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

Observer variability — where it appears

The spread in colour matching and discrimination between people with normal colour vision. It comes mostly from the lens, the macular pigment, cone optical density and the three pigment peak wavelengths, and it is large enough that the difference between two standard transforms can be smaller than the difference between two observers.

Named by 12 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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

The price is also the person

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

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

Two points out of three

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

matching · Gamut A population of receptor bases, in the plane the published ones live in. The two axes this collection scores an adaptation basis on — the residual across the illumination census on the horizontal, ellipse anisotropy on the vertical, lower better on both — with 200 extra points on it. Each is the basis a member of the population's own confusion points determine. The cloud is not a point: it runs from 1.22 to 2.24 ΔE00 horizontally, which is wider than the whole spread of the published transforms marked on it. The observer this site quotes sits inside the cloud and near one edge of it, and the sentence "the receptor basis costs seventy per cent" is a sentence about that one point rather than about the construction.

A trade between matrices, not people

Across the space of possible bases, adapting well and discriminating well pull in opposite directions — the two optima sit at the ends of an empty diagonal. Across a population of actual observers the same two costs move weakly together, at a correlation of +0.29. The trade-off is a property of the set of matrices somebody could choose, not of the eyes anybody has. One measurement inside the population does trade, and it is the macular pigment.

brain · Appearance The arguments a standard observer does not have. Seven choices inside a set of colour-matching functions, each with the shape it takes and what it is worth in ΔE₀₀ on a red pigment under a 6500 K radiator. Six are measurements: a field size, an age, a macular density, a cone optical density, three peak wavelengths and a rod contribution. The seventh is not — a change of basis is a change of curves and not a change of observer, and its entry is exactly zero because the space an experiment measures is what an observer is. Printing that zero beside the others is the clearest statement of what the other six are measurements of.

The third factor is a construction

Every figure in this collection names its observer, which was the whole point. None of them says what an observer is made of. Three curves are not a measurement of the eye; they are a projection of one, with a field size, an age, a macular density, three peak wavelengths and a luminance constraint inside them.

eye · Cones One surface dimmed sixteen times, and the two things that happen to it. A single surface, dimmed by successive halvings, with the lens age departure measured on it at every level. The tristimulus deviation falls by exactly the dimming factor — 16 times over the sweep, to the last bit, because the colour integral is linear in the stimulus. What a unit of that deviation is worth rises by 8.2 times over the same sweep. The colour difference the audit reports is the product of the two, and it falls by only 1.95.

A deviation is not a difference

The previous round priced twenty departures in colour differences and treated each number as a property of the thing that departed. Every one of them is a product of two factors — how far the reading moved, which is linear and belongs to the departure, and what a unit of that movement is worth where it landed, which is not linear and belongs to the colour. Dimming one surface sixteen times scales the first by exactly sixteen and the second by eight.

matching · Gamut The angle between two departures, which nothing in the audit records. Every pair of the six departures on every surface — 2520 pairs — binned by the angle between their two deviations in the local metric. The distribution reaches both ends: 440 pairs sit under thirty degrees and point almost the same way, and 615 sit above a hundred and fifty and point almost opposite. On 1095 of the 2520 the two together cost less than the larger of them alone. A table of magnitudes cannot say which case it is in.

A size is not a direction

An audit that reports magnitudes cannot say what two of them cost together. Over two and a half thousand pairs of observer departures the angle between them in the local metric runs from one degree to a hundred and seventy-nine, and on forty-three per cent of them the two together cost less than the larger of the two alone. Adding the angle predicts the composition to one and a quarter per cent; Pythagoras is out by twenty-eight.

matching · Gamut Where averaging the model's answers is and is not averaging its argument. Each row takes a spread of situations, averages the model's predictions across them, and compares that against the model's prediction for the average situation. The bar is the gap as a share of the spread itself. Over the differences between observers it is 1.4 per cent — the model is very nearly linear there. Over the range of adapting luminance one room covers in a day it is 59 per cent, and from indoors to outdoors 74.

Where the model's curve does not matter

This round has been about what a nonlinearity does to an average, and CIECAM16 is the most nonlinear thing in the collection. Over the spread a population of observers produces, the average of its predictions is its prediction for the average to within 1.4 per cent — the nonlinearity is there and the excursion is too small to reach it. Over the range of adapting luminance one room covers in a day, the same gap is 59 per cent of the spread, and from indoors to outdoors 74.

brain · Appearance The audit's six departures, read twice. Each departure priced in the matching unit it was published in and in the appearance unit an appearance prediction would be judged by. The model does not scale them by one factor: it amplifies the smallest by 1.58 and the largest by 1.03, so the range between them narrows from 3.34 to 2.17. The mean ranking is unchanged and 14 of the 42 surfaces reorder.

The audit, read as appearances

The previous round priced six observer departures in a matching unit and left them there. Read in the appearance unit an appearance prediction would actually be judged by, they are not the same six numbers scaled by a constant — the model amplifies the smallest by 1.58 and the largest by 1.03, so the range between the largest and smallest term narrows from 3.34 to 2.17. The published ranking survives in the mean and changes on fourteen of the forty-two surfaces it was averaged over.

brain · Appearance 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

Named alongside it

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

Cone fundamentalsAuditBasisChromatic adaptationMesopicModelling assumptionPopulationRodsSensitivityWhite LEDColour differenceDeclared input

All concepts