Spectral structure — where it appears
Named by 34 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The illuminant is half the answer
An object has a reflectance, not a colour. The colour appears when a specified light falls on it, which is why two surfaces can match in a shop and clash outside, and why every serious matching standard names the light.
Which lamp changes are free
The changes of light that existed before electricity commute with one another to a couple of parts in a thousand, so one set of axes handles all of them. The lights the lighting industry invented do not, and the worst pair in the census is seventy-six times further from commuting than the best.
Three numbers cannot see a line
An instrument that returns three filtered readings of a spectrum determines a three-dimensional projection of it and is exactly blind to the other seventy-eight. On daylight that costs almost nothing; on a fluorescent tube, three quarters of the lamp lies in the part no reading reaches, and adding filters recovers it slowly.
The slit is what makes it legal
Point-sampling a mercury line at five nanometres costs a colour difference of one unit, and a laser projector thirty-seven. Integrating the same spectrum through the five-nanometre slit every spectrometer already has costs 0.014 and 0.19. The blur anybody would remove if they could is what makes a coarse table honest.
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.
Where the grid starts
Holding the step at five nanometres and sliding the grid's origin through one cell moves a fluorescent tube's computed colour by 3.18 ΔE₀₀ and a laser projector's by 35.0. Refining the step does not fix it and averaging over origins hides it. It is the one tabulation fault with no smooth error to cancel against.
Which end to buy
Refining a five-nanometre grid to one buys a daylight calculation 0.05 ΔE₀₀ and widening its range buys 0.54. Under a fluorescent tube the same two purchases are worth 0.83 and 0.0001. The ranking reverses completely, and what decides it is one length compared against one other length.
The lens is worst under tungsten
An ageing lens costs 4.38 ΔE₀₀ under a tungsten lamp and 2.20 under a fluorescent tube. The pigment peaks cost 2.84 under a three-emitter LED and 1.87 under the same tube. Six departures across six lights do not form a single ordering, which is what a pairing looks like and what a dominant term would not.
The macular is a band, not a filter
The lens absorbs everything below 500 nanometres with a long tail; the macular pigment absorbs forty nanometres either side of 460 and nothing else. The two have similar sizes and completely different distributions, and the reason is that one is broad and one is narrow — which is what decides whether a sample is affected at all.
A brand colour for a population
A brand colour is chosen once, specified in a number, and seen by everybody. The observer audit says two candidate colours with identical specifications can carry observer spreads differing by an order of magnitude, and that the spread is computable from an ink's spectrum at the moment the ink is chosen.
A lamp is two audits at once
A lamp's ultraviolet content decides what its tabulation costs and its blue content decides what its observer costs, and the two run in opposite directions with colour temperature. So no lamp is good for both audits and no lamp is bad for both, and a single figure of merit for either is a figure of merit for one property of a spectrum.
The line can be in the sample
The rule for which tabulation defect to fix compares the light's narrowest feature with the grid's step, and it named its own failure case — a sample with structure narrower than the step. Given one, a two-nanometre notch under a thermal source with no feature at all costs 2.1 colour differences at five nanometres and moves 2.0 when the grid slides, which is what a fluorescent tube costs on a smooth pigment. Under that tube a notch twelve nanometres wide, more than twice the step, moves 8.1 when it sits on the mercury line.
The cost of a steep notch repeats every step
A Gaussian notch is safe on a five-nanometre grid once it is a couple of steps wide. A flat-bottomed notch with steep sides never is. Its cost on the grid rises and falls with its width, with the step as its period — 0.02 colour differences at ten nanometres, 1.99 at twelve and a half, 0.03 at twenty — and it does not die away as the notch widens. What sets its size is how fast the edges rise, and an interference filter's edges rise in under a nanometre.
Two slits are not one slit
A spectrometer's slit is what makes a coarse table honest, for a lamp and for a notched sample alike. But a colour is a sum over the product of the two, and a notch measured through one slit and a lamp measured through another are not the product measured through a slit. Under a smooth light the difference is nothing. Under a fluorescent tube a notch on the mercury line comes out 0.73 colour differences off from two slits — worse than no slit at all for some notches — and 0.02 off from one slit on the reflected light.
The room a surface needs is written in its band
Whether two yellow filters cancel on a surface depends on the room, and each surface has its own crossing — the degree of adaptation at which the shared yellowing falls to the size of what is left underneath. Those crossings run from 0.68 to 0.99, and where a surface's absorption band sits accounts for almost all of the spread while how much light it returns accounts for almost none. The reds need a room brighter than a graphic-arts viewing booth, which is brighter than any room a sample is judged in.
Flicker sorts lamps the wrong way
A camera cannot see a spectral line in its own white, so the essay on the two-matrix profile named the classifiers a device might have instead, and the first of them was flicker. Flicker is measurable, and it measures the wrong thing. It sorts lamps by how their power is delivered while the matrix needs them sorted by how their spectrum is shaped, and the two are independent: a white LED on a constant driver is perfectly steady and strongly structured, and it is what most indoor photographs are lit by.
A linear repair for a bilinear loss
The Stearns correction sharpens a table blurred by a triangular slit, and the obvious question was whether applying it to a lamp's table and a sample's restores the product the two of them are wrong about. It restores four fifths of the damage and cannot touch the rest: a three-term filter is linear, the covariance two separately blurred tables discard is bilinear in the two factors, and no linear operator applied to each factor separately produces a bilinear term. What is left is ten times the one-slit answer, at every position of the notch.
One slit, two requirements
A line lamp wants a wide slit, because a wide slit spreads a line where a coarse grid can see it. A notched sample wants a narrow one, because a wide slit fills the notch the grid could have resolved. An instrument has one slit. Measured on the two requirements separately the best widths are five nanometres and one; measured on the two together the best is three, which is neither — and it costs twelve times what the lamp alone would cost and thirty-four times what the sample alone would.
A finer table is a worse table
A real interference filter is not a Gaussian notch. It is an etalon, with pass bands a nanometre or two wide spaced twenty-three apart, and a five-nanometre grid steps over them. Resampled from the maker's one-nanometre table its colour is out by five colour differences under every fill-in rule — the three rules agree to three decimals, because none of them is ever handed a sample inside a feature. The same filter measured through a five-nanometre slit is out by 0.03.
Two sensors disagree about deep red, not lines
A phone's ambient-light sensor and its camera read the same lamp differently, and the difference sorts fourteen lamps into smooth and structured without a single mistake — where flicker made five. It is not reading their lines. Almost all of it comes from the sensor's clear channel collecting deep red the camera's infrared cut throws away, so daylight with its far red trimmed is called structured and a white LED with a far-red emitter is called smooth.
A second slit buys a quarter
A line lamp wants a five-nanometre slit and a notched sample a one-nanometre slit, so an instrument with a slit for each should do much better than one with a single compromise. Over sixty-eight notches under a fluorescent tube, it does better by 28 per cent. One slit on the reflected light does fifteen times better than the best pair, and an oracle choosing the best pair for every notch is still six times worse. The error was never that the factors were flattened; it was that they were flattened separately.
The tables cannot bound what they discarded
A colour computed from a lamp's blurred table and a sample's blurred table is wrong by the covariance the two blurs threw away, and Cauchy–Schwarz bounds a covariance by two variances. With the true variances the bound always holds and sits fifteen times above the error. With variances read from the tables it fails on six of sixty-eight notches under a fluorescent tube and twenty-two under a laser projector — on the line, where the error is largest. A blurred table does not carry the width of a line, and the covariance depends on it.
A declared width buys a factor of two
A colour engine given two separately blurred spectral tables cannot bound its own error from them, and the bound that always holds — the peak declared and nothing else — sits a median 196 times above the error under a fluorescent tube. Adding one number, the width of the lamp's narrowest feature, brings that to 86. It never fails on any declaration the lamp truly meets, it fails on 47 of 68 notches on one it does not, and its rank correlation with the error it bounds is 0.27.
A narrow channel has to be read on its own
An ambient sensor with a clear channel tells structured lamps from smooth ones by reading deep red, and one without it reads structure but breaks at one per cent of calibration error. A narrow fourth channel between the camera's peaks was proposed to have both. Pooled into the sensor's disagreement with the camera, it reads structure and breaks at one and a quarter per cent — no better than the design it was meant to rescue. Read on its own, as its departure from what the camera predicts for it, a channel at 450 nm holds to four per cent, the clear channel's figure, and far red does not move it.
A narrow slit shrinks the error, not the bound
A colour engine given two separately blurred spectral tables can bound its own error if the lamp declares its narrowest feature, and under a fluorescent tube that bound sits 86 times above the error at a five-nanometre slit. Narrowing the slit was supposed to close the gap, because a comb of narrow features stops fitting in a narrow window. It does the opposite. At one nanometre the error falls 27-fold and the bound only sevenfold, so the bound is 253 times loose and certifies no notch within a colour difference. The looseness was never the comb. It is the lamp's one declared peak, charged to every window.
A narrow table can vouch for its own peaks
The bound a colour engine can put on its bandpass error is loose because a lamp declares one peak for its whole spectrum and the bound charges it to every window. A table measured through a slit about as narrow as the lamp's lines can do better: no feature of the declared width can be blurred below a computable fraction of its height, so the table's own entries cap how tall the lamp can be in each window. At one nanometre that ceiling is never below the truth and sits twice above it, where the global peak sat twenty times above. The bound halves, and for the first time it certifies notches within a colour difference. At five nanometres it buys nothing at all.
A finer grid keeps the price of separating
A sample's reflectance and a lamp's spectrum measured through separate slits can be reused under any other lamp; measured together through one slit on the reflected light, they are fifteen times more accurate and belong to that one lamp. A finer grid was expected to close the gap, because a one-nanometre table barely blurs anything. It closes most of the distance to the old answer and none of the distance to the new one. On a one-nanometre grid the best separate pair under a fluorescent tube is as good as one slit on the product used to be at five, and one slit on the product on the same fine grid is twenty-nine times better again.
A correction travels with its lines
Keeping a sample's reflectance and a lamp's spectrum as separate tables costs fifteen times the error of measuring their product under a fluorescent tube. The middle course proposed was to measure the product once under a representative tube, store the ratio of product to separable colour with the sample, and apply it under any tube. Under tubes whose lines are narrower or wider, or whose phosphors sit elsewhere, it removes nine tenths of the error. Under a tube with the same lines in a different mix it removes under two thirds, and less the further the mix moves. Under an LED or a laser it makes things worse — a white LED five times worse than no correction. A class of lamps, for this purpose, is a mix of lines.
A narrow table declares its own lines
A bound on a colour table's bandpass error needs one number from the lamp's maker: its narrowest feature, 1.2 nm for a fluorescent tube. Through a slit about as narrow as that feature, the table's entries around each line carry its width. Measured to half a per cent, a one-nanometre table's entries admit only line widths within four per cent of the truth, and a bound built on the narrowest of them is within two per cent of the bound on the maker's number. Through two nanometres the table still declares a usable width. Through three it cannot rule out a line five times narrower, and the bound it supports is the global one. The failure is as sharp as predicted, and never unsafe.
A table can refuse a pair it cannot resolve
A narrow spectral table reads each of its peaks as one line and declares the line's width from the entries round it, and the assumption under that is that every peak is a line. Split the mercury tube's yellow into the real pair at 577 and 579 nm and the table notices: through one and two nanometre slits no single line fits the entries within half a per cent, so the table refuses to read a width there. Swept apart, a pair is refused once it is split by about the grid step and admitted when it is closer — always as one wider line, up to 3.3 times too wide. Through three nanometres the pair reads as a 3.2 nm line, and a 3 nm europium band beside it reads the same.
A line's wings widen the width a table declares
A narrow table declares its lamp's narrowest line width by fitting each peak with a Gaussian, and the worry was a line whose profile is not Gaussian: a mercury line broadened by collisions has Lorentzian wings on its core, every line shares them, and a Gaussian fit can only take the wings in by widening. It does. With wings a quarter of the core's width, the table declares 1.36 nm for a 1.2 nm core — close to the winged line's own half-maximum width, 1.37. The prediction called that the unsafe direction. It is not: the ceiling and the variance the earlier bound builds on the declared width never fall below the winged lamp's own, because through a slit a winged line behaves like the wider line the table says it is.
A reversed line is read as one line
A strong mercury line in a dense discharge absorbs its own centre on the way out: at an optical depth of one its top is flat, and beyond that it dips, until at four the line is two humps with a trough eighty per cent deep between them. The prediction was that a one-nanometre table refuses such a line from a depth of about one and a two-nanometre table reads it as a Gaussian about the width of its flat top, safely. Both hold, and the second only up to a point. A two-nanometre table admits the line at every depth to four, and from three and a half the width it admits is too wide for the humps: the ceiling built on it falls eleven per cent below the line's true peak. The only line that could make a declared width unsafe was one narrower at its peak than its entries suggest — and a reversed line is exactly that.
A notch in a line is never refused
A dense discharge's green mercury line loses its centre to the atoms between the glow and the tube wall, and those atoms are cooler than the glow, so their absorption is narrower than the line it cuts. With the absorbing layer half or a third as wide as the line, a one-nanometre table still refuses the line from an optical depth of one, exactly where it refused the broad dip. A two-nanometre table never refuses it at all: to a depth of five, with ninety-eight per cent of the centre gone, one Gaussian fits its entries within a seventh of a per cent. And the ceiling built on the width it reads fails from a depth of about two and a third — a whole unit sooner than behind a column as wide as the line — and never recovers, falling to three quarters of the true peak.
A reversed tube declares from its least reversed line
A spectral table declares its lamp's line width as the narrowest width any of its peaks admits, and that declaration survived every reversed line so far because the tube's other lines were left unreversed to set it. A real discharge reverses its strong lines together. With every mercury line behind its own column, in proportion to its strength, the prediction was that a one-nanometre table would refuse every strong line and declare from the weak violet line, and a two-nanometre table would declare an unsafe width from a green-line depth of two and a half. The violet line is never read as a peak at all. The yellow line, the least reversed of the three that are, sets the declaration at every depth and widens it as it reverses. Through one nanometre the table refuses the blue and green lines and goes on declaring from the yellow — unsafely, in the violet's window, the one line the table never checked. Through two nanometres behind a cooler layer it refuses nothing, and from two and a half its declaration fails in the blue line's window, down to seven tenths of the true peak.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Wavelength gridSpectrophotometryBandpassFluorescentInstrumentWorst caseDeclared inputIntegrationBoundAliasingMeasurement errorMeasurement uncertainty