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

Rank correlation — where it appears

A measure of how far two orderings of the same objects agree, computed from the ranks rather than from the values. Kendall's τ counts the pairs put in the other order and Spearman's ρ correlates the ranks themselves; the first is the right one wherever the question is how many comparisons would be decided differently.

Named by 9 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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.

A choice with no magnitude

An audit can multiply a width by 1.25 and report an elasticity. It cannot multiply CIEDE2000 by anything. Auditing a structural choice needs a different instrument, and building one shows that six published numbers in this collection each carry a factor of about two of unit-choice — after the change of scale has been taken out.

limits · Limits How far each unit is from being a rescaling of the one this collection publishes in. One row per unit on the menu. The bar is the root-mean-square scatter about that unit's own best rescaling of ΔE2000, over 374 pairs of surfaces differing by a fraction of a unit to about ten. A bar of zero would mean the unit is ΔE2000 in different money — every printed number would change and no conclusion would. ΔE2000's own row is zero by construction and is the check that the table is computed the right way round. The two units that divide a chroma difference by the chroma it was measured at, ΔE94 at 15 per cent and CAM16-UCS at 24, are closer to it than the three that do not, which run from 28 to 35. The split is by weighting and not by whether the unit is a matching difference or an appearance one.

The weighting is the disagreement

Five colour-difference formulae, three decades and two committees, and the single property that predicts which of them agree is whether a chroma difference gets divided by the chroma it was measured at. It sorts the menu exactly, it cuts across the distinction between a matching difference and an appearance one, and it halves the census's largest sensitivity.

difference · Metric The census along the line from ΔE76 to ΔE94, and past it. ΔE94 is ΔE76 with two weighting constants in it, and at zero those constants make every weight exactly one, so the two formulae are joined by a line rather than separated by a choice. The horizontal axis is how much of the published weighting is applied: 0 is exactly ΔE76, 1 is exactly ΔE94, and 3 is three times more weighting than anybody has proposed. The falling curve is the census's mean elasticity to how saturated its test set is, which drops from 1.11 to 0.74 — most of the fall happening before the published value is reached. The other curve is Kendall's τ against ΔE2000's ranking, and it peaks at w = 0.5, not at 1: the weighting that best reproduces the published ordering is about half the published weighting. There is no value of this dial that reaches ΔE2000, whose rotation term is not on this line at all.

A dial through a discrete menu

ΔE*94 is ΔE*ab with two weighting constants in it, and at zero those constants make every weight exactly one — so the two ends of the oldest disagreement in colour difference are joined by a line rather than separated by a choice. Walking it gives a derivative where a menu gives only a spread, and the derivative says the published weighting is on the far side of the interesting part.

difference · Metric Which steps of the census ranking a change of unit reverses. Every adjacent pair in the published census ranking that at least one unit puts the other way round. The bar counts how many of the five other units reverse it. The marker on the left says whether the test set had already declared the pair unresolved — a gap smaller than twice its own paired standard error, which is a statement about sampling over 125 surfaces and shares no arithmetic with a change of ruler. The two pairs every unit reverses are both flagged, which is the agreement. The pair at the bottom is the disagreement: the test set resolves it at 9.1 standard errors and four of the five units reverse it anyway, because a sampling error cannot see a change of ruler and a change of ruler cannot see a sampling error.

Two instruments and one ranking

A sampling error over a hundred and twenty-five surfaces and a change of colour-difference formula share no arithmetic at all, and they were asked the same question of the same table. Every adjacency the whole menu reverses had already been flagged as unresolved. And one the test set settles at nine standard errors is reversed by four of the five formulae, which is what makes them two instruments rather than one.

limits · Limits Thirty-six rooms as a viewer adapted to each would see them. Each cell is one room at a satin finish: wall colour down, lamp across. The large number is the share of the faces' chroma a viewer adapted to the room's own light loses, read through CIECAM16; the small number under it is what the room's light loses against the lamp's white. The viewer loses between 12.8 and 30.9 per cent, always more than the light, and the rows differ far more than the columns: a deep red room loses about twice what a green one does under every lamp.

What an adapted viewer loses is set by the wall

A satin finish takes about a tenth of a room's colour, measured on the room's light against its lamp's white. Read through an appearance model by a viewer adapted to the room, the same thirty-six rooms lose between 12.8 and 30.9 per cent — 1.4 to 2.4 times as much — and the wall colour decides the multiplier: a deep red room loses twice what a green one does, under every lamp. A test on the bare wall predicts it. Add a little of the lamp's white to the wall's own colour and ask the model what that costs: the answer orders the thirty-six multipliers at 0.95.

scene · Scene The share a finish takes falls with how much light the wall returns. Seventy-two rooms under daylight, each with a different paint on two opposite walls — six hues, four band widths, three peak reflectances — at a satin finish. Across is the wall's luminance factor, the share of the lamp's light it returns; up is the share of the room's chroma the finish takes. The losses fall with the luminance factor at a rank correlation of −0.89, from 15.5 per cent on the darkest walls to 2.5 on the palest. The two ringed paints make rooms of the same matt chroma and lose 14.7 and 2.5 per cent.

A dark wall pays for a finish

A satin finish takes about a tenth of a room's colour, and the tenth varies. The natural explanation is that a weak colour loses a larger share of itself to the white light a glossy surface adds. Over seventy-two paints under one lamp that explanation orders nothing: the loss runs from 2.5 to 15.5 per cent, it follows how much light the wall returns at a rank correlation of −0.89, and it follows how colourful the wall is at −0.04. Two rooms equally colourful matt lose shares nearly six times apart, and the one that loses more is the darker.

scene · Scene What survives holding the lightness still. For each of five groups of rooms sorted by how much light the wall returns, the rank correlation of the finish's share with three properties of the paint, taken with the wall's luminance factor held. The wall's chroma runs from -0.90 among the darkest walls to 0.81 among the palest, crossing zero in the middle — the reversal. The band's width, which was the predicted mechanism, never leaves the range -0.15 to 0.22, and the census already contains four families whose bands are all the same width.

The finish adds the room's own colour

Among dark walls a more saturated paint loses a smaller share of its colour to a gloss finish, and among pale walls a larger one. The mechanism proposed for that reversal was spectral concentration — a narrow tall band — and the census that found it already contained four families of paints whose bands are all the same width. Holding lightness still, the band's width orders the losses at a rank correlation of 0.01. What does order them is that the light a finish adds has already bounced off the walls.

scene · Scene Where chroma stops protecting a wall, in five rooms. The seventy-two paints in each of five rooms, sorted by how much light the wall returns and read in overlapping windows of eighteen: the rank correlation of the share of colour a satin finish takes with the wall's chroma, lightness held. Below zero a more saturated paint loses less; above, more. The dots are where each room's curve crosses: cube at 0.36, corridor at 0.37, low room at 0.38, one wall open at 0.29, two walls open at 0.24. Solid lines are closed rooms of three shapes; dashed are the cube with one and two walls opened.

An open room hands over sooner

A gloss finish takes the least colour from a saturated dark wall and the most from a saturated pale one, and in a closed cube the sign changes at a wall returning about a third of the light. The prediction was that a less enclosed room would move that point up the lightness scale and that a room with a window would have no pale end. Opening one wall moves it down, from a luminance factor of 0.36 to 0.29, and opening a second to 0.24; stretching the room into a corridor or flattening it nudges it slightly up. The ambient does whiten, as predicted. A whiter ambient does not delay the colour term — it weakens it, so the other term takes over sooner.

scene · Scene The lamp's white, six walls and the light arriving at each. On the 1976 chromaticity diagram, in the closed cube under daylight: the lamp's white (centre), six saturated walls with bands centred from 450 to 650 nm (open circles), and the light arriving at each wall from the rest of the room, lamp included (filled). Each ambient lies on the line from the white to its wall, a fraction of the way along it: 450 nm 10 per cent, 490 nm 12 per cent, 530 nm 19 per cent, 570 nm 19 per cent, 610 nm 13 per cent, 650 nm 5 per cent.

A probe at the wall prices the finish

The light arriving at a painted wall from the rest of its room is what a gloss finish hands back, and a small probe held against the wall reads it. It lies on the line from the lamp's white to the wall's own colour, a fraction of the way along, and the fraction is set by how much light the wall returns, not by how colourful it is — as predicted. It is not the fixed fraction the prediction said: it runs from 2 to 46 per cent across seventy-two paints in one room. That variation is what makes it useful. Read in the matt room, it orders what a satin finish would cost more tightly than the paint's own lightness does, in every room tried.

scene · Scene

Named alongside it

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

ChromaInterreflectionCalibrationColour differenceReflectanceSpecularTest setCensusChromaticityCIEDE2000ElasticityPrediction

All concepts