one-step moves in it change the name.
Four primaries have a choice
Three primaries matching three numbers have one answer. Four have a family of them, every member exact to floating point for the observer they were solved for — and the members are not equally good for anybody else, so a display with a fourth primary has a setting that is robust to who is looking at it and a setting that is not.
A tolerance is a probability
A colorimeter reports one number and a specification compares it with another, and both are computed for an observer who does not exist. Handed to two hundred people, the same pair at ΔE00 1.0 is read from 0.8 to 3.7 — and which of those two ranges applies depends on something no specification records.
Three constants nobody quotes
CIEDE2000 is defined with three parametric factors in it, the CIE leaves them to the industry using the formula, and the two settings in ordinary use differ by a factor of two in one of them. Twenty-nine per cent of acceptance decisions change between the two — a larger disagreement than any between the formulae themselves.
A mean is not a difference
A specification for a proof, a profile or a print run is written against a set of colours and has to reduce that set to one number. The mean and the ninety-fifth percentile disagree about which of two reproductions is better in thirty per cent of cases, and both numbers are honest.
A tint at the edge of a page
The last phase left this join open and guessed at its answer — how visible a halftone tint is away from the centre of gaze should be the product of two effects it had measured separately. It is not the product. At five degrees the guess is fifty-three times too generous, and by twenty it is out by eight orders of magnitude.
A lamp has a direction
A white LED is a blue die under a converter, and light leaving at an angle has travelled further through the converter than light leaving straight up. So the mixture is different in every direction, the beam is bluer in the middle than at its edge, and the number on the box is one direction's worth of a device that has no single colour.
Three ways to dim a lamp
"Dimmed to ten per cent" names three different colours. Switching the lamp on and off faster than anybody can see changes the chromaticity by nothing at all — exactly, to floating point. Reducing the current moves it a few units. Reducing the power to a filament moves it eighteen hundred kelvin down the Planckian locus, and stays on the locus exactly the whole way.
A lamp switched on is not the lamp measured
A luminaire takes about seven minutes to reach nine tenths of its working temperature, loses a quarter of its output on the way, and moves ΔE00 2.6 while it does. That is slower than every clock in the eye — so for the first minutes after a switch is thrown, both ends of the measurement are moving, and every appearance claim here has assumed one of them was still.
A tolerance needs a second number
Two samples one colour difference apart can be read almost identically by everybody or two units apart by the worst-off twentieth, and which of those it is depends on how far apart their spectra are — a quantity every spectrophotometer has already measured and none of them prints. Adding it as a second field predicts the population three times better, and at the tolerances where it matters it is right about a third of the decisions the difference alone gets wrong.
A name moves with the room
Eleven basic colour terms are quoted as centroids in CIELAB and a colour is named by which one it is nearest. Two things nobody records decide the answer — which distance function is used, which renames a fifth of the displayable gamut, and which room the colour is in, which renames more than a quarter of it.
The booth is a luminaire
A standard viewing booth is specified by its light's chromaticity, its rendering and the uniformity of its illuminance across the sample plane. Illuminance is a photometric integral, so two positions can be inside the uniformity tolerance and lit by two different spectra — and a sample at the far corner of a compliant booth is ΔE00 2.4 from one in the middle, against a tolerance of one.
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.
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.
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.
No diagram makes them circles
Every chromaticity diagram is a projective picture of the same measurement, so how badly MacAdam's ellipses fail to be circles can be minimised over the whole family of them. The best plane there is still leaves the average ellipse twice as long as it is wide — which makes the residual a fact about the eye rather than about anybody's choice of primaries.
A difference needs a basis too
A linear change of coordinates leaves every colour match exactly where it was. A cube root does not commute with one — so a lightness–chroma space, and every colour difference computed in it, is a property of the basis that happened to be in place before the nonlinearity. CIELAB's basis was chosen in 1931 for reasons that had nothing to do with difference.
The colour is right first
A reconstruction of a lamp from twelve filtered readings gets its colour right to half a unit while two thirds of its spectrum is still unmeasured. That combination is not a partial success — it is the exact condition under which a spectral prediction made from the reconstruction will be confidently wrong.
The departures are larger than the tolerance
A delivery tolerance is written around one ΔE₀₀ and every one of this round's four departures is above it on ordinary material. A specification that names an illuminant, an observer and a tolerance, and does not name a measurement condition, an aperture and a field, has written a number that two honest laboratories can miss each other on by more than the number itself.
A tolerance with an observer in it
A delivery tolerance is written in ΔE₀₀ against the 1931 observer, and six departures of that observer combine to about three of the same units on an ordinary saturated sample. A one-unit tolerance is being asked to contain a three-unit uncertainty that nothing in its budget mentions.
A distance raised to a power has no length
CAM16-UCS's colour difference is its Euclidean distance raised to the power 0.63 and multiplied by 1.41. That is still a metric — the triangle inequality holds on every one of four thousand random triples — and it has no length. A grey ramp from black to white measures 25 units in one step, 137 in a hundred and 755 in ten thousand, growing as the number of steps to the power 0.37, and halving the size of a step triples the number of steps that fit.
The inverse table errs dark
A profile's forward table predicts a print lighter than the press makes, and refitting its nodes removes the bias. The table a colour engine actually uses to separate an image is the other one — the inverse, from colour to ink — and it errs the opposite way: filled exactly from the press it asks for too much ink and prints dark, and built by inverting the ordinary forward table it prints darker still. Inverting the refitted forward table removes the inherited part and leaves the inverse's own. The round trip through both tables improves only when each is refitted against its own error, and then the two are no longer each other's inverse.
The eye counts a corner's error, not its peak
A Lanczos-magnified patch errs a fifth more at its corner than along its edges, pixel by pixel, and an unsharp mask errs almost exactly as much at its corner as along its edges. Filtered by the eye over the plane rather than along a line, the two swap: the magnified corner is seen exactly as its edge is, and on a printed page the sharpened corner is seen at 2.4 times its edge. What decides it is whether the error changes sign. Ringing averages away and a one-sided halo does not, and a corner is where two edges' halos land on the same patch of retina.
Two units with a light level disagree about lightness
ΔE₀₀ has no argument for how bright a display is. Two colour differences do: CAM16-UCS takes the room's adapting luminance, and ΔEITP — the difference defined for high-dynamic-range television — takes the stimulus's own absolute luminance. Twenty-three pairs at exactly one ΔE₀₀ grow in both as the display brightens, 2.1 times in ΔEITP and 1.5 in CAM16-UCS from a 5 to a 5,000 cd/m² white. But in ΔEITP the lightness part grows fastest, 2.7 times, and in CAM16-UCS it does not grow at all.
The units part by hue, not by light level
Two colour differences with a light level in them were compared on a display running from 5 to 5,000 cd/m², and a prediction was drawn from how each divided a difference between lightness and chroma. Built into pairs that differ in lightness alone and in chroma alone, both units say the same thing about light level: as a display brightens, chroma differences gain on lightness differences — ΔEITP by a tenth, CAM16-UCS by a quarter. Where they part is hue. The appearance model moves every colour's balance by the same factor; ΔEITP moves the violets, reds and cyan-blues the other way, and at nine of twelve base colours the two units disagree about the direction.
The shadows a unit counts are the ones a room removes
ΔEITP's growth with display brightness is largest in the dark greys, and dark greys are where a lit room's light reflected off the screen sits. One candela a square metre of veiling luminance removes 22 per cent of the difference the unit gives a step at the bottom of the scale on a 1,000-candela display and nothing measurable at the top. The same veil raises the growth the unit reports across display levels from a factor of six to a factor of seventeen, because it destroys a dim display's shadows first.
Sharpened type errs on its dark side
A sharpened square hides its halo along its edges and shows it at its corners, so a sharpened page of type was predicted to show its error at the corners of its letters, several times out of proportion to their length. Black type does the opposite: its outer corners and stroke ends hold between two thirds and nine tenths of their share. As the eye leaves it, the error lies on the dark side of every edge, and a corner holds as much of it as it has dark ground around it — a quarter of a disc where a black corner points out into paper, three quarters where black wraps round a pale one.
A lit room brings the units' medians together
As a display brightens, CAM16-UCS says chroma differences gain a quarter on lightness differences and ΔEITP says a tenth. All of the appearance model's movement comes from what the viewer is adapted to, and every calculation had the viewer adapted to the display alone. Give the room its share of the adaptation and the model's movement shrinks at every step: with a 20 cd/m² room supplying two thirds of it, the two units' medians fall by the same amount. What does not shrink is their disagreement about direction. The model still moves every colour the same way, ΔEITP still moves violets, reds and cyan-blues the other way, and in a lit room that becomes the whole of what separates them.
A guessed veil halves the error
A colour difference that takes a display's absolute luminance leaves out the light a room reflects off the screen, and on an ordinary display in an ordinary room that makes it wrong about the darkest greys by a factor of three. Giving the unit the veil as a declared argument fixes that when the veil is known. The worry was that it never would be — that a guessed argument is no better than none. It is better: any declared veil up to about twice the true one beats declaring none, and one middling guess for every room halves the worst error. What a guess cannot do is reach ten per cent; that needs the veil known within a sixth, which is what a luminance meter aimed at a black screen gives.
The hue disagreement is the quantiser's
As a display brightens, the appearance model shifts every colour's balance between lightness and chroma by one factor, and ΔEITP shifts violets towards lightness and yellow-greens towards chroma. The proposed source was the perceptual quantiser acting on three cone-like signals at unequal levels. Replacing the quantiser with a pure power law and changing nothing else removes the disagreement exactly: every colour moves by a factor of one. With the quantiser, how far a colour moves follows the spread of its three signals, and which way follows where its S signal sits — above the other two, towards lightness; below, towards chroma.
A dimming panel has no single black
ΔEITP reads a display's shadows correctly only when it is told the floor under every pixel, and that floor has two parts: the room's light reflected off the screen and the display's own black. They fold into one declared number exactly, and on a bright LCD the display's part is the one that matters — leaving it out misreads the deepest shadows seventeenfold. A local-dimming panel breaks the folding, because its black changes with the picture: in a dark room its floors vary twenty-six times across one scene, and no single declaration comes within a factor of two and a half. A lit room squeezes them back into one number.
Two floors trade the screen for the halo
A local-dimming panel in a dark room has no single black: its floor varies twenty-six times across a scene, and one declared floor misreads ΔEITP's grey steps by a factor of 2.6. The proposal was two floors, one for dimmed zones and one for lit ones, on the reasoning that a picture's zones cluster at the two ends. They do cluster, and two floors still do not work. Placed for the worst zone they halve the error and misread almost the whole screen a little; placed on the two clusters they read most of the screen exactly and misread the halo between as badly as one floor. How many floors a panel needs is set by its diffuser, not by the picture — and the only declaration that works everywhere is the backlight map.
At the gamut's edge the reds move as far as the violets
As a display brightens, ΔEITP shifts a saturated colour's balance between lightness and chroma by an amount set by its three quantised signals, and CAM16-UCS shifts every colour alike. The largest shifts found so far were a yellow-green at ×0.63 and a dark blue at ×1.62, both at the census's edge — and the blue turns out to be a colour no BT.2020 display can show. Walked out to the display's real boundary, the yellow-greens go lower, to ×0.54, and the dark blues never pass ×1.35, because BT.2020's blue edge is at low chroma. The top of the range goes to the reds and red-purples at ×1.6: at the edge the L-minus-M term grows to two thirds of the S term. Pairing the two extremes still needs a third of the observers the violet experiment needs.
A display's red takes the reds' move and leaves the pair
At BT.2020's edge ΔEITP moved a dark red's balance between lightness and chroma furthest of any colour, ×1.64 from a dim display to a bright one, and the reason offered was BT.2020's red primary, a line far out at 630 nanometres. Moving that primary in along the spectral locus confirms it: the reds fall faster than any other hue, to ×1.40 at 615 nanometres and ×1.25 at 605, and Display P3, whose red is a 615 nm line to three ten-thousandths, gives the reds the same. The top of the range goes to a red-purple, which rises as the red moves in because BT.2020 had pushed it past its own peak. And the forced-choice pair the experiment needs is the same two colours on every display.
The eye's own glare hides most of the halo
A local-dimming panel's black can be declared as two floors, and the pair misreads only the diffuser's halo round the bright content — by up to a factor of 2.7. The halo sits next to the light, and light scattered inside the viewer's eye puts a floor of its own there. Added under every grey step, the eye's veil hides the whole misreading in six of nine cases: every window, and the highlight and subtitles behind the narrowest diffuser. It leaves a sixth of the misreading's share for a small highlight behind the widest diffuser, and a quarter for subtitles, all of it in the halo's inner half — not its outer edge, as predicted. The panel dims by a zone's brightest pixel and the eye veils by its average, so a line of text lights the backlight fully and the eye a quarter. The viewing distance cancels.
A coloured highlight tints the halo it cannot hide
A local-dimming panel lights a zone for its brightest channel, so a pure red or blue highlight drives the backlight as hard as a white one and sends a fifth or a fourteenth of the light into the viewer's eye. The prediction was that a saturated highlight's veil would hide the halo's misread greys as a white one does, and add a colour. It hides far less. Behind the middle diffuser a white highlight hides the whole misreading; drawn red, blue, green or even yellow — nine tenths of white's luminance — it hides none of it. The yellow fails because a veil hides a grey step only in the cone signals it reaches, and yellow light reaches a fifth of the short-wave one. And where the veil does fall on a misread floor, it colours the error: the darkest greys are tinted by up to fifteen ΔEITP, and behind a red window, where the veil hides the lightness almost entirely, a fifth of the screen is tinted by more than a unit.
A display's blue is sharp where the rotation is not
ΔE₀₀'s rotation term shears chroma into hue near a CIELAB hue of 275 degrees, and at a press's blue corner it had nothing to act on because the corner was blunt. The prediction was that a display's blue — an additive primary — would be a sharp corner, and that there the rotation would change how far a safety margin moves it by more than a tenth. The first half holds: sRGB's blue moves 3.35 times a CIELAB margin and BT.2020's 3.17, against the press's 1.25, and insetting the curved gamut directly confirms it to the second decimal. The second half fails, twice. A display's blue sits at 306 degrees, thirty past the rotation's centre, where the term grips a quarter as hard; and ΔE₀₀ blunts the corner to 1.42 by compressing its chroma sevenfold. Along the edge from blue to cyan the hue does pass through 275 and the grip reaches −0.87 — where the edge is nearly a face. Nowhere near either display's blue does the rotation move a prediction by four hundredths.
The yellow is sharp where the tolerance unit does not compress
A safety margin moves each corner of a display's gamut inward by a multiple of itself that depends on the corner's shape. In CIELAB, sRGB's blue is its sharpest corner and its yellow among its bluntest; carried into ΔE₀₀, the order turns over, and the yellow becomes the sharpest corner of both sRGB and BT.2020. The prediction was that the yellow keeps its sharpness because its faces run along lightness, where ΔE₀₀'s weighting is largest at the yellow's L* of 97. Taking ΔE₀₀ apart length by length says otherwise. Its lightness weighting changes the yellow's move by nothing. Its chroma compression — the term that opens every other corner — does, on its own, bring every other corner of both displays under 1.35 times a margin, and leaves the yellow at 1.78. Of the yellow's three directions only one runs along chroma; at the other corners two or three do, and a metric that compresses chroma pulls those together and flattens the corner between them.
An appearance model flattens the blue by its hue
A safety margin moves a corner of a display's gamut inward by a multiple of itself set by the corner's shape, and the unit the margin is written in decides the shape. In ΔE₀₀ the yellow is the sharpest corner of an sRGB and a BT.2020 display, because its sharpness lies across hue where ΔE₀₀'s chroma compression cannot reach it. CAM16-UCS compresses colourfulness less steeply, and the prediction was that it would leave the blue sharper than the yellow. It leaves the yellow sharpest, at 1.66 times a margin on both displays, and flattens the blue to 1.17 and 1.10 — the bluntest corner of all twelve. Its colourfulness does what the prediction said: on its own it would sharpen the blue past the yellow. Its hue scale undoes that. At a display's blue one degree of CIELAB hue is three and a half degrees of the appearance model's, and a unit that counts hue that finely there spreads the blue's directions apart until the corner is nearly a face.
A quantiser keeps the blue a spike
A gamut margin moves a display's corners inward by multiples set by the unit it is written in. ΔE₀₀ and CAM16-UCS both blunt an sRGB or BT.2020 display's blue, CAM16-UCS to nearly a face, and the prediction was that ΔEITP — the difference built on ICtCp for high-dynamic-range television — would blunt it too. It does the opposite. With the white at 320 cd/m² the blue is ΔEITP's sharpest corner on both displays, moving 3.12 and 3.24 times a margin, about as far as in CIELAB; at the green, cyan, magenta and yellow the three tolerance units agree within a quarter, and at the blue they span a factor of three. ΔEITP's lengths alone would blunt the blue as ΔE₀₀ does. What keeps it sharp is the perceptual quantiser: ICtCp's chroma rows sum to nought, so under a response that compresses like a logarithm, dimming the blue primary is a step in intensity and nothing else. Replace the quantiser by a linear response and the blue falls to 2.15; by a logarithm, it rises to 3.39. A brighter display sharpens it further.
A warm room tints the black, not the halo
A local-dimming panel's black can be declared as two floors, the room's light reflected off the screen folded in, and the earlier censuses gave that light a hundredth of a candela, grey. Under a warm lamp it is not grey. The prediction was that a warm room would hide the halo's misreading in the long and middle cone signals, leave its short-wave part exposed, and tint the halo's dark greys towards blue. The tint is real and it is none of those things. With the floors declared in grey, a 2,700 K room putting a tenth of a candela on the screen tints every zone of a dark picture by more than one ΔEITP — up to 17.7 at the darkest grey — and the tint points towards the lamp's own orange, opposite blue. It is not the halo's: it is the whole black's, because a grey declaration has the floor's colour wrong everywhere. The prediction's conclusion holds by a different road. A grey step laid on a warm floor is partly a change of colour, so the warm room leaves seven tenths of the moon picture's grey steps misread where a grey room leaves none; and declaring the floors in the room's colour removes all of it but the halo's own.
A violet primary is no spike to the quantiser
ΔEITP makes a display's blue its sharpest corner, about three times a margin, and the account of why predicted that a shorter-wavelength blue would be sharper still — past four times by 450 nm. Moving a monochromatic blue primary from 490 nm to 440 does the opposite. ΔEITP's blue corner is sharpest at 485 nm, ×4.37, and falls at every step to ×1.23 at 440, where CIELAB's runs the other way, from ×1.92 at 480 to ×11.8, and ΔE₀₀ follows CIELAB. The spike needs the two primaries that can be added to the blue to move it in nearly the same direction. Adding red always raises the blue's L signal by the larger fraction. Adding green does so only while the blue carries enough M signal of its own; a violet primary carries almost none, so adding green raises its M by the larger fraction and the two steps split, from 37 degrees apart to 111. No cone response rescues it — a logarithm blunts the violet further — and a brighter display dulls it while sharpening the longer blues.
Adapting to a warm room deepens the shadows' tint
A warm room's light reflected off a local-dimming screen tints the shadows of every dark picture when the screen's black is declared in grey — by up to 17.7 ΔEITP — and ΔEITP has no viewer in it. A viewer who has sat in a 2,700 K room all evening is adapted partly to the room, and adaptation to a warm white discounts warm light. The prediction was that a viewer adapted a third of the way to the room would see under half the tint, and one adapted two thirds of the way would see the darkest greys turn blue. Read through CIECAM16, the opposite happens in a dark picture. The tint the viewer sees grows at every step of adaptation: in the moon picture's darkest grey from 2.7 CAM16-UCS units for a viewer adapted to the display to 3.3, 3.9 and 4.4. The darkest greys never turn blue; they stay orange and fade. What turns blue is the mid-greys, whose light is the display's own and now looks cool. In the bright window picture the tint shrinks, and declaring the floor in the room's colour still removes it for every viewer.
The green primary decides how sharp the blue is
ΔEITP makes a display's blue its sharpest corner when the blue sits near 485 nm and nearly a face when it sits at 440, and the turn between them is where adding green stops raising the blue's L signal by the larger fraction. The prediction was that the turn follows the green — near 445 nm with a 545 nm green, near 470 with a 515 nm one. It follows the green, by less than half as much at the short end: 461 nm with a 515 nm green, 446 with a 545 nm one, and with a 555 nm green there is no turn left in the range at all. What the prediction did not ask is larger. The green sets how sharp the blue can be: with the blue at 485 nm the corner moves 2.4 times a margin against a 505 nm green and 8.2 times against a 555 nm one, while the sharpest blue stays at 485 nm for every green. The red primary, moved from 615 to 690 nm, leaves the turn where it was to a hundredth of a nanometre. The appearance model follows the green far more gently, under half of ΔEITP's move at every green.
A room sensor must read the lamp to a hundred kelvin
A local-dimming panel in a 2,700 K room leaves a dark picture's shadows tinted towards the lamp unless its black floor is declared in the room's colour, and declared exactly, that tint falls below a ΔEITP unit almost everywhere. A display learns its room from a sensor, and sensors are not exact. With the room putting a tenth of a candela on the screen, a temperature reading 14 mireds out — about a hundred kelvin, warmer or cooler — puts the tint back over a unit in the moon picture; so does a level read 12 per cent low or 13 per cent high, or a white placed a Duv of 0.003 off the locus. The tolerance is even in mireds and lopsided in kelvin, and it narrows to a third or a quarter for every tenfold rise in the room's light: ±54 mireds in a room of a hundredth of a candela, ±5 in a room of one. A bright picture forgives six times as much as a dark one. Declaring the room's colour solves the tint only for a display that can measure the room about as well as a colour meter does.
A broad green sharpens the blue; a broad blue dulls it
ΔEITP makes a display's blue corner sharp or blunt according to its primaries, and the census of single-wavelength primaries found the green deciding how sharp — the 485 nm blue's corner moving 4.37 times a margin against a 530 nm green and 8.19 against a 555 nm one. Real primaries have widths, and the prediction was that a broad green acts as a longer green, raising the spike and moving the turn towards the violet, while a broad blue barely matters. The first half holds: a green forty nanometres wide at 530 nm sharpens the 485 nm corner to 5.05 and moves the turn from 453.7 nm to 451.2, as a single-wavelength green at 535.8 nm would, though its dominant wavelength has moved only to 533. The second half does not: a blue twenty nanometres wide moves the turn by a nanometre but dulls the corner by a tenth, to 3.94. The two widths pull the corner opposite ways, and a display whose green and blue are both broad lands near where its line primaries were. The red, at forty nanometres, still changes nothing that matters.
Lamp and daylight together sit below the locus
A display that declares its room's light can remove the tint a warm room leaves in a dark picture's shadows, if it reads the light to about fourteen mireds and a Duv of 0.003. An evening room is often lit by a lamp and the last of the daylight at once, and a sensor that reports a colour temperature names a point on the Planckian locus that such a mixture need not occupy. The prediction was that a lamp-and-daylight mixture sits well above the locus, so a declaration from its temperature tints the moon picture beyond a unit at a tenth of a candela for every mixture. The mixtures sit below the locus, at a Duv of −0.002 to −0.005, because a straight line between two points on a curve that bends upward lies under it. Declared from their temperature, they tint the shadows beyond a unit only when a quarter to a half of the light is daylight, up to 1.24 units. Daylight alone sits above the locus, at +0.003, and its temperature-only declaration tints by 0.67 at a tenth of a candela and 1.39 at one, where a grey declaration — the display's own white — tints nothing. Declared in its own chromaticity, every mixture's tint stays at the halo's.
A green's long tail sharpens the blue; its short tail does not
A quantum-dot green falls steeply on one side and trails on the other, and the prediction was that a tail on its long side, holding a third of its power, would make ΔEITP's blue corner treat the green as a line past 538 nm, further than a symmetric forty-nanometre green's 535.8, because all its spread is on the L side. It does: 540.7 nm, the 485 nm corner rising from ×4.51 to ×5.70. The control is the larger finding. The same tail on the short side costs the green far more purity — 0.77 against the long tail's 0.95 — and moves its equivalent line by under a nanometre and a half. The corner reads the green's ratio of L to M signal, to within a third of a nanometre for every long tail, and not its purity, its centroid or its dominant wavelength; a short tail lowers that ratio less than its colour suggests and brings S signal that pushes the corner back.
Brightness and the green sharpen the blue almost independently
ΔEITP's blue corner is sharper the longer a display's green, and sharper the brighter the display. The prediction was that the two compound — that the 555 nm green's lead over the 505 nm one, 3.42 times at 320 cd/m², would pass four by 4,000, because a brighter display narrows every angle and the long green's was narrowest — and that the turn, where adding green starts raising the blue's L by the larger fraction, would not move with the peak at all. Both halves fail. The lead grows by a twentieth, to 3.60 at 4,000 and 3.63 at 10,000; across thirty-five displays the corner is a green factor times a brightness factor to within 4.5%. And the turn moves at every step, two to six nanometres towards the violet from 100 to 10,000 cd/m², crossing the blue at which green raises L and M equally near 1,000. The quantiser weighs a fractional rise in L against one in M by their encoded levels, and brightness evens the scales.
A sensor calibrated on lamps cannot read an LED
A display that declares its room's light in the light's own chromaticity keeps a dark picture's shadows untinted, and the chromaticity has to come from a sensor. The prediction was that a small three-channel sensor calibrated on a 2,700 K and a 6,500 K lamp reads mixtures of a lamp and daylight within 0.001, because they are mixtures of its calibration lights, and misreads phosphor LEDs by 0.003 to 0.006. The mixtures nearly hold: misread by up to 0.0023, past 0.001 from half daylight, because daylight is not a 6,500 K lamp — and at a tenth of a candela no mixture tints the moon picture by a unit. The LEDs are three times worse than predicted. Every one of thirty white LEDs built onto the Planckian locus is misread by 0.007 to 0.017, and every one tints the shadows by 1.7 to 3.6 units. The divide is not lamp against daylight but smooth against spiky: every Planckian lamp and mixture under 0.0035, every LED and fluorescent tube over 0.007.
No calibration reads the lamps and the LEDs together
A three-channel ambient sensor pinned on two Planckian lamps reads every lamp and every lamp-and-daylight mixture well enough to keep a dark picture's shadows under a ΔEITP unit, and misreads every white LED badly enough to tint them by two to four. Its errors on the LEDs all point one way, and the prediction was that a matrix fitted in least squares to every light in a census would bring every LED under 0.004 while the lamps rose only towards 0.003. It does not. Fitted to the census, each light held out, the sensor's worst LED error falls from 0.017 to 0.0066 and its worst lamp error rises from 0.0033 to 0.0126; thirteen of forty-seven lights still pass a unit, among them the 2,700 K lamp the original calibration read exactly. A matrix exact on the lamp, daylight and one 4,000 K LED reads every mixture and every 4,000 K LED nearly perfectly and fails the 2,700 K LEDs, none read better than 0.0063. A fourth channel leaves six lights beyond a unit. Three broad channels have one matrix, and it can be right about one kind of spectrum.
A tone-mapped blue turns where it lands
In ΔEITP a display's blue corner, and the turn at which adding green to it changes which side of ICtCp's red–green axis it moves the colour to, both shift with the display's peak, because the quantiser reads absolute levels. A high-dynamic-range picture graded on a bright master and shown on a dimmer panel is tone-mapped, its blues delivered below the levels they were graded at. The prediction was that a blue at a tenth of full drive on a 1,000 cd/m² panel turns where a 100 cd/m² panel's full blue does, and that the corner's move differs, because the dimmed blue no longer sits at a vertex. The turn agrees within a hundredth of a nanometre. So does the corner, within half a per cent: the steps both are read from are directions at one absolute signal, whatever drive delivered it. The tone map's whole effect on the blue is where it puts the blue. Through ITU-R BT.2390's curve, a master's bright blues are gathered near a dim display's peak and share one turn there — two nanometres from where the master turned them — while blues under the curve's knee keep their turns exactly.
A tone curve per channel turns a sky towards cyan
A pure blue tone-mapped from a bright master to a dim display turns, in ΔEITP, wherever its delivered level puts it, and any tone curve that delivers it to the same level gives it the same turn. A picture's blue is not pure. The prediction for a blue mixed with a little green was that a tone curve applied to each channel separately raises the green's share by about half — the blue channel compressed above the curve's knee, the dimmer green left near it — turning the mixture's hue several degrees towards cyan and its turn a nanometre or more from where a curve that scales all three channels together puts it. The turn does move, by 1.6 to 3 nanometres on a 100 cd/m² display and up to 6.5 on a 300. But the share is not raised by half: through BT.2390 to a 100 cd/m² display, a blue graded with a tenth of green arrives with its green at 69 per cent of its blue, nearly seven times as much, and its ICtCp hue turns 23 degrees towards the green. The scaled curve keeps every mixture's hue within three degrees and its turn within half a nanometre of the pure blue's.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
ToleranceSpecificationHigh dynamic rangeCIEDE2000Quality controlViewing conditionCIELABStandard observerGamutPerceptual uniformityPQ, the perceptual quantiserLightness