Concept

Optimisation — where it appears

Searching a space of models for the one that minimises a stated cost, and reporting the minimum. What the minimum means depends on the shape of the cost around it, which is what decides whether a constraint imposed on the answer is expensive or free.

Named by 28 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

How cone-like a basis is, against how well it adapts. Each basis placed by how far its own implied deuteranope confusion point falls from the measured one (horizontal) and by how much an adapted observer is left with in it (vertical). The construction from the confusion points sits at zero on the horizontal by definition and near the top on the vertical. Nothing near the left of the picture is near the bottom: the closer a basis is to the receptors, the more a von Kries gain leaves behind. The unconstrained winner sits at 1.63 on the horizontal, further from the measurement than any published transform except CAT02 and Bradford.

The best axes are not receptors

If the axes that make a von Kries gain work were nearly the cone fundamentals, the published adaptation transforms would be cone-like and their departures would be slack in a fit. They are not. Minimise the residual over all nine free numbers and the winner sits further from the measured dichromat confusion points than any of them.

eye · Cones
Every basis against both objectives at once. A scatter with the mean adaptation residual across the illumination census on the horizontal axis and the mean axis ratio of MacAdam's ellipses in a lightness–chroma space on the vertical. Lower is better on both. The two winners sit at the two ends of an empty diagonal: the basis that adapts best leaves 7.70 on the vertical and the basis that discriminates best leaves 1.79 on the horizontal, each worse on the other objective than every published transform. The basis built from the dichromat confusion points is at (1.65, 2.60) — best at neither and within a factor of two of both floors, which no other entry in the picture manages.

No basis is good at both

The same nine numbers decide how well a von Kries gain reproduces a change of light and how nearly a lightness–chroma space makes the discrimination ellipses circles. Minimise either one and the other collapses. The basis built from the receptors is best at neither and is the only entry in the table respectable at both.

brain · Appearance
Five answers to how far the ellipses are from circles. Five mean axis ratios on the same twenty-five measured ellipses, measured the same way in every row: the boundary points carried through, the longest radius over the shortest, averaged. What differs is which class of map is allowed. The first two rows are chromaticity diagrams, which divide by a sum; CIE xy as printed leaves 2.95 and the best diagram there is leaves 2.02. The last three are lightness–chroma spaces, which divide by a white point; CIELAB as specified leaves 3.44, the best space with no compression leaves 2.33, and the best space with a cube root in it leaves 1.61. Neither family contains the other, and only the last one gets below two.

A compression goes below the floor

Elsewhere this collection minimised the anisotropy of MacAdam's ellipses over every chromaticity diagram there is, found 2.02, and called the residual a property of the eye. It is a property of the eye seen through a projective picture. A cube root after the right basis reaches 1.61 on the same twenty-five ellipses.

difference · Metric
The floor as a function of the exponent, and the fixed basis beside it. Two curves against the compression exponent on a logarithmic axis from 1 to 10. The lower curve is the best mean ellipse axis ratio any basis can reach with that exponent applied after it, and it falls from 2.33 at no compression to 1.66 at a square root and 1.61 at a cube root, then hardly moves — 1.57 at a tenth root. The upper curve is CIELAB's own basis at the same exponents and gets steadily worse, from 3.57 to 3.77. Almost everything a compression buys arrives with the first step away from linearity, and after that the exponent is choosing between 1.66 and 1.61 while the basis is choosing between 1.61 and 3.44.

The exponent was never the argument

A century of colour science has argued about whether the eye's response is a cube root, a square root or a logarithm. Minimise the anisotropy of MacAdam's ellipses over every basis, at each of eight exponents, and the floor moves by under three per cent between a cube root and a tenth root — while the basis moves it by a factor of two.

difference · Metric
Every change of light in the census, under three bases. Fourteen changes of illumination, each drawn three times: the residual left by a gain in the basis built from the dichromat confusion points, in CAT16, and in the basis that minimises the average. The ordering between the three is the same on nearly every row, and — the part an average hides — the worst row is the same row for every basis nobody fitted, which is two bounces off the same wall. The difficulty belongs to the change rather than to the choice of axes — except for the fitted winner, whose worst row is D65 to a triphosphor tube instead. What a fit buys is not a uniform improvement; it is the abandonment of the one change everybody else is beaten by.

Everyone is beaten by the same wall

Eight candidate adaptation bases, fourteen changes of light, and seven of the eight have their worst row in the same place — not a lamp, but a green wall reflecting twice. The one that does not is the one that was fitted, and what its fit bought was permission to give up on that row.

light · Light
Three published primary sets, and a fourth chosen for how it adapts. The spectral locus with four triangles inside it. sRGB covers 33.5% of the diagram and leaves an adapted observer 2.36 ΔE00; Display P3 covers 45.4% at 1.22; Rec. 2020 covers 63.3% at 1.09. The fourth triangle is the best adaptation basis available to a display asked to cover 63.5% of the diagram, at 1.02 — and it is a different triangle from Rec. 2020's rather than a smaller one. The largest triangle that fits at all covers 73.9%, which is where the axis of this argument ends.

Primaries chosen for their inverse

Moving a display's white point is a gain on its R, G and B, so a display adapts in the inverse of its own primary matrix — a basis chosen by committees for gamut coverage and phosphor availability. Pose the design problem properly and the answer costs one per cent of the gamut argument and reaches within two per cent of the best basis there is.

applied · Delivery
The dyes a camera has, and the dyes an adaptation basis would want. Three sensor sensitivities drawn twice: faintly, the silicon-and-filter-array set this collection models, and boldly, three Gaussian dyes chosen to make the inverse of their own response matrix a good basis for a white-balance gain. The designed dyes sit at 610, 542, 449 nm with widths of 35, 26, 30 nm — narrower and further apart than the real ones, which is what sharpening looks like when a search rather than a committee does it. They leave 0.97 ΔE00 against the real sensor's 1.62, and they are held within 0.28 of the Luther condition so that the result is still a camera.

A sensor designed for its inverse

A camera's white balance is a gain in a basis made from its own dyes and the light in the room. Choose the dyes for that basis instead of for cost and quantum efficiency, hold the sensor within a stated distance of the Luther condition, and the design reaches the best adaptation figure any basis achieves — and then the room moves it.

imaging · Capture
The same optimum, along its narrowest direction and its widest. The adaptation objective along two straight lines through its own minimum, both of unit length in the nine coefficients. Along one of them the cost rises steeply; along the other the same step costs 8.0 times less, and a design constrained to move that way gives up almost nothing. That is why restricting the nine numbers to be the inverse of three realisable primaries — three degrees of freedom gone — costs about one per cent, while requiring them to hit the three dichromat confusion points costs seventy. Counting what a constraint removes predicts neither number; what matters is which way it points.

A constraint costs what it points at

Three primary chromaticities remove three of the nine numbers in an adaptation basis and cost one per cent. Three dichromat confusion points remove six and cost seventy. Counting what a constraint removes predicts neither, because an optimum is a long bowl and what matters is which way the constraint points.

limits · Limits
The family does have a worst case, at a band no pigment can cut. The worst change of light a painted wall can produce, at each band width, with the wall's centre wavelength, depth and base optimised at every point. The horizontal axis is logarithmic in the width. The curve rises as the band narrows, turns over at about 6.02 nanometres, and falls again — a band that narrow returns too little light to move the white much. The previous round's search reported no worst case because its box stopped at ten nanometres, marked, which is on the wrong side of the turn. The peak is 28.54 ΔE00 against 28.38 at that floor, which is 0.6 per cent higher: wrong in principle, right in practice to a fraction of a per cent.

A notch a pigment cannot cut

The worst change of light a painted room can produce has no maximum inside the box the search was given, which the previous round reported as a family with no worst case. Bounded by what a molecule can actually do, it has one — at a band six nanometres wide, narrower than any pigment and narrower than the box.

light · Light
The three worst walls, drawn as the reflectances they are. Three reflectance curves, one per bound: the wall each search settled on. All three are dark over most of the spectrum with a single band near the short-wavelength end — the arithmetic bound's is 10 nanometres wide, the physical one's 40, and a paint somebody sells the same. None of them is a saturated colour: their excitation purities are 0.18, 0.52, 0.52 against a ceiling of 0.6, which is why the purity constraint never bites. What breaks an adapted observer is a wall that takes most of the light away, not one that is a strong colour.

The darkest wall anybody sells

Asked which property of a paint decides the worst change of light a room can produce, anybody would answer how saturated it is allowed to be. A ceiling on saturation never comes near binding, because the worst wall is dark rather than colourful — and the constraint that does bind is one nobody would nominate.

scene · Scene
Downhill from every published matrix, one step at a time. Each curve is a steepest-descent walk from one of this collection's published bases, plotted as the objective against the distance walked in the nine coefficients. The horizontal line is the optimum. The first step of each walk is the long one — XYZ scaling closes 41 per cent of its whole gap in one — and every walk then flattens without reaching the line, because the valley floor is nearly flat and the steepest direction is nearly across it. Bradford starts closest and closes least: it is already in the flat part.

Downhill from a published matrix

Walking steepest descent from each adaptation transform in use closes between a quarter and nine tenths of its distance to the best one, and most of that in the first step. The direction it sets off in is eighty to eighty-seven degrees away from the answer, and that turns out not to be an artefact of the three directions nothing can see.

applied · Delivery
A camera matrix refitted to minimise each unit, rather than solved in XYZ. Every camera profile here, and as far as can be told every camera profile anybody ships, is a linear least-squares solve in XYZ. That is an objective and it is on nobody's menu: it weights a difference by how large the tristimulus values are. Each row here refits the same 3×3 by direct search to minimise one of the six units instead. The upper bar is how much better the fit gets in that unit; the lower is how far the matrix itself moves, as a relative Frobenius norm. Both matter and they do not agree: CAM16-UCS moves the matrix least, at 0.34 per cent, for the largest improvement of the six, while ΔE*94 moves it 6.8 times as far for less. A score that changes is a report changing; a matrix that changes is the camera rendering different pixels.

The objective nobody chose

Every camera profile here, and as far as can be told everywhere, is a linear least-squares solve in tristimulus space. That is an objective and it is on nobody's menu — it weights an error by how bright the patch is. Refitting the same matrix to minimise a real colour-difference formula improves the fit in all six, and moves the matrix, which means different pixels rather than a different report.

imaging · Capture
A soft proof exact for one observer, and three proofs tuned for readers. For each display, the median over printed patches of the 95th percentile reader's mismatch between screen and print, for four ways of choosing the display's three drive levels: exact for the reference observer; least squares over a population of a hundred; tuned on that population's 95th percentile; and tuned on the two hundred readers it is scored on, which no workflow could do. On a wide-gamut LCD the four give 4.57, 4.99, 4.74, 4.39, and the three tuned proofs cost the reference observer 0.70, 0.82, 0.69. On an OLED panel the four give 5.12, 5.72, 4.99, 4.86, and the three tuned proofs cost the reference observer 1.35, 0.95, 0.67. On a laser projector the four give 7.54, 7.00, 6.81, 6.50, and the three tuned proofs cost the reference observer 1.88, 1.23, 1.14.

A proof cannot be tuned for readers who disagree

A soft proof matched exactly for the standard observer is five colour differences wrong for one reader in twenty. Giving up that exactness to tune the display's three drives for a population instead moves the ninety-fifth percentile reader by 4 to 14 per cent even when the tuning is done on the very readers it is scored against — because what readers see is mostly each other's disagreement, and three drives act on every reader at once.

applied · Delivery
Six starts for every held gradient, and where each one lands. Each row is one gradient held inside a gamut, relaxed from six starts: the straight line, the free shortest path, and the straight line bent towards and away from the neutral axis and up and down in lightness. Each dot is how much longer than the free shortest path that start's result is, on a logarithmic scale from a hundredth of a per cent to a thousand; the ring marks the best. The first 10 rows are gradients between colours on a coated CMYK press's boundary whose straight line leaves the press: their best routes cost a median of 0.12% and at most 1.1%, and on 5 of them some start lands at more than twice the free length. The next 3 are the display gradients held inside sRGB, whose best cost at most 1.3% and whose starts spread by at most 4.2%. The last 6 are press gradients that never leave, where no start is trapped.

A press makes the cheap route a search

Holding a gradient inside a display's gamut cost nothing measurable, and the essay that found it credited the gamut's convexity. A press's gamut is not convex: 216 of 630 straight lines between colours on its own hue ring leave it. Holding gradients inside the press still costs little at best, a median of a tenth of a per cent. But the best route depends on where the relaxation starts, the free path is the best start on one gradient of ten, and on half of them some start is trapped at more than twice the free length. On the display no start is trapped.

matching · Gamut
How steep an edge a band draws, and what it costs. A Gaussian absorption band of stated width produces a reflectance edge whose own width depends on how deep the band is, because the exponential saturates: where the absorbance is large the reflectance is already nought and the edge is over. A forty-nanometre band at an absorbance of 3 draws an edge 32 nanometres wide; at 12 it draws one 21 nanometres wide. Below an absorbance of 2.3 the band never reaches a reflectance of a tenth at all and has no edge in this sense. The dashed lines are each band's own width, which is the number a slope limit would have been given.

A sharp edge is bought with depth

A slope limit on reflectance was introduced as the weakest honest statement of a pigment's bluntness, with a band-shape limit named as the stronger version to be written later. Written, it is not stronger. Three absorption bands none narrower than forty nanometres reach further than a forty-nanometre slope limit in 94 of 154 directions of the object-colour solid, because a band's width and the width of the reflectance edge it draws are different quantities — and what converts one into the other is how much colorant is in the film.

limits · Limits
The same gradients, priced by a penalty and by a projection. Each row is one gradient held inside a coated press from six starts. The pale dots are the penalised relaxation — a free step, with a price for leaving the press — and the dark ones are the projected relaxation, which takes the free step and then moves each point to the nearest printable colour. Across is how much longer than the free path each result is, logarithmic. On the 10 gradients whose straight line leaves the press, the penalty leaves 9 starts at more than twice the free length and the projection leaves none. The projection's best route costs a median 0.02% against the penalty's 0.13%, and its spread across starts is 0.95% against 132.5%.

A projection has no reason to detour

Holding a gradient inside a press by penalising the excursion turned the gamut's price from a number into a search: on five of ten crossing gradients some starting point leaves the relaxation trapped at more than twice the free length, and the spread across six starts runs to 271 per cent of the free path. Replacing the penalty with a projection — take the free step, then move each point to the nearest printable colour — leaves no trap on any gradient and a spread of 0.06 to 2.4 per cent.

matching · Gamut
Every symmetric and every skewed fourth emitter, and the best of each at every cost. Each fourth emitter added to the three-emitter lamp, as its fidelity index against the number of the solid's directions a 40-nanometre slope limit costs more than a per cent: 315 symmetric bands and 1260 skewed ones over centre, widths and power. The two step lines are the best rendering each family reaches at or below each cost. They run a few directions apart and never further: rendering at 88 costs 103 directions with a symmetric band and 97 with a skewed one. The ringed point is the three emitters alone, Rf 78.6 at 62.

A lopsided band does not break the trade

A fourth emitter added to a three-emitter LED renders colours better and costs a slow pigment its reach, and the position that renders best and the position that costs least were thirty-five nanometres apart. The obvious suspect was the shape: every emitter searched was a symmetric bump, and a band with its skirt on one side might fill a gap without splitting it. Freed to be lopsided, it saves between one and seven of the solid's three hundred directions. No band renders like the amber emitter and costs like the green one, the lopsided bands that help lean the other way from the proposal, and what the fourth band renders was never the lamp's white.

limits · Limits
The best slow pigment is a staircase of eighths. Under daylight D65, the direction the slope-limited pigment reaches least well — 76.1 per cent of the ideal: its weights across the spectrum, scaled; the ideal pigment, reflecting fully wherever the weight is positive; and the best reflectance changing by at most an eighth per five nanometres, solved on 641 levels and on nine. The two solutions coincide wherever the lamp gives light: every band sits on a whole number of eighths, climbing and falling eight steps at a time where the ideal jumps. Where the lamp gives no light any reflectance serves, and the two may differ there.

The slope limit was exact all along

Every count of what a slow pigment cannot reach compares a slope limit, solved exactly on 161 levels of reflectance, with two band models found by searching. Searched harder, the band models lost a sixth of their losses, and the open question was whether the slope limit was being flattered by its own grid — whether 321 or 641 levels would lower its counts too. The prediction was a fall of under a twentieth. There is no fall at all: on every finer grid, under all nine lamps, every direction reaches exactly what it reached, and 463 directions are lost as before. The reason is the shape of the answer. The best reflectance that may change by at most an eighth per five-nanometre band is a staircase whose every step is a whole eighth, because a weighted sum is maximised at a corner of the allowed set and every corner is built from full steps off nought or one. A grid of only the nine eighths gives every answer to the last digit. The census's count is therefore not an estimate on a grid but an exact statement about every pigment that slow, and the slope limit's 1.38-fold lead over the searched band model is a floor that further search can only raise.

limits · Limits
Bands narrower than the gap split mercury's lines. Under a clear mercury lamp on a one-nanometre grid, its lines one and a half nanometres wide, the 25 directions of the object-colour solid that ask for the green line reflected and the yellow absorbed or the reverse: how many the band pigment, searched, loses by more than one per cent, against how narrow its bands may be, with the bands no deeper than twelve and than twenty-four. At the census's forty nanometres it loses 15; at thirty, 9; at twenty-five, 0. The green and yellow lines are 31.5 nm apart, marked.

A band pigment must be narrower than the gap it splits

Under a clear mercury lamp a pigment built from absorption bands no narrower than forty nanometres falls short in fifteen of the twenty-five directions that ask it to reflect the green line and absorb the yellow, or the reverse — the count an earlier search left short however deep it cut its cliff. The slope-limited pigment's losses turned out to be the lines' 31.5 nm spacing against its swing, and the prediction was that the band pigment's are the same arithmetic, falling to nought near a band thirty nanometres wide. Searched on a one-nanometre grid with the lines narrowed, the count falls at every narrower band — fifteen at forty, eleven at thirty-five, nine at thirty — and reaches nought at twenty-five, not thirty. Every loss already splits the pair and falls short on both lines at once: a Gaussian band deep enough to absorb one line keeps absorbing a little of the other. One band of depth twelve, placed as well as it can be, errs by 3.2 per cent at forty nanometres, 0.8 at thirty and 0.2 at twenty-five; doubling its depth buys less than narrowing it by five nanometres.

limits · Limits
A steep side splits mercury's lines at forty nanometres. Under a clear mercury lamp on a one-nanometre grid, the 25 directions that ask for one of the green and yellow lines reflected and the other absorbed: how many the band pigment loses by more than one per cent, with symmetric bands, with the same bands searched with a fourth number as a control, and with bands whose one side is half the other's. At forty nanometres the symmetric bands lose 15 and the skewed ones 1; the skewed bands lose none at thirty-five or thirty.

A steep side splits mercury's lines at forty nanometres

Under a clear mercury lamp a pigment built from Gaussian absorption bands no narrower than forty nanometres falls short in fifteen of the twenty-five directions that ask it to reflect the green line and absorb the yellow, or the reverse, because a band's tail reaches the line it should pass. Real dye bands are often lopsided, and the prediction was that a band whose one side is half the other's, the steep side free to face either way, loses at forty nanometres about as many directions as a symmetric band thirty wide — nine — and helps only the directions that pass the green. It loses one. At thirty-five and thirty it loses none. In every one of the twenty-five fits the absorbing band turns its steep side to the line it must pass, and both kinds of direction gain: none of fourteen passing the green is lost, one of eleven passing the yellow. A single band forty nanometres wide with a steep side splits the two lines within 0.37 per cent; a symmetric band must narrow to about twenty-seven to do as well.

limits · Limits
The losses fall slowly, then all at once. Under a clear mercury lamp, how many of the 25 directions that split its green line from its yellow the band pigment loses by more than one per cent with bands forty nanometres wide, against how lopsided each band is — from symmetric to sides of two thirds and one third — beside the counts the prediction gave. 0.50: 16, 0.55: 13, 0.60: 10, 0.65: 5, 0.67: 1.

A band must be nearly two to one before its steep side pays

Under a clear mercury lamp, a pigment of absorption bands forty nanometres wide loses fifteen or sixteen of the twenty-five directions that ask it to reflect the green line and absorb the yellow, or the reverse, and the same bands with one side a third of the width and the other two thirds lose one. The prediction for milder skews was that the losses fall in step with a single band's error — to about eight at sides of 0.55 and 0.45, three at 0.6 and 0.4 — so that a three-to-two skew already halves them. It does not. The census loses thirteen at 0.55, ten at 0.6, five at 0.65 and one at two to one: three directions recovered per twentieth of skew at first, twelve at the last. The losses track one band's error against the one-per-cent line the census counts by, and a single band crosses that line only near a skew of 0.62. A dye's modest natural asymmetry buys a few directions; the steep side pays only when it is close to half the other.

limits · Limits
Three widths, one count: the steep side decides. Every searched band pigment at thirty, thirty-five and forty nanometres, placed by the half-width of its steep side and by how many of the clear mercury lamp's 25 splitting directions it loses by more than one per cent. The three widths fall on one staircase: 20.0 nm: 16, 18.0 nm: 13, 17.5 nm: 10, 16.0 nm: 9, 15.7 nm: 9, 15.0 nm: 8, 14.9 nm: 8, 14.0 nm: 4, 14.0 nm: 4, 13.3 nm: 1, 13.1 nm: 1, 12.3 nm: 0, 11.7 nm: 0, 10.0 nm: 0.

A band is only as wide as its steep side

Under a clear mercury lamp, a pigment of absorption bands forty nanometres wide must be skewed nearly two to one before it can split the green line from the yellow, and the prediction for bands five nanometres narrower was that a single band crosses one per cent of error near a skew of 0.57 and the census's losses fall to five or fewer by 0.6. The losses do fall to four by 0.6; the single band crosses one per cent at 0.555. But the forty-nanometre rule that read the losses off that one-per-cent line breaks at once, and what replaces it is simpler: a thirty-five-nanometre band at 0.6 and a forty-nanometre band at 0.65 have the same steep side, fourteen nanometres, and lose the same four directions by the same shortfalls to a hundredth of a point. Three widths and fourteen pigments fall on one staircase in the steep side alone. Searching every loss again from the milder skews' answers finds one direction the census missed, at both widths, and corrects the forty-nanometre counts to nine and four.

limits · Limits
At one half-width, the profile decides everything. The forty-nanometre band pigment with its steep side drawn in four profiles at a half-width of fourteen nanometres, and in two more at the half-widths that give a single band the Gaussian's error: how many of the clear mercury lamp's 25 splitting directions each loses, with its single band's error. At fourteen nanometres: Gaussian⁴ 0, Gaussian 4, sech² 19, Lorentzian 22; matched to the Gaussian's error, the secant at 7.73 nm loses 2 and the power-four Gaussian at 39.1 nm 7.

At one half-width a flank can lose nothing or nearly everything

Under a clear mercury lamp, a pigment of Gaussian absorption bands splits the green line from the yellow according to its steep side's half-width alone, and a Gaussian flank is fixed by its half-width — so the census could not say whether it measures the half-width or the absorbance left in the flank's foot at the line it should spare. The prediction was that the foot decides: at a half-width of fourteen nanometres, a Lorentzian steep side loses most of the twenty-five splitting directions and a sharper-footed one none. It does. A power-four Gaussian loses none, the Gaussian four, a squared hyperbolic secant nineteen and a Lorentzian twenty-two, in the order of their single bands' errors. But a single band's error is not the whole account: three profiles drawn at the half-widths that give a single band the same error — 7.73, fourteen and 39.1 nanometres — lose two, four and seven directions, and the widest of them loses directions the others keep, because its shoulder starts absorbing nearer the green.

limits · Limits
One per cent of Lorentzian nearly triples the losses. The forty-nanometre band pigment with its steep side a pseudo-Voigt fourteen nanometres wide at half depth: how many of the clear mercury lamp's 25 splitting directions it loses by more than one per cent, against the Lorentzian share of that side, beside the Gaussian's four and the counts the prediction gave. Lost with no Lorentzian, 4; 1%: 11, 2%: 14, 5%: 18, 10%: 19, 20%: 20, all: 22.

A hundredth of Lorentzian undoes a Gaussian flank

Under a clear mercury lamp, a band pigment whose steep side is a Gaussian fourteen nanometres wide at half depth loses four of the twenty-five directions that split the green line from the yellow, and the same side drawn as a Lorentzian loses twenty-two. A real absorption band is usually a Voigt profile, a Gaussian core with a Lorentzian share in its wings, and the prediction was that a twentieth of Lorentzian doubles the Gaussian's losses and a fifth reaches nineteen. The direction is right and the scale is not. A hundredth of Lorentzian takes the pigment from four lost directions to eleven; a fiftieth to fourteen; a twentieth to eighteen; a fifth to twenty. The best-placed band leaves the passed line more than three half-widths from its centre, out in the wing, and there a wing one per cent Lorentzian carries twice the absorbance of the whole Gaussian. The count saturates near twenty while the worst direction's shortfall keeps growing, from 2.8 per cent at a hundredth to 51 with a full Lorentzian.

limits · Limits
A narrower flank keeps most of the Lorentzian's losses. The forty-nanometre band pigment with its steep side fourteen, ten, seven and five nanometres wide at half depth: how many of the clear mercury lamp's 25 splitting directions it loses by more than one per cent, as a Gaussian and as a pseudo-Voigt with a twentieth of Lorentzian, beside the counts predicted. The Gaussian loses 4, 0, 0, 0; the Voigt 18, 13, 12, 7, where four were predicted at seven nanometres and none at five.

A narrower flank moves its wing in with it

Under a clear mercury lamp, a band pigment whose steep side is a Gaussian fourteen nanometres wide loses four of the twenty-five directions that split the green line from the yellow, and with a twentieth of Lorentzian in that side it loses eighteen, because the wing three half-widths out out-absorbs the whole Gaussian there. A Lorentzian wing falls as the square of the distance over its half-width, and the prediction was that narrowing the side to seven nanometres brings the twentieth-Lorentzian pigment back to four losses and to five nanometres to none. It loses thirteen at ten nanometres, twelve at seven and seven at five, while the Gaussian loses nothing at all three. The wing still decides: the narrower band does not stay where the wider one sat but moves fourteen nanometres in towards the line it must pass, so its wing there falls fourfold rather than eightfold.

limits · Limits
A five-nanometre flank loses nothing up to a fiftieth of Lorentzian. The forty-nanometre band pigment's lost splitting directions against the Lorentzian share of its steep side, for a steep side five nanometres wide — the first search and the better of it and a second — and fourteen. At five nanometres: 0, 0, 0, 5 lost at no Lorentzian, a hundredth, a fiftieth and a twentieth, where the first search had 0, 0, 1, 7; at fourteen, 4, 11, 14, 18.

A five-nanometre flank carries a fiftieth of Lorentzian

A band pigment splitting mercury's green and yellow lines with a steep side five nanometres wide loses none of the twenty-five splitting directions as a Gaussian and seven with a twentieth of Lorentzian in its flank, because the band slides in towards the passed line and carries its wing there. The prediction was that at five nanometres the count follows the single band's error, which grows in proportion to the share: about two lost at a fiftieth and none at a hundredth. A hundredth loses none, as predicted. The first search lost one direction at a fiftieth — and searched again from the best pigments found at the neighbouring shares, that direction reaches within two thousandths of the ideal: a fiftieth loses none either. The same second search recovers two of the twentieth's seven, leaving five. A sharp enough flank tolerates a fiftieth of Lorentzian where a fourteen-nanometre one lost fourteen directions to it.

limits · Limits
The count falls by one and then by seven. The forty-nanometre pigment's lost splitting directions at a twentieth of Lorentzian against the half-width of its steep side, at the best of every search, and the count each half-width would lose if every direction fell short by its seven-nanometre constant times one band's error. Searched again, 14 nm loses 18, 10 nm loses 13, 7 nm loses 12, 5 nm loses 5; the constants predict 16 at 14, 13 at 10, 12 at 7, 9 at 6, 5 at 5, 3 at 4.5, 0 at 4.

Each direction falls short by one band's ratio

A band pigment asked to reflect mercury's green line and absorb its yellow, with a twentieth of Lorentzian in its steep side, loses eighteen of twenty-five splitting directions at a steep side fourteen nanometres wide, thirteen at ten, twelve at seven and five at five. A second search had lowered the five-nanometre count, and the prediction was that searching the seven- and ten-nanometre pigments again lowers each by one or two, leaving a count nearly linear in the half-width. Searched again, both lose exactly what they lost — no direction gains six tenths of a point. The uneven fall is real, and the reason is plainer than any search: every direction's shortfall falls with the half-width by the same factor as a single band's error, so the count is a fixed ranking of constants, one a direction, read against a line that moves.

limits · Limits
The ranking reads six nanometres to the direction. The forty-nanometre pigment's lost splitting directions at a twentieth of Lorentzian against the steep side's half-width, at every half-width searched, beside the count the ranking of seven-nanometre constants predicts. At 6 nm the ranking predicted 9 and the search found 9; at 4.5 nm the ranking predicted 3 and the search found 1; at 4 nm the ranking predicted 0 and the search found 0.

The ranking reads six nanometres to the direction

Every direction a band pigment loses under mercury's lines falls short, as its steep side narrows, by the same factor as a single band's error — so each direction carries a constant, and the count at any half-width can be read off one band with no search at all. Read that way, a twentieth of Lorentzian loses nine directions at a six-nanometre steep side, three at four and a half and none at four. Searched, six nanometres loses nine: the same nine, every direction within 6.2 per cent of where the constants put it. Four loses none. Four and a half loses one, not three — the two the ranking added sit 0.005 and 0.011 of a point under the one-per-cent line. And at the narrowest widths the gentle directions begin to fall short by more than the ranking says, by up to 29 per cent, which is where the single band stops being the whole story.

limits · Limits

Named alongside it

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

PigmentObject-colour solidOptimal coloursAbsorptionChromatic adaptationBasisWavelength gridTrade-offThe von Kries transformCIELABCAT16Identifiability

All concepts