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

Self-screening — where it appears

A pigment absorbing its own light, so that a denser receptor catches proportionally more in the wings of its band than at its peak. The effect broadens a cone's spectral sensitivity as its pigment density rises, so two observers with identical pigments still have different fundamentals.

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

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

A cone absorbs its own light

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

eye · Cones Photons caught by one cone in one integration time, under D65. Each curve is one cone class, counting isomerisations during a 0.1 s integration through a pupil that closes as the light rises. At 1000 cd/m² a long-wavelength cone catches about 11522 and at 0.001 it catches 0.12 — which is where the square root of the count stops being a small correction and starts being the signal. The rate works out at 30 isomerisations per second per troland, inside the published band of 5–50.

Colour goes first in the dark

A cone reports a count, and a count carries the square root of itself as noise. Counting the photons says where colour vision stops — a chromatic difference runs out four hundred times sooner than a lightness difference of the same size — and says just as clearly that in daylight the eye is nowhere near that limit.

eye · Cones Coming back from a bleach, against the clock already measured. A 94 per cent bleach, and the pigment returning at its own time constant of 120 seconds. The lower curve is the site's slow neural adaptation constant, 60 seconds, started from the same place — it is finished while the chemistry is barely half done. Regeneration does not speed up because the light went away: the rate constant is the same one it always was, which is why the recovery is slow while the bleaching was fast.

The slowest clock is chemical

An earlier essay here joined the afterimage to the adaptation clock and named what was still missing — a third gain, upstream of both, in the pigment itself. It is twice as slow as anything measured before it, it leaves a coloured after-tint from a white field, and at steady state it cancels exactly, which is why nobody has ever needed to model it.

eye · Cones How far this site's median observer sits from the 1931 standard, by template. Twenty-four natural reflectances under D65, each given a tristimulus value twice: once by the 1931 colour-matching functions and once by this site's median member, with each judged against its own white. The bar is the mean difference, which is the residual this collection bounds and calls inescapable. It is inescapable, and it is smallest for the simpler template: Lamb's 1995 nomogram gives 0.9006 against Govardovskii's 0.9522, and removing Govardovskii's secondary band brings it down again to 0.9354. Neither is an argument for changing template — a nomogram is fitted to measurements of individual receptors, not to colour matches, so agreement with the standard observer is not what either was trying to achieve. What it says is that the residual is a mismatch between two kinds of observer rather than a shortfall a better pigment model would close. The number after each bar is the template's tail ratio: how far the L cone's half-maximum reaches below its peak against how far it reaches above.

The population rests on a template

Two hundred observers here are built from one formula fitted to microspectrophotometry in 2000. The obvious alternative — the tabulated cone fundamentals — is not available, and the reason is the finding. A tabulated fundamental has no peak wavelength to move, so the moment it is used the population collapses to a single observer.

eye · Cones A template's asymmetry against what its observer costs. The horizontal axis is the tail ratio of the L cone's pigment absorbance — how far the curve reaches below its peak at half maximum against how far it reaches above — and the vertical is how far the observer built from that template sits from the 1931 standard. A real visual pigment has a long short-wavelength tail, so the three curves derived from a published nomogram sit above 1.1 and the two Gaussians sit below. The four are matched in width, so nothing here is about size. The ordering is the point: the two caricatures cost between two and four times what either nomogram does, and the axis they are separated on is the one feature the caricatures do not have.

A template is mostly its tail

Four pigment templates matched to the same width at the same peak, differing only in which side of the peak their half-maximum reaches further. Ordered by that one number, the observers they build are ordered by how far they sit from the standard one — and the two with the tail on the wrong side cost two and four times what either real nomogram costs.

eye · Cones The three cone absorptances at two settings of the cone optical density. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of two standard deviations of the reported spread. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 18.8 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

A gain is not an observer

Multiply one eye's three cone sensitivities by 1.6, 0.7 and 2.4 and it is not a different eye. The white-point division is that multiplication's inverse, so the two agree exactly — and most of what a cone optical density change does is that multiplication, which is why the largest number in the table of individual variation is the one that matters least.

eye · Cones 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 ranking is not stable

On a red pigment under daylight the six observer departures run from 2.38 down to 1.20 ΔE₀₀. Over forty-two surfaces two of them change places, the top two separate, and every one spans between a factor of ten and a factor of thirty-five. A chart of six bars is a chart of one example.

eye · Cones The three cone absorptances at two settings of the field size. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of the CIE's own second observer. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 16.0 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

A field size is two changes

The CIE publishes two standard observers and the difference between them is usually described as a field size. What actually differs is a macular pigment the light no longer passes through and a cone outer segment the light no longer travels the length of — two changes, in two places, with different signs and different sample dependence.

eye · Cones

Named alongside it

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

Cone fundamentalsIndividual variationStandard observerOptical densityColour-matching functionsMacular pigmentVisual pigmentAdaptationAssertionChromatic adaptationLambda maxLuminance

All concepts