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

Metamerism — where it appears

Two different spectra a given observer cannot tell apart, which is the reason three numbers can stand in for a curve at all. The pairs are not rare: three equations constrain an infinite-dimensional space, so almost every colour has an enormous family of spectra behind it.

Named by 42 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A spectrum, weighted three ways, and the three numbers left over. The illuminant D65 above; below, the same spectrum multiplied by each matching function. The area under each product is one coordinate of XYZ. Everything else about the spectrum — its shape, its structure, all its remaining degrees of freedom — is discarded here.

Three numbers

A spectrum has as many degrees of freedom as anyone cares to give it. The eye reports three. Everything colour science can do, and every way it fails, follows from that one collapse.

eye · Cones Two different spectra that are the same colour. Two reflectance curves differing by 92 per cent RMS, and the two patches they produce under D65: identical to ΔE00 = 6.2e-14, which is arithmetic noise rather than a small number. Both patches are inside the sRGB gamut, so neither has been clipped into agreement.

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.

eye · Cones One reflectance, two illuminants, two colours. A reflectance peaking near 610 nm, and the colours it produces under D65 and A. The object has not changed. The light has, and colour is a property of the pair.

The illuminant is half the answer

An object has a reflectance, not a colour. The colour appears when a specified light falls on it, which is why two surfaces can match in a shop and clash outside, and why every serious matching standard names the light.

light · Light triphosphor fluorescent — three narrow phosphors plus the mercury lines, and the white it produces. The spectral power distribution of a triphosphor source, normalised to its own peak, and the colour a perfect white reflector takes under it: chromaticity (0.3379, 0.3389), correlated colour temperature 5258 K at Duv -0.0035. The white looks ordinary. The spectrum producing it does not.

A lamp is not a blackbody

A fluorescent tube puts a third of its light into four mercury lines. A white LED is a blue spike with a hole beside it. Both are sold by a colour temperature, and a colour temperature says nothing about either.

light · Light How far a match comes apart when the observer changes. A broad source and a three-primary source, solved at each primary width so the pair is an exact tristimulus match for the CIE 1931 observer. The pair is then handed to the 1964 observer, and the gap between them is plotted. For the observer they were built for the gap is arithmetic noise at every width. For the other it grows as the primaries narrow, reaching 0.012 at 10 nm — and displays have been getting narrower for twenty years.

Whose eyes

The standard observer is an average over seventeen people, and no reader is it. What that costs was small when displays were broad and grows every time the primaries get narrower.

limits · Limits A metameric match that a corner breaks. Two reflectances with identical XYZ under D65 — metamers, matching to ΔE00 = 5.4e-14, which is the numerical floor rather than an approximation. On a flat wall the light meets one of them once and the two patches are the same colour. In a corner, a fraction 0.200 of what leaves the surface returns to it, so part of what reaches the eye carries ρ twice — and the match fails by ΔE00 = 1.53. A metameric match is an identity between three integrals that are linear in ρ, and there is nothing linear left after a second bounce. The geometry, not the light and not the paint, is what breaks it.

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.

scene · Scene How far three channels drift from eighty-one, per bounce. One room, one geometry, one reduction to three channels, and the only thing changing is how many bounces of the Neumann series are kept. At one bounce the two agree to 2.5e-13 — the only reflectance in that path is the floor's, which is flat, and a flat reflectance is one of the few three numbers carry exactly. Every bounce after it multiplies another non-flat reflectance into the spectrum, and three numbers cannot carry a product they were never given the factors of. The curve levels off at ΔE00 = 2.38 because the light has run out, not because the disagreement has.

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.

scene · Scene A silicon sensor's best possible impersonation of the standard observer. The 1931 matching functions in outline, and the closest linear combination of the sensor's three sensitivities laid over them; underneath, what is left over at each wavelength. The residual is 31.7 per cent of the matching functions' own magnitude, worst at 440 nm. Colour reproduction is exact if and only if this is zero.

Luther said when it would work

There is an exact condition under which a fixed three-by-three matrix converts camera raw to XYZ correctly for every spectrum in existence. It was stated in 1927, it is a theorem rather than a guideline, and no camera ever built satisfies it.

imaging · Capture Two reflectances the camera records as identical. Constructed by projecting onto the null space of the sensor's own sensitivities, so the two raw triples agree to 0.0000 per cent. To the eye they are ΔE00 15.33 apart, which the swatches show.

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.

imaging · Capture Everything between the photons and the picture, and what each stage decides. The 8 stages of a camera pipeline. Only the second is physics; every one after it is a decision somebody made, and the reason two cameras pointed at the same scene disagree is that they made different ones.

A photograph is not a measurement

A photograph is a measurement made by an instrument whose kernel nobody published, under an illuminant nobody recorded, corrected by a matrix fitted to somebody else's surfaces, with two thirds of every pixel invented. It supports relative claims well and absolute ones badly, and it is used for the second.

imaging · Capture What separates the separations, and under which light. 11 separations of a single colour, differing only in how much of it is carried by black rather than by the three chromatic inks. Under D50 they agree to ΔE00 = 0.00 — the solver was asked for that and delivered it. Under illuminant A they spread to 6.75. They are metamers of one another, and the whole family is invisible to any instrument reading a single illuminant.

The separation is not unique

A four-ink press has one more control than a colour has numbers, so most colours can be printed several ways. The alternatives agree to a hundredth of a colour difference under the light the match was made in — and they are metamers of one another, so under a tungsten lamp the same eleven separations of one colour spread by nearly seven.

applied · Delivery What separates the separations, and under which light. 11 separations of a single colour, differing only in how much of it is carried by black rather than by the three chromatic inks. Under D50 they agree to ΔE00 = 0.00 — the solver was asked for that and delivered it. Under illuminant A they spread to 6.75. They are metamers of one another, and the whole family is invisible to any instrument reading a single illuminant.

The lamp in the shop decides

Two packages printed to the same specification, verified under the same standard illuminant and passed, can differ by nearly seven colour differences on a shelf under a tungsten lamp. Nothing went wrong at either press. The specification named one light, the separations that satisfy it are metamers of one another, and the shop chose the second light.

applied · Delivery A named ink, and the closest four-colour build of it. The ink is one pigment chosen for its own spectrum; the four-colour build is three chosen for everything. The four-colour build reaches it to ΔE00 = 0.37 under D50 and drifts to 4.46 under a tungsten lamp, because the match is metameric — the two curves cross 4 times rather than coinciding anywhere.

A brand colour is an ink

A named colour is a jar of pigment with a spectrum, and a four-colour build of it is three inks arranged to integrate to the same three numbers. Of 156 constructed single-pigment inks, 15 can be matched at all — and those fifteen drift by a median of 3.8 colour differences under a tungsten lamp, because the match was never a match.

applied · Delivery D65, and a source built to have its chromaticity and nothing else. The smooth curve is the CIE's daylight reconstruction at 6504 K. The other is five Gaussian emission bands whose weights were solved so that the two agree in chromaticity to 8.5e-10 — closer than any instrument could tell them apart when looking at the lamps. Three numbers were matched and seventy-eight were not, and everything either source falls on will report the difference.

There is no D65 lamp

D65 is standardised by three numbers, and three numbers do not pin a spectrum. A source built to hit them exactly — matched to a part in a billion, with a third of the visible band nearly empty — separates pairs that D65 says are identical by up to eight and a half units of colour difference.

light · Light The L cone's sensitivity at three axial pigment densities. Each curve is normalised to its own peak, so the only difference visible is shape. Raising the density from 0.1 to 0.9 widens the curve from 113.6 to 145.9 nm at half height while the peak stays within 5 nm of where it was. That is Beer–Lambert saturating: at the peak the pigment already absorbs nearly everything, so more of it can only catch more light in the wings.

A cone absorbs its own light

A photopigment's absorbance is a property of a molecule; a cone's sensitivity is that molecule stacked in a column deep enough to absorb most of what arrives. The stacking broadens the curve by thirty-five nanometres, and two observers differing in nothing else disagree about a match that is exact for one of them.

eye · Cones Several sources on one scale. planck, led, narrowband, each normalised to its own peak and drawn on shared axes with the colour each produces beside it. Every one of these is sold as white light and every one is ordinarily described that way; what they have in common is a chromaticity, and very little else.

A screen is a poor lamp

A display's white is a light. Shone on a surface it renders colour worse than a fluorescent tube — and the wider the gamut, the worse it gets, because the narrow primaries that buy a large triangle are exactly the ones that leave holes in the spectrum.

light · Light Grassmann's four laws, exact — and the two things that break them. For a linear observer every one of the four is exact and the residual is floating point, which is the control that makes the two failures below measurements rather than artefacts. Rods break a cone-metameric match by 23 per cent of a rod excitation at dusk; bleaching breaks it by 0.59 per cent of a cone excitation in the sun. Both are stated as fractions of a receptor's own response, so they can be put on one scale.

The laws that make colour add up

Colorimetry is an integral, and an integral assumes matching is linear. Grassmann's four laws are exact for a linear observer, to floating point — and they fail at both ends of the light range, by two different mechanisms, leaving colorimetry an operating band of three and a bit decades that no standard states.

matching · Gamut One match, and what it says about the observer making it. The anomaloscope: a monochromatic 589 nm yellow set against a mixture of 545 and 670 nm. Only two cone classes respond at those wavelengths, so the match is two equations in two unknowns and has one solution for any observer whose two pigments differ. The bar is the fraction of the accepted band; the mark is the solution. A normal observer accepts 0.7 per cent of the scale; an observer whose two pigments are the same accepts all of it, because their two equations are one equation twice. Nothing here is fitted to clinical data: the pigments are the same template used for every observer here, at stated peaks, and the match is the solution of the linear system.

One match names the observer

A yellow at 589 nanometres set against a mixture of 545 and 670 is two equations in two unknowns. It has one solution for a normal observer, a solution somewhere else for an anomalous one, and no unique solution at all for a dichromat — whose two equations are one equation twice.

matching · Gamut A fourth primary, swept — every setting an exact match, none of them the same. Four primaries matching three numbers leave one degree of freedom. Along the horizontal axis it is the fourth primary's share of the white's luminance; at each value the other three powers are solved exactly, so every point on this plot is a floating-point-exact match for the reference member — worst residual 1.3e-15 — and no colorimeter can tell them apart. What the population sees runs from 13.7 ΔE00 at the ninety-fifth percentile to 17.3, a factor of 1.26. The best setting is the largest share the arithmetic admits, so what stops it is not colour but the requirement that four powers stay positive.

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.

matching · Gamut One tolerance decision, at four spectral distances. Every column is a pair of samples ΔE00 1.0 apart for the observer a colorimeter models — solved to that value by bisection, so the instrument would report the same number for all four. What differs is how far apart the two spectra are, which is achieved by adding a metameric black the reference observer cannot see. The bands are what two hundred people report: from 1.13 at the ninety-fifth percentile when the spectra are the same shape to 2.32 when they are not, and the worst case reaches 3.7. No specification records the quantity on the horizontal axis.

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.

difference · Metric What the same eye reports about one field, in the middle and at the edge. Each row is a uniform field, drawn at the most saturated version of itself this page can show — the percentage is how much of the full stimulus survived, the rest being the adapting light added to bring it inside the gamut. The left patch is what the centre of gaze reports and the right one what 10 degrees out reports, each adapted to the same light as that position sees it. The adapting white comes out identical to 5e-13, because an adapted eye cancels its own filter exactly. Nothing else does, and the largest difference is in the blue. tungsten light is not drawn: it cannot be shown at any useful saturation, and at full strength it differs by ΔE00 1.87.

One person is two observers

The macular pigment is a yellow screen over the fovea and nowhere else, so a cone at the centre of gaze and a cone ten degrees away have different colour-matching functions in the same eye. A match made in the middle comes apart at the edge by six units — and fitting one filter to the gap between the CIE's two standard observers gives a density of 0.40 against a measured 0.35.

eye · Cones What a fourth primary actually buys. All three displays are floating-point-exact matches for the reference observer, so no colorimeter can tell them apart. The bars are the 95th percentile of what two hundred other eyes report. Held to the same gamut floor of 1.4× sRGB, the four-primary design leaves the population 2.6 times closer together than the three-primary one. That is what the extra emitter is worth, and it is not more colour — the gamut is held fixed while it is measured.

A fourth primary is a design

A display's fourth emitter is sold as more colour. Optimised instead against how far apart two hundred eyes are about its white — with the gamut held fixed so it cannot cheat — it buys agreement, and two and a half times closer together than three primaries reaching the same area, and the wavelengths it chooses are not the ones anybody would pick.

matching · Gamut One tolerance decision, about pairs that agree less and less about the spectrum. Every point is a pair of samples that the reference observer reports as exactly ΔE00 1.0 apart — the same number, the same decision, the same line in the same specification. Along the axis is how far apart their two reflectances are. Up the side is the 95th percentile of what two hundred other eyes report. It runs from 1.13 to 2.32. The document records the horizontal line and not the axis it is plotted against.

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.

difference · Metric A tolerance of one unit, re-measured under every light in the census. Every one of the 23 pairs behind this figure is at exactly ΔE00 1.000 under D65 by construction. Each bar is what those same pairs measure under another light, after the observer has adapted to it: the line is the median and the bar spans the pairs. A tolerance is written as a property of a pair and it is not one — the light multiplies both members, and the difference between two products is not the product of the difference. The widest row is a lens at twenty against a lens at seventy, spanning 0.81 to 1.57.

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.

difference · Metric A sample with two reflectance curves, and neither below one. The apparent reflectance of an optically brightened sample, measured under D65 and A. It exceeds 1 — the shaded band — which no reflector can do: more light leaves at these wavelengths than arrives at them, because the sample absorbs in the violet and re-emits in the blue. And the two curves differ, so the sample has no single reflectance to store. The effect drawn here is a floor: most of the excitation band lies below 380 nm, outside the range computed here.

A surface that is not a multiplication

Every argument here about what light does to a surface begins by multiplying two spectra together. A surface with a brightener in it takes light at one wavelength and returns it at another, so it is a full operator rather than a diagonal one — and it does not have a reflectance at all.

scene · Scene Two sheets with the same reflectance and two different colours. A brightened sheet and a dyed one built to match it under an instrument with no ultraviolet. Under that instrument the pair agrees to ΔE00 0.00, which is a rounding and is true by construction — the dyed sheet's reflectance is the curve the brightened one measured. Under an instrument that includes the ultraviolet they are 7.1 apart, and under daylight 10.6. This is not ordinary metamerism: the two sheets do not differ in reflectance anywhere the eye can see, so no change of light puts them back together and no adaptation removes the difference. One of them is a curve and the other is an operator.

Two sheets that match until the window

Ordinary metamerism is two reflectances that agree under one light and not another, and it can always be undone by putting the first light back. A dyed sheet and a brightened one have the same reflectance everywhere an eye can see, agree exactly under any lamp with no ultraviolet, and separate by ten units under daylight — and no change of light puts them back together.

scene · Scene One observer's matching functions, in three of the bases the matches leave free. The three colour-matching functions after a change of basis 0.00 of the way from Hunt–Pointer–Estévez towards the set built from the dichromat confusion points. Every one of these triples predicts exactly the same matches as every other, because a match is an equality and a matrix applied to both sides of an equality changes nothing. What moves is where the peaks are and whether the curves go negative — these ones do not, and going negative is what the 1931 committee constructed XYZ to avoid.

The matches do not name the cones

Colour matching is the whole empirical basis of colorimetry, and it fixes the observer's three curves only up to a nonsingular 3×3 — nine numbers that no match, in any quantity, to any precision, can see. One particular choice of those nine is used throughout here, and it was made for a different purpose.

eye · Cones The worst case is wherever the box stops. Four horizontal tracks, one per parameter of a painted wall. Each track spans the range an ordinary paint is allowed to occupy, with a second, wider range drawn behind it, and two markers show where the search for the worst change of light came to rest under each. Under the narrower box the answer sits on the wall in centre and width; under the wider one, in centre, width, base. The residual rises monotonically towards a narrower notch at a shorter wavelength on a darker wall, so there is no interior maximum to find. The worst change of light is 21.3 ΔE00 under one box and 28.4 under the other, and the census's own worst row is 3.37.

The worst case is where the box stops

The worst change of light this collection quotes is two bounces off a green wall, and it is the worst of fourteen changes somebody wrote down. Searching the family those fourteen were drawn from reaches six times further — and does not stop, because the residual rises monotonically towards a narrower notch on a darker wall. There is no worst case in this family, and the number anybody quotes for one is a number about their own constraint.

scene · Scene What a fourth reflectance dimension costs the theorem that a change of light is a matrix. Four rising curves on axes of the fourth dimension's amplitude, left to right, against what is left of daylight to tungsten after the exact 3×3 change-of-light matrix has been applied, in ΔE₀₀. All four begin at exactly zero: on the three-dimensional family the matrix is solved rather than fitted and there is no remainder at all, which is the theorem this collection's adaptation argument is built on. Adding a fourth reflectance dimension breaks it, and how badly depends far more on the fourth function's shape than on its size — at five per cent amplitude the four shapes cost 0.329, 0.572, 0.063, 0.124 ΔE₀₀ respectively, a factor of 9.1 between the dearest and the cheapest. For scale, the smallest von Kries residual anywhere in the census is 0.26 ΔE₀₀, so the cheapest of the four is a quarter of it and the dearest is twice it.

A theorem about a family

A change of light acts on the test surfaces used here as an exact 3×3 matrix with no residual whatsoever, and the whole adaptation argument is built on that being exact. It is exact because the surfaces span exactly three dimensions, and they span exactly three dimensions because three basis functions were written down.

scene · Scene Which fourth dimensions are expensive, and how fine is too fine to matter. Two curves on axes of how many half-cycles a cosine fourth basis function makes across the visible band, against what it costs the matrix theorem in ΔE₀₀, at a fixed ten per cent amplitude. Both curves touch zero at exactly one and two half-cycles: those are the family's own second and third basis functions, so a fourth coefficient along them adds no dimension and a change of light stays exactly a matrix. Between them the cost climbs, reaches a maximum, and — for the smooth source — falls away again, because structure finer than the scale on which three broad cone sensitivities differ integrates to nearly nothing. The two curves part company at the fine end. Under daylight-to-tungsten the cost has fallen by a factor of 2.2 from its peak; under daylight-to-a-triphosphor-tube it has barely fallen at all, because a source with three narrow emission lines has structure of its own at that scale for the surface's structure to beat against. The observer is identical in both curves.

A fourth dimension has a shape

How much a fourth reflectance dimension costs spans a factor of nine across four equally plausible shapes at one amplitude, and the expensive ones are not the shapes a variance figure would identify. The band that hurts is set by the illuminant rather than by the eye, which is why a triphosphor tube and a tungsten lamp disagree about it.

light · Light The census as the surfaces stop being three-dimensional. A slope chart with three columns — a test set with no fourth reflectance dimension, one with a fourth dimension at ten per cent amplitude, and one at twenty — and a line per change of light. Almost every line rises: a surface with structure the observer's three channels cannot follow is a surface an adaptation gain handles worse. Two lines are drawn heavy. daylight to a three-primary display rises fastest, by 90 per cent, because a source made of three narrow lines is precisely the instrument that cannot see a fourth reflectance dimension. And daylight to a triphosphor tube falls — the only row that does — because a triphosphor tube already samples the spectrum at three places, so extra structure in the surface is partly averaged away rather than added. The order of the middle of the table is not the same at the two ends; the extremes do not move.

The row a fourth dimension improves

Giving the test surfaces one more degree of freedom makes almost every change of light harder for an adapted observer — but not all of them, and which one it helps depends entirely on what the extra dimension looks like. A triphosphor tube is improved by one shape and hurt more than anything else in the census by another.

light · Light The adaptation census in six units, calibrated onto one scale. Each line is one of the fourteen changes of light in the adaptation census, drawn across the six units the results could have been published in. Every unit is multiplied by the single factor that best carries it onto ΔE2000 over a reference sample of surface pairs, so the vertical axis means the same thing in every column and a sloping line is a disagreement rather than a change of scale. The levels move by up to a factor of two. More to the point, the lines cross: ΔEok puts 10 of the 91 pairs of rows in the other order, and CAM16-UCS, the only appearance unit here, puts the fewest — 2.

The census in six units

Recomputing every change of light in the adaptation census under six colour-difference formulae, with the scale factor divided out, leaves a table whose levels move by up to a factor of three point seven. The rows that move most are the mild ones, which is the opposite of what a reader would guess and is a property of where each formula was fitted.

light · Light What six of this collection's published numbers do when the unit changes. Six quantities, from six calculations that share nothing: a change of light after an observer has adapted, a camera profile's error, the gap between the two standard observers, a metameric pair under the lamp that breaks it, the same image on two papers, and an observer two seconds into a new room. Each is recomputed under all six units and every unit is calibrated onto ΔE2000's scale first, so the bar is not a change of units in the ordinary sense. The bar is the ratio of the largest reading to the smallest, and it runs from 1.71 to 2.30. Five of the six are printed in ΔE2000 by the essays that report them; the sixth is printed in CAM16-UCS, because the model it comes out of defines that unit.

The observers differ by a unit's worth

The gap between the 1931 and 1964 standard observers is the one quantity in this collection's audit with no published number under it — nothing here reports it as a single figure over a stated set. It also has the second-largest dependence on which colour-difference formula is used, running from 1.60 to 3.55 across the menu.

matching · Gamut Two sensitivities from two libraries, under every unit. Two quantities that share no code, no test set and no physical question: how much the adaptation census's residual depends on how saturated its surfaces are, and how much a camera profile's reported error depends on how saturated its test chart is. The first is a mean over fourteen changes of light built from cosine combinations; the second is one number about one silicon sensor scored on Gaussian bumps. Under the published unit they sit at 0.687 and 0.656. Across the whole menu they move together, from about 0.5 under the appearance unit to about 1.15 under plain CIELAB, staying within 12 per cent of each other at the worst point. Two numbers agreeing once is a coincidence; two curves agreeing at six points across a factor of two and a half is a shared mechanism, and the mechanism is the compression the unit applies to a chroma difference.

The coincidence was a mechanism

Two sensitivities from two libraries with no shared code came out two per cent apart, and the claim made about them was that they share a mechanism rather than a number. That claim has a colour-difference formula inside it, so it can be tested by changing the formula — and both curves move together across the whole menu, from 0.5 to 1.15.

imaging · Capture Two slabs with one reflectance, and two colours through an aperture. Two constructed media whose bulk reflectance agrees at every wavelength to fifteen figures, and whose diffusion lengths differ by a factor of four. The upper curve is that shared reflectance — both slabs lie on it exactly. The two patches on the right are what a 4 millimetre radius returns from each, and they are 6.3 ΔE₀₀ apart. This is a metamerism with no observer in it: the two samples are the same colour to anybody under any light, and the instrument separates them because it is measuring a kernel through a hole rather than measuring a reflectance.

A pair the aperture separates

Two constructed slabs with the same reflectance at every wavelength, to fifteen figures — the same colour to any observer under any light — and 6.25 ΔE₀₀ apart when measured through a four-millimetre aperture. It is a metamerism with no observer in it, no illuminant in it, and no spectral difference to construct it from.

matching · Gamut The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

A neutral is everyone's colour

Two eyes differing by fifty years of lens yellowing, by a factor of three in macular pigment and by six nanometres of long-wavelength peak agree about a grey card to four parts in ten thousand billion. The agreement is an identity rather than a coincidence, and it says exactly what an observer disagreement is a disagreement about.

eye · Cones What this collection's grid does to its own observer audit. Two bars per light: the mean departure of the observer computed on this collection's five-nanometre grid, and the same computation on a quarter-nanometre one. For five of the six lights the two agree to two decimal places, which is what a well-sampled spectrum looks like. For the laser projector the coarse answer is exactly zero and the fine one is 1.80 — the largest in the table. On a five-nanometre grid a three-line spectrum with lines at 465, 532 and 638 nanometres is a one-line spectrum, and a single wavelength is a stimulus every observer agrees about to the last bit. The two departures do not compound here; the first conceals the second.

One wavelength is everyone's colour

A stimulus with a single wavelength in it produces the same relative cone excitations for every observer, exactly, whatever their age or field size. A display made of three such stimuli is where observers disagree most. Both statements are consequences of the same algebra, and the second is why laser projection has an observer problem.

matching · Gamut 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.

Every scene in this collection was matt

The green wall, the corner, the bounce series and the metamer separation are all computed on Lambertian surfaces, because the solver that produced them requires it. Each would move by between one and five colour differences on an ordinary satin finish, and none of those essays says what finish it means.

scene · Scene The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

Two observers and one metamer

An observer departure is invisible on a single sample compared with nothing. It becomes a disagreement the moment two spectra are being asked to match, because a match is an identity between three integrals and a different observer takes different integrals. Everything in this round is a statement about pairs wearing a single sample's clothes.

eye · Cones A soft proof exact for one observer, as two hundred others see it. Each display is driven to match each of thirty printed patches exactly for the reference observer, so for that observer screen and print are the same colour to fourteen decimal places. The bars are what two hundred observers drawn from the population make of the same pairs: the median observer's difference, median over the patches, and the ninety-fifth percentile observer's: 1.8 and 4.8 on the wide-gamut LCD, 2.0 and 5.4 on the OLED, 3.1 and 7.5 on the laser projector. The narrower a display's primaries, the larger both become.

A soft proof is exact for one reader

A display can be driven to match a printed patch exactly for the standard observer — three equations, three unknowns, agreement to fourteen decimal places. Two hundred observers drawn from a realistic population see the same screen and print a median of 2.1 colour differences apart on an OLED panel and 5.4 apart at the ninety-fifth percentile. On a laser projector the ninety-fifth percentile is 7.5. The patch that fails worst is unprinted paper, and in the chain's own unit the ninety-fifth percentile reader's stage is larger than every one of the four stages a delivery chain is budgeted for.

applied · Delivery The metamerism index, computed three ways, as the reference match loosens. The special metamerism index of 6 metameric pairs under an incandescent test light, against how well each pair matches under the reference light. Uncorrected, the index absorbs the reference mismatch and rises from 2.86 to 3.76. Corrected multiplicatively it rises to 3.31 and additively to 3.87. All three are the same number when the pair matches exactly, which is the only case the definition covers.

The metamerism index has two corrections

The index for a metameric pair is defined for a pair that matches exactly under the reference light, and no real pair does. The standard's remedy is to correct the sample first, and it names two corrections — scale the tristimulus values, or add the difference. On six pairs matched to one colour difference, the two answers differ by a tenth to four tenths of an index unit; at two, by a whole one.

matching · Gamut How often the choice of correction changes a pair's grade. Eighteen metameric pairs walked to each of eleven reference mismatches, with the share whose index falls in a different band under the two corrections the standard allows. At an exact match the share is zero and must be: there is nothing for either correction to correct. It rises to 44 per cent at a reference mismatch of 2, which is the quality a dyehouse reaches rather than the quality a laboratory constructs. The banding is a five-step convention at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3, stated here rather than quoted, and how much the count depends on it is drawn separately.

The ambiguity is largest where the index is used

The metamerism index is defined for a pair that matches exactly under the reference light, no real pair does, and the two corrections the standard allows for the residual give different answers. Over eighteen pairs at eleven match qualities the gap is nearly a function of the mismatch alone — its middle half spans a factor of 1.4 at the mismatches a dyehouse reaches — so it could be tabulated. And it is largest exactly there: zero at a laboratory's match, and re-grading eight pairs in eighteen at a trade's.

matching · Gamut

Named alongside it

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

Standard observerSpecificationIndividual variationIlluminantObserver metamerismReflectanceChromatic adaptationColour-matching functionsIlluminant metamerismCone fundamentalsΔENull space

All concepts