Spectral locus — where it appears
Named by 15 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Most of this diagram cannot be shown
The chromaticity horseshoe is the canonical illustration of colour science, and nearly every printed copy is filled edge to edge with colours the page cannot produce. The honest version marks them, and the marking covers most of the picture.
What a gamut costs
Three primaries reach a triangle and the visible region is not a triangle, so something has to give. Widening the primaries helps, has a price in precision and compatibility, and runs into a limit that is geometric rather than technological.
Why colour is exactly three-dimensional
Matching every wavelength with three primaries requires, for some wavelengths, a negative amount of one of them. That physical awkwardness is why the colour-matching functions were transformed into XYZ, and why the horseshoe is curved.
Not every colour has a wavelength
The question every reader arrives with is which wavelength a colour is. For close to a third of the directions on the chromaticity diagram the honest answer is that there is none, and the construction colorimetry offers instead is a statement about a diagram rather than about light.
The diagram has no area
A chromaticity diagram is a projective picture of a three-dimensional space, and the freedom colour matching leaves in the observer acts on it as a projective map. Straight lines and mixture ratios survive that; area, distance and angle do not — so half of what the diagram is used to say is a statement about the paper.
Two thirds is not a property of the eye
It has been said from the beginning here that about two thirds of the chromaticity diagram cannot be shown on a screen. The figure is right, on the diagram it was measured on, and across twelve published diagrams the same triangle covers anything from 8.5 to 38.4 per cent of the same locus. Counting stimuli instead gives an answer that does not move.
A tolerance is a region
How far a display's red primary can move before its adaptation behaviour costs anything is not a distance. It is a closed region on the chromaticity diagram, fifteen times longer one way than another, and about half of it lies outside the area a real primary can occupy — where the objective does not rise and the primary cannot go.
A primary is chosen for four things
A display's primaries have to adapt well, cover the diagram, hold the surfaces anybody photographs, and be colours a light can actually have. Drawing all four tolerance regions around one primary shows that no single requirement decides where it can go, and that one of the four never decides anything.
A tolerance in the wrong coordinates
A display primary's tolerance is written as a region in chromaticity, because that is where the colorimetry lives. Nobody has a knob for chromaticity. What a maker of an emitter sets is a peak wavelength and a bandwidth, and the map between the two is so anisotropic that on the red primary its condition number is over eleven thousand.
One wavelength is everyone's colour
A stimulus with a single wavelength in it produces the same relative cone excitations for every observer, exactly, whatever their age or field size. A display made of three such stimuli is where observers disagree most. Both statements are consequences of the same algebra, and the second is why laser projection has an observer problem.
The model has a hue shift it was never given
A monochromatic light changes hue as it is brightened, except at three wavelengths that do not move — an effect measured since the nineteenth century and not among the things CIECAM16 was fitted to. The model has it anyway: brightening a stimulus thirtyfold moves its hue angle, and the places where the movement crosses zero land at 459, 495, 502 and 570 nanometres against the reported 474, 506 and 571. The sizes are another matter.
A display's red takes the reds' move and leaves the pair
At BT.2020's edge ΔEITP moved a dark red's balance between lightness and chroma furthest of any colour, ×1.64 from a dim display to a bright one, and the reason offered was BT.2020's red primary, a line far out at 630 nanometres. Moving that primary in along the spectral locus confirms it: the reds fall faster than any other hue, to ×1.40 at 615 nanometres and ×1.25 at 605, and Display P3, whose red is a 615 nm line to three ten-thousandths, gives the reds the same. The top of the range goes to a red-purple, which rises as the red moves in because BT.2020 had pushed it past its own peak. And the forced-choice pair the experiment needs is the same two colours on every display.
Two matrices fail under a warm white
Compressing in Hunt–Pointer–Estévez after adapting in CIECAM16's own space restores the blue's Abney turn, and the reason CIECAM16 stopped using two spaces was that converting between them sends some colours to negative signals. Where it does depends on the white. Adapted to a daylight display's white, only spectral lights past 560 nm fail, in their short-wave signal, by thousandths of their luminance, and nothing on sRGB's boundary fails at all. Adapted to a tungsten white, every spectral light from 380 to 474 nm fails in its long-wave signal, some by several times their luminance, and so do points on every display's boundary; there the display blue's restored turn becomes a swing of fifty degrees.
Two matrices hold to almost tungsten, and the blue turns long before
An appearance model that adapts in CIECAM16's space and compresses in Hunt–Pointer–Estévez gets the blue's hue turn right under daylight and sends the display's blue to a negative signal under illuminant A. The prediction was that the failure reaches sRGB's blue near 3500 K, a warm-white LED, and that the blue's turn holds its daylight value down to about 4000 K. Walked down the radiator and daylight loci, sRGB's boundary holds to 2872 K — fifteen kelvin short of illuminant A — while BT.2020's fails at 3626. There is a neutral window, 4700 to 5700 K, where no colour at all goes negative. But the blue's turn does not wait for the failure: it is five degrees above its daylight value by 4500 K and nearly three times it before anything breaks, because it follows the blue's long-wave signal down towards nought.
Beside the locus the converter still gives the red away
On the Planckian locus, a white LED's red phosphor pushes its converter to a shorter peak, so an ambient sensor's 600 nm departure, which reads the converter, reads the red phosphor too — within ±0.12 of a spread of ±0.36 — and through it the camera's colour error within ±0.074 ΔE₀₀. Real LEDs are binned a few thousandths off the locus, and the prediction was that a Duv of 0.003 moves the converter about as far as a fifth of the red phosphor does, so that the line learned on the locus misreads off-locus LEDs by a fifth of the range and their error falls back to ±0.12. The converter moves under two nanometres. The line reads the off-locus LEDs' red within ±0.11 and ±0.12, as well as it reads the locus's own held out — with a bias of about a twentieth that follows the Duv's sign. The error reads a third to a half worse, ±0.096 and ±0.107, and most of that is the camera's error itself moving off the locus with nothing in the recipe changed.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
GamutDisplay gamutPrimariesChromatic adaptationChromaticityCIECAM16Display P3IdentifiabilityInvarianceToleranceAbney effectAnisotropy