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

Mesopic — where it appears

The range of light levels where rods and cones both respond, from moonlight to a dim room. A colour match made there rests on four receptor signals behind three numbers, so the photopic observer does not describe it and no standard observer covers it.

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

The same two surfaces, weighed by each system. A long-wavelength and a short-wavelength surface under D65, with their relative luminance under the photopic curve and under the scotopic one. Under daylight vision the red surface is 1.33 times the blue; under rod vision it is 0.15 times, a reversal by a factor of 9.0. The swatches are the photopic appearance, which is the only one a display can produce: rod vision has no colour, and drawing a guess at it would be an invention.

The eye that has no colour

Rods outnumber cones twenty to one, work alone below a hundredth of a candela, and are absent from the centre of gaze. Between dusk and a lit room both systems run at once, and neither standard curve describes what is happening.

eye · Cones What the rods cost a match, by where their signal enters and under which lamp. For five lights, the median colour difference over forty-two surfaces between the reference observer and the same observer with a rod signal a tenth of each cone's peak added — into all three cone channels, into the long- and middle-wavelength channels only, or into the short-wavelength channel only. Under daylight the first two are 1.03 and 0.90: whether the rods reach the S pathway hardly matters. Under a phosphor white LED they are 1.24 and 0.45, a factor of 2.75, and the S-only route alone costs 0.96.

The rods' route is priced by the lamp

A rod signal in a dim room disturbs a colour match, and how much depends on which of the cone pathways it reaches — a weight the physiology leaves uncertain, especially for the blue–yellow pathway. Under daylight the uncertainty is nearly free: a rod signal that skips the S pathway costs 0.90 at the median surface against 1.03 for one that enters all three. Under a phosphor white LED it is worth a factor of 2.75, 0.45 against 1.24. What decides it is one number per lamp: how large the rod signal is compared with each cone class's own catch of the light.

eye · Cones 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 Two ways to ask how much rod signal an older eye has. The rod signal's catch of each lamp divided by the S cones' own catch, against the observer's age, for five lamps — drawn twice. The upper curves take the rod signal at a fixed absolute size, and every one of them roughly doubles from twenty to seventy-five: an older lens cuts the blue before the S cones see it and the rods, peaking further into the green, lose much less. The lower curves take the rod signal at a tenth of each cone's own peak absorptance, which is the model's own definition, and they barely move at all. Nothing about the retina differs between the two; only the normalisation does.

A rod signal has no natural size

An older lens absorbs where the S cones are sensitive, so it should make the uncertain rod-to-S-cone weight cheaper. Measured, the rod signal's catch of a phosphor LED as a share of the S cones' own catch more than doubles from twenty to seventy-five — and the share the model actually uses falls by a fifth. The two differ by the S cone's peak absorptance, which the lens takes 60 per cent of, and which entered the model as a normalisation rather than as a claim.

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 More rods make a lens band's pull on the rod weight worse, unless the band is fitted. A sixty-year-old's lens with a band of a tenth of a density at 450 nm, fitted by the model with the rod signal a tenth to a half of each cone's peak: the shift in the fitted rod weight, in its own standard errors. With weight, lens age and macula fitted, one session's shift grows from +1.73 at a tenth to +2.53 at a third, and two sessions' more. With the band's amplitude fitted as a fourth number, one session stays under half a standard error at every share.

A dimmer session hides a lens band in the rods

A band of extra absorption in an older lens is read by a colour-matching session as lens age or as macular pigment, and it pulls the fitted rod weight with it. The rods see the lens and not the macula, so a dimmer session, where they carry a third of the signal instead of a tenth, was predicted to tell the band from the macula. It does the opposite. With the band at 450 nm left out of the fit, the rod weight's shift grows from 1.7 of its standard errors to 2.5, the misfit a session could notice shrinks by a third, and the macula and the band trade more tightly. The rods see the band — and the rod weight, which the fit is free to move, is exactly what absorbs it. What separates the band from the macula is fitting its amplitude as a fourth number, which works in daylight already.

eye · Cones

Named alongside it

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

RodsModelling assumptionCone fundamentalsObserver variabilityWhite LEDCorresponding coloursIndividual variationMeasurement uncertaintyPhotopigmentPsychophysicsSpectral power distributionAdaptation

All concepts