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

Residual — where it appears

What is left of a difference after a model has done everything it can, being the part the model has no mechanism for. It is the quantity every adaptation result here reports: not what a change of light does, but what an adapted observer fails to remove of it.

Named by 26 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What one change of light costs, surface by surface — daylight to tungsten. A rising curve of 125 points, one per surface in the test set, sorted from the surface this change of light costs least to the one it costs most, with the published mean drawn across it as a horizontal line. The published residual for daylight to tungsten is 1.635 ΔE₀₀. The curve runs from 4.4e-14 — 5 of the surfaces are flat greys, on which an adapted observer's gain is exactly right and the residual is exactly zero — to 3.058, which is 1.87 times the mean. The mean line crosses the curve about two thirds of the way along, so most surfaces cost less than the published number and a minority cost a great deal more. This is what a single published residual is a summary of.

A mean has a set under it

Every adaptation number this collection publishes is an average over a hundred and twenty-five surfaces that were written down once, in one file, with no argument for how many there should be or how saturated. The average runs from exactly zero to twice itself across them, and the set has never been varied.

scene · Scene Every census row under five constructions of the same test set. A slope chart with 5 columns — lattice, coarse, fine, uniform, natural — and one line per change of light in the census, each line joining that row's mean residual under each construction. Four of the five columns describe the same region of surfaces walked at different densities or against different measures; the last is the clamped, realistic family, which is not linear in its parameters and is therefore answering a slightly different question. The levels move: between the coarse and fine lattices every row shifts by seven to nine per cent, in the same direction, which is a common-mode factor no published residual here has ever carried. The order almost survives. Inside the region exactly one pair crosses, and it is the pair the standard error had already flagged; under the clamped set two more cross, including one the error separates by nearly nine standard errors. The crossing lines are drawn heavy.

A lattice is a quadrature rule

Walking a set of test surfaces more finely does not converge on a better answer, because refining a lattice under a constraint changes which corners of the region get sampled and not only how densely. The lattice used here turns out to be a two per cent biased estimate of the integral it stands for.

difference · Metric The error on a gap is not the two rows' errors added. Two bars for each of the 13 adjacent pairs in the census ranking. The upper, shorter bar is the standard error of the gap taken as a paired difference — the same 125 surfaces score both rows, so a surface that is awkward under one change of light is usually awkward under the other and the difference is quieter than either. The lower bar is the two rows' own errors added in quadrature, which is what comparing error bars by eye amounts to. Pairing is worth a factor of 1.78 on average and 3.36 on the pair it helps most, and it is the difference between 6 adjacencies unordered and 4. The gain is largest where the two rows are two daylights or two tungstens, because then the surfaces they find awkward are nearly the same surfaces.

The error on a gap is not the errors at its ends

Comparing two rows of a table by looking at whether their error bars overlap is the wrong comparison, and here it is wrong by a factor of up to 3.4. The same 125 surfaces score both rows, so the difference between them is quieter than either — and how much quieter is a measurement of how alike the two rows are.

difference · Metric Which steps of the census ranking the test set actually resolves. A horizontal bar for each of the 13 adjacent pairs in the census's ranking, from the smallest mean residual to the largest. A bar's length is the gap between the two rows in ΔE₀₀; the whisker on its end is twice the standard error of that gap, computed as a paired difference because the same 125 surfaces score both rows. Where the whisker reaches back past zero the pair is not ordered by this test set, and 4 of the 13 are in that state — marked. The largest steps, at the two ends of the ranking, are twenty standard errors wide and are not in doubt at all. The smallest is four parts in ten thousand between two rows the table prints as different numbers.

Four steps the test set cannot order

The adaptation census prints fourteen numbers to four figures and its ranking is asked to say which lamps adaptation handles worst. Nine of its thirteen steps are established beyond any doubt the test set can raise; the other four are not, and three of them are consecutive — a tungsten lamp, a halogen lamp and a white LED are simply not ordered.

light · Light Every census row under five constructions of the same test set. A slope chart with 5 columns — lattice, coarse, fine, uniform, natural — and one line per change of light in the census, each line joining that row's mean residual under each construction. Four of the five columns describe the same region of surfaces walked at different densities or against different measures; the last is the clamped, realistic family, which is not linear in its parameters and is therefore answering a slightly different question. The levels move: between the coarse and fine lattices every row shifts by seven to nine per cent, in the same direction, which is a common-mode factor no published residual here has ever carried. The order almost survives. Inside the region exactly one pair crosses, and it is the pair the standard error had already flagged; under the clamped set two more cross, including one the error separates by nearly nine standard errors. The crossing lines are drawn heavy.

The instrument named the pair that moved

A standard error over a test set flagged four steps of the adaptation census as unresolved. Rebuilding the set three different ways reversed exactly one pair, and it was one of the four. Rebuilding it to a different rule reversed a pair the error separated by nearly nine standard errors — which is not a failure of the instrument but a statement of what it is about.

limits · Limits 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 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 How far each census row moves when the test set's own description does. A grid of bars, one row per change of light in the census and one bar in each row per number that describes the region the test surfaces are drawn from: how saturated they are, how bright, and how far the two modulations may go together. A bar's length is the elasticity — the proportional change in the published residual for a proportional change in that number. Saturation runs from 0.49 to 0.91 and brightness averages 0.104, so a test set's chroma range is nearly everything and its lightness range is nearly nothing. For scale, the largest elasticity found anywhere among this collection's five declared population widths is about a half — and those at least have declared ranges, while these three numbers have never been quoted with one.

Saturation is nearly everything

The set of test surfaces has three numbers describing it, and only one of them matters. How saturated the surfaces are carries an elasticity of about 0.7 on every result computed over them; how bright they are carries 0.10. A test chart's chroma range decides its answer and its lightness range does not.

difference · Metric No one surface carries the answer, and the set is smaller than it looks. A falling bar chart of the 125 surfaces in the test set, ordered by how much each contributes to the published mean for daylight to tungsten. The tallest bar is 1.50 per cent of the total, so the mean is not a few awkward objects with a crowd behind them and a leave-one-out would move it by well under a per cent. The tail is the other half of the story: 5 surfaces contribute essentially nothing, because a flat grey is a surface an adaptation gain handles exactly. Counting the set by how evenly it contributes rather than by how many members it has gives 108.5 effective surfaces out of 125, which is what "a mean over a hundred and twenty-five surfaces" is really worth.

The surfaces that answer nothing

Five of the hundred and twenty-five test surfaces contribute exactly zero to every number the adaptation census reports — not approximately, exactly — and the reason is the one fact about von Kries adaptation that makes it worth having at all. Counting the set by how much it contributes gives about a hundred members rather than a hundred and twenty-five.

eye · Cones A published residual is a mean, and the worst object in the room costs twice it. Three bars for each of the 14 changes of light in the adaptation census, ordered by how uneven the change is across surfaces. The first bar is the published mean residual. The second is the worst single surface in the audit's published test set. The third is the worst surface anywhere in the region that set is drawn from, found by search rather than by reading a maximum off a lattice. The mean-to-worst ratio runs from 1.90 to 4.02 and averages 2.43, so every published adaptation number has a worst case about twice it that no essay had ever quoted. The gap between the second and third bars is the other finding: a maximum over 125 sampled points understates the region's own maximum by up to 34 per cent.

A mean is not a worst case

Every adaptation number this collection publishes is an average over objects, and the reader asking whether adaptation will fail them is asking about the object it fails on. That object costs between 1.9 and 4.0 times the published figure, and how uneven a change of light is across objects turns out to be a property of the change rather than a constant.

limits · Limits A published residual is a mean, and the worst object in the room costs twice it. Three bars for each of the 14 changes of light in the adaptation census, ordered by how uneven the change is across surfaces. The first bar is the published mean residual. The second is the worst single surface in the audit's published test set. The third is the worst surface anywhere in the region that set is drawn from, found by search rather than by reading a maximum off a lattice. The mean-to-worst ratio runs from 1.90 to 4.02 and averages 2.43, so every published adaptation number has a worst case about twice it that no essay had ever quoted. The gap between the second and third bars is the other finding: a maximum over 125 sampled points understates the region's own maximum by up to 34 per cent.

An extremum is still not a sample

Two rounds ago three measurements turned up that took a maximum over a sample of a set and were short by up to a factor of two. The same error was live in a fourth place the whole time, on the set of surfaces every adaptation number is averaged over, and it is short by up to a third.

matching · Gamut Every worst surface sits on a number somebody typed. The region the test surfaces are drawn from, in its own two modulation coordinates: a square of allowed depths with a diamond inscribed in it, the diamond being the requirement that the two depths sum to no more than 0.7. The 14 marked points are the worst surface for each change of light in the adaptation census, found by search over the whole region. Every one of them lies exactly on the diamond, and every one is also at the brightest level the region allows — both declared constraints active, on all 14 rows, with no interior maximum anywhere. That is the opposite of what bounding the wall gave: there the worst case turned over at a band width of six nanometres because a narrow band returns too little light, which is physics. Here the worst case is a reading of two numbers. The one constraint that is about the world — a paint's excitation purity may not exceed 0.6 — is slack everywhere: the most saturated surface the region admits reaches 0.459.

Every worst surface sits on a declaration

Bounding the wall in a painted room produced a real worst case — the residual turns over at a band six nanometres wide because a narrower band returns too little light. Bounding the surfaces the residual is averaged over produces nothing of the kind, because all fourteen answers sit exactly on two numbers somebody typed and the one constraint that comes from the world never binds at all.

scene · Scene 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 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 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 Where on the scale the units disagree. The reference pairs split into bands by how far apart they are in ΔE2000, with each unit's root-mean-square relative departure from the published one plotted per band. Every unit is calibrated once, over the whole sample, so a band is not refitted and the shape is the effect rather than an artefact of fitting. Every one of the five falls: the disagreement is proportionally largest on the pairs that are closest together, which is the opposite of what being fitted to threshold data would suggest. The appearance unit is the extreme case, at 91 per cent on the narrowest band and 17 on the widest, because CAM16-UCS raises its distance to the power 0.63 and a power below one inflates small differences against large ones. In absolute terms every curve here runs the other way — the widest band disagrees by 1.16 to 2.37 ΔE₀₀-equivalent against 0.14 to 0.68 on the narrowest — so which reading is right depends on whether the published quantity is a level or a ratio. This is the mechanism behind the census's own behaviour, where the mildest rows spread furthest across the menu.

The disagreement is at the near end

Every colour-difference formula on the menu was fitted to threshold data, so the expectation is that they agree about pairs an observer can only just tell apart and diverge on large differences. They do the opposite. Proportionally the disagreement is largest at the near end, by a factor of six for the appearance unit, and the cause is an exponent of 0.63.

difference · Metric What an observer is left with, by how much it is allowed to know about the room. Six ways of discounting a change of light, averaged over the fourteen changes in the adaptation census and 125 test surfaces each. The bar is what each leaves behind, on a logarithmic axis because the models span two orders of magnitude. The second line under each name is the count that matters: how many numbers about this room the model has to be given. Doing nothing leaves 15.7 ΔE₀₀. A single gain read off the two whites' luminances leaves 15.3. A matrix fitted across half the census and then applied everywhere, knowing nothing about the room at all, leaves 12.5. The published von Kries gain, which is told the white and nothing else, leaves 1.312 — and bolting a fixed correction onto it, at no cost in scene information, leaves 1.368, which is very slightly worse. The exact matrix leaves nothing and is not on the chart: its nine numbers are the change of light, which is the quantity being discounted.

Three numbers the scene supplies

An adaptation model's parameters are not all the same kind of thing. Some are numbers an observer must estimate from the room it is standing in; others could have been settled once by evolution. Counting them separately turns the diagonal gain from a crude approximation into the only model of the set that gets a large answer from information the observer can actually have.

scene · Scene How much of the residual a partial correction removes. Between the diagonal gain and the exact matrix there is a line: apply the correction that would make a row exact, but only a fraction of it. The horizontal axis is that fraction and the vertical is the share of the row's residual it removes, for all fourteen census rows. The straight diagonal is where a correction worth exactly its fraction would fall, and in the published unit every curve lies on it to within 2.2 percentage points. The lower band of curves is the same interpolation measured in CAM16-UCS, which departs by up to 17 points — because its distance is a power of the Euclidean one and a power is not homogeneous along a ray, where every ordinary norm is. The straight line is therefore a property of the ruler rather than of the correction, and the exception is what says so.

A partial correction is worth its fraction

Between a diagonal gain and the exact matrix there is a line, and a bounded observer's natural hope is that the first part of it is worth a disproportionate share. It is not. On all fourteen changes of light, at every setting, the share of the residual removed matches the share of the correction applied to within 2.2 percentage points — which closes the last way the gap could have been cheap.

scene · Scene A correction an observer could have been born with, fitted on half the census and tested on the other. The same six models, each scored twice: on the seven census rows the fixed matrices were fitted to, and on the seven they were not. The split alternates by position so both halves contain daylight changes and discharge lamps. The upper bar is in sample and the lower is out, on a logarithmic axis. For the four models with nothing fitted the two bars differ only because the halves are different questions. For the two fitted ones the gap is the finding, and it is largest where it matters least: bolting a fixed correction onto the von Kries gain takes it from 1.2724 to 1.2592 on the rows it was fitted to, and from 1.3511 to 1.3679 — worse — on the rows it was not. There is no correction to the diagonal that an observer could arrive with.

A model is a claim about what can be known

The exact answer to chromatic adaptation is nine numbers, and the nine numbers are the change of light itself. A model whose parameters are quantities the observer cannot obtain is not a worse model of the same thing — it is a model of something else, and counting parameters without asking where they come from hides the difference.

scene · Scene What three fill-in rules cost when a five-nanometre table is read at one. A five-nanometre table read at one nanometre by three rules — hold the value, straight lines, a cubic through four points — each compared with the same tenth-nanometre reference. The dashed rule is the answer obtained by summing the table as it stands, at 0.00000 ΔE₀₀. Two of the three interpolations are worse than not interpolating. That is not a paradox: the summation's error is already small because the normaliser cancels most of it, and an interpolator introduces a shape the original curve did not have, which the cancellation cannot touch. A finer grid is not more resolution when the table is not finer.

A finer reading of a coarser table

Interpolating a five-nanometre spectrum to one nanometre helps a daylight calculation by a factor of five and harms a three-emitter LED by a factor of a hundred and twenty thousand. Both are the same operation on the same table, and which one happens is decided by a property of the light nobody records.

light · Light What the normaliser cancels, per light. Two bars per light, logarithmic. The upper is the colour error a 5-nanometre sum makes when the white it is divided by is computed finely; the lower is the same sum divided by the white computed on the same coarse grid, which is what every colorimetric calculation actually does. The ratio is between 1.3 and 4.1. The grid appears twice in a tristimulus value and the two errors are the same error, so most of it divides out — which is why five nanometres has been good enough for a century without anybody having to be careful about it.

The normaliser carries the error too

A five-nanometre sum gets a red pigment's tristimulus value wrong by two hundredths of a per cent and its colour wrong by six hundredths of a unit. Those two numbers are not the same size because the grid appears twice in a colour — once in the sample and once in the white — and the two errors are largely the same error.

difference · Metric The rectangle sum against the trapezoid sum, under a 6500 K thermal radiator. Colorimetry's summation is the rectangle rule at the tabulated points. The trapezoid rule differs from it by exactly one thing — half a cell at each end of the range — and the gap between these two lines is therefore that term and nothing else. At five nanometres it is a factor of 14.3, which means the number everybody calls a sampling error is mostly a truncation error wearing the step's clothes. On a light whose lines are narrower than the step the two rules agree to three decimal places, because there the error really is the sampling.

The endpoint term has a name

The five-nanometre error on a smooth light falls linearly with the step, which is not what a sampling error does. It is the half-cell at each end of a truncated range, it is first order where the sampling is second, and halving two weights removes fourteen fifteenths of it for nothing.

light · Light How far this collection's analytic observer is from the tabulated one. The construction every figure in this family uses is three pigment absorptances through one fitted 3×3, and this is the residual of that fit against the CIE's 1931 functions: root-mean-square error as a percentage of each curve's peak, and the colour difference it produces over forty-two surfaces. The short-wavelength function is the worst at 16.4 per cent, which is where a pigment template is weakest and where the ocular media are doing most of the work. The median colour difference is 1.42 ΔE₀₀, so this is an observer of the right shape rather than a copy of the table — and every departure in this family should be read beside that number rather than against zero.

The reference had to be built

A five-nanometre error cannot be measured with five-nanometre data. Interpolating the tables and integrating finely measures the interpolator, not the grid — so the audit of this collection's index had to be run against an observer made of formulae, and the price of that is a residual of 1.42 ΔE₀₀ that every number in the section is read beside.

limits · Limits A departure against how far the sample sits from the light. The sample is mixed with a flat reflectance, from the flat one at the left to its own at the right, and two observers differing in the macular pigment look at each mixture. The straight line is the distance between their relative cone excitations, and it is straight to 0.0 per cent: the departure is a pairing, and scaling one factor scales the product. The curved line is the same sequence in ΔE₀₀, which is not a linear function of the excitations and cannot be — it has cube roots in it and a chroma weighting underneath. The identity is about the eye; the curvature belongs to the unit.

A departure is straight in the excitations

Walk a sample a quarter of the way from the light towards its own reflectance and exactly a quarter of the observer disagreement remains — in cone excitations, to two parts in a hundred. In ΔE₀₀ the same quarter leaves 0.347 where proportionality wants 0.428, and the discrepancy belongs entirely to the unit.

difference · Metric Each departure over forty-two surfaces rather than one. The same six departures measured over a family of forty-two analytic reflectances — an absorption band of stated centre, width and depth — with the smallest, the median, the ninety-fifth percentile and the largest marked. Every one of them spans more than a factor of three, and the ranking between them is not stable across the family: what decides a departure's size is which sample it is asked about, because a departure is a pairing and the sample is one of the two factors. Quoting any single number for what an observer's age is worth is quoting a choice of example.

The chart was measured by an observer too

A camera profile is fitted so that the camera's numbers reproduce the chart's measured tristimulus values. Those values were computed through the 1931 observer, so the fit inherits every departure in this round — and the fit's own residual, at 0.19 ΔE₀₀ on the chart, is fifteen times smaller than the term it cannot see.

imaging · Capture

Named alongside it

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

Test setChromatic adaptationColour differenceReflectanceSamplingMeanThe von Kries transformBasisCalibrationCIEDE2000ConvergenceChroma

All concepts