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

Standard observer — where it appears

A set of three functions of wavelength, averaged over seventeen people in 1931, that stands in for an eye in every colorimetric calculation. It is an average rather than a person, and the spread between the seventeen it averages is larger than most of the tolerances the average is used to set.

Named by 99 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The CIE 1931 colour-matching functions. The three functions that turn a spectrum into three numbers. They are all positive, which is why XYZ exists — the RGB functions they were derived from are not. ȳ is by construction the luminous efficiency function, which is why luminance comes out of Y.

Seventeen observers in 1931

The standard observer that governs every colour specification in industrial use is an average over seventeen young British men, measured with equipment from the 1920s. It is known to be wrong in the blue, the correction has existed since 1951, and it has never been adopted.

limits · Limits A spectrum, weighted three ways, and the three numbers left over. The illuminant D65 above; below, the same spectrum multiplied by each matching function. The area under each product is one coordinate of XYZ. Everything else about the spectrum — its shape, its structure, all its remaining degrees of freedom — is discarded here.

Three numbers

A spectrum has as many degrees of freedom as anyone cares to give it. The eye reports three. Everything colour science can do, and every way it fails, follows from that one collapse.

eye · Cones Two identical grey patches on different surrounds. Both inner squares are #868686. The one on the dark field looks lighter. The values are checked to be equal before the figure is drawn, so the claim is a fact about the drawing rather than a promise.

Matching is not appearance

CIE XYZ predicts when two lights will look the same under identical viewing conditions. It was never a model of how anything looks, and most of the confusion in applied colour comes from using it as one.

matching · Gamut The same two surfaces, weighed by each system. A long-wavelength and a short-wavelength surface under D65, with their relative luminance under the photopic curve and under the scotopic one. Under daylight vision the red surface is 1.33 times the blue; under rod vision it is 0.15 times, a reversal by a factor of 9.0. The swatches are the photopic appearance, which is the only one a display can produce: rod vision has no colour, and drawing a guess at it would be an invention.

The eye that has no colour

Rods outnumber cones twenty to one, work alone below a hundredth of a candela, and are absent from the centre of gaze. Between dusk and a lit room both systems run at once, and neither standard curve describes what is happening.

eye · Cones How far a match comes apart when the observer changes. A broad source and a three-primary source, solved at each primary width so the pair is an exact tristimulus match for the CIE 1931 observer. The pair is then handed to the 1964 observer, and the gap between them is plotted. For the observer they were built for the gap is arithmetic noise at every width. For the other it grows as the primaries narrow, reaching 0.012 at 10 nm — and displays have been getting narrower for twenty years.

Whose eyes

The standard observer is an average over seventeen people, and no reader is it. What that costs was small when displays were broad and grows every time the primaries get narrower.

limits · Limits Luminous efficacy of a monochromatic source, under the 2° observer. Lumens per watt against wavelength. The curve is the luminous efficiency function scaled by 683, which is what luminous efficacy of radiation is — the 1979 redefinition of the candela fixed 555 nm at exactly 683 lm/W and everything else follows. Marked at 450 nm (26 lm/W), 500 nm (221 lm/W), 555 nm (683 lm/W), 600 nm (431 lm/W), 650 nm (73 lm/W). Under this observer the peak reaches 683 lm/W.

What a lamp cannot give back

Six hundred and eighty-three lumens per watt is not a measurement of anything. It is the definition of the candela, it is a ceiling no white light can approach, and the distance between a lamp and that ceiling is mostly the price of being able to see what colour things are.

light · Light Dominant wavelength as a construction on the diagram, against equal-energy E. A ray is drawn from the white point through each sample and continued until it leaves the diagram. The sample at (0.28, 0.52) leaves through the spectral locus at 537 nm, at excitation purity 0.43. The sample at (0.36, 0.19) leaves through the line of purples, so it has no dominant wavelength at all and is written 544c nm — the crossing on the opposite side, marked with a c. The hatched region is colour this display cannot show and is not drawn as though it could.

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.

matching · Gamut Longitudinal chromatic aberration of the eye, focused at 555 nm. Thibos's chromatic eye, plotted as defocus in dioptres relative to 555 nm. The curve crosses zero exactly once, at the wavelength the eye is accommodating on, and everything else is out of focus — by -1.22 D at 420 nm and 0.50 D at 680 nm. Through a 3 mm pupil that first figure is a blur circle of 12.6 minutes of arc, against a foveal acuity limit of about one. The eye is never in focus across the spectrum and never can be.

Nothing is in focus at both ends

The eye carries about two dioptres of chromatic aberration across the visible band, which is a strong reading prescription. Whatever it is focused on, most of the spectrum is landing somewhere other than the retina — and the cone class that gets the worst of it is the one the retina bothered least to sample.

eye · Cones Three retinas of different composition, making identical colour matches. Seeded mosaics at L:M ratios of 1, 4, 16 to one — the range found between people, and a 16-fold difference in what the retina is made of. A colour match is the claim that two spectra produce equal excitation in all three cone classes, and changing how many of a class there are multiplies that class's excitation by a constant, which cannot disturb an equality. The relation between the two test spectra is identical to twelve decimal places across the whole sweep. Luminance, which is a weighted sum rather than an equality, moves by 1.33× over the same range. That asymmetry is why a standard observer exists and why V(λ) has a much larger between-observer variance than the colour-matching functions do.

The mosaic is not the observer

The ratio of long-wavelength to medium-wavelength cones varies between ordinary people by a factor of sixteen. Those people make the same colour matches, to twelve decimal places, and that single fact is the reason a standard observer can exist at all.

eye · Cones five greens, no neutral, under D65 — four guesses at the illuminant. The scene's surfaces as they reach the eye, and each estimator's angular error in degrees against the illuminant that actually lit them. Grey-world 43.1°, Max-RGB 27.7°, Shades-of-grey (p = 6) 31.4°, Grey-edge 34.4°. The best here is Max-RGB, which is best because this scene happens to satisfy its assumption — something reflects fully in every band — and not because it is the better algorithm. Any hatched patch is a surface this display cannot show under this light.

The algorithms that guess the light

What reaches a sensor is an illuminant multiplied by a reflectance, and no arithmetic separates a product into its factors. Every white-balance algorithm therefore works by assuming something about the world — and the interesting content of each is not its formula but the assumption, because a scene can violate it.

brain · Appearance How far a match comes apart when the observer changes. A broad source and a three-primary source, solved at each primary width so the pair is an exact tristimulus match for the CIE 1931 observer. The pair is then handed to the 1964 observer, and the gap between them is plotted. For the observer they were built for the gap is arithmetic noise at every width. For the other it grows as the primaries narrow, reaching 0.012 at 10 nm — and displays have been getting narrower for twenty years.

Two degrees or ten

This site names the observer on every figure it draws, which was supposed to be the point. Measuring what it had actually done found two hundred and four figures naming the same observer, three naming the other, and sixty-two of sixty-four generators printing a string that had never once varied.

limits · Limits One stimulus, three rooms, three appearances. The same XYZ in a dark, a dim and an average surround. The stimulus does not change and is drawn identically in all three panels; what changes is what CIECAM16 says it looks like. Predicted lightness runs from 65.6 to 57.5 — a spread of 8.1 — with chroma and colourfulness moving too. Colorimetry returns one answer here because it has nowhere to put the room.

A patch is not a scene

A paint chip is the wrong size, on the wrong background, at the wrong luminance, in the wrong surround. Every one of those is a term in an appearance model, and the model says how much each of them moves the answer — which is the difference between a caution and a prediction.

brain · Appearance sRGB, Display P3 and Rec. 2020 compared on the chromaticity diagram. Three nested triangles inside the horseshoe. sRGB covers 74 per cent of the area P3 covers. Rec. 2020's red and green primaries sit on the spectral locus itself, within 0.000 and 0.006 of it, meaning they are monochromatic.

Six numbers make a space

An RGB colour space is eight numbers — three primary chromaticities, a white point, and a transfer function — and everything else about it is derived. Deriving it rather than copying the matrix is the difference between having a colour space and having a table somebody else computed.

matching · Gamut Colour temperature, and the number nobody quotes beside it. The Planckian locus in the 1960 UCS diagram — the only diagram on which correlated colour temperature is well defined — with four sources and the perpendicular from each to its nearest point. The temperature is where the foot of the perpendicular lands; Duv is how long the perpendicular is. halophosphate sits 0.0246 off the locus at 4513 K, which is a visible green cast that its colour temperature does not mention.

The sun is not one illuminant

Daylight is not a blackbody and is not one spectrum. It is a one-parameter family reconstructed from three measured basis functions, its chromaticities lie on a curve that is near the Planckian locus and not on it, and the difference is the reason a colour temperature needs a second number beside it.

light · Light A spectrum after 2 bounces off the same surface. The lamp's spectrum at the top, then the same spectrum multiplied by a reflectance peaking at 530 nm once for each bounce. Interreflection is elementwise multiplication, so light that reaches the eye by the long way round carries ρ raised to the number of surfaces it met. Each row's swatch is drawn at fixed luminance so only the chromaticity changes, and the distance from the D65 white point, printed at the right, rises from 0.000 to 0.235. The spectrum narrows every time, which is why a room painted in one colour is more saturated in its corners than on its walls.

A bounce is a multiplication

Colorimetry multiplies an illuminant by a reflectance once and integrates. A surface in a room is lit by every other surface the lamp reached first, so the spectrum arriving at the eye has been multiplied several times — and the second multiplication is where the whole apparatus of matching starts to come apart.

scene · Scene A metameric match that a corner breaks. Two reflectances with identical XYZ under D65 — metamers, matching to ΔE00 = 5.4e-14, which is the numerical floor rather than an approximation. On a flat wall the light meets one of them once and the two patches are the same colour. In a corner, a fraction 0.200 of what leaves the surface returns to it, so part of what reaches the eye carries ρ twice — and the match fails by ΔE00 = 1.53. A metameric match is an identity between three integrals that are linear in ρ, and there is nothing linear left after a second bounce. The geometry, not the light and not the paint, is what breaks it.

Two paints that stop matching

A metameric match is an identity between three integrals that are linear in reflectance. A second bounce carries reflectance squared, and no linear identity survives being squared — so two paints certified identical on a flat chart come apart in a corner, by an amount the geometry decides and the colorimetry cannot express.

scene · Scene The two components of daylight, computed from one radiator and one scattering law. A 5800 K radiator through the atmosphere at air mass 1. The direct beam is the radiator times e^{−τm}; the sky is what that extinction removed, so the two are complements and neither needs its own model. The sky is steeply blue because τ ∝ λ⁻⁴, and a surface in shadow is lit by that component alone. Open ground and shadowed ground therefore sit under two illuminants differing by ΔE00 = 21.4 — which is why a photograph of snow has blue shadows and why no single white balance fixes both halves of it.

A shadow has its own illuminant

Outdoors there are two lights, not one. The direct beam is a radiator reddened by the atmosphere; the sky is precisely the power that reddening removed. A shadow is lit by the second alone, so shadowed ground and sunlit ground sit under illuminants 21 units of ΔE apart — before any surface, any eye or any opinion is involved.

scene · Scene A glossy surface returns two spectra, and only one of them is the paint. The dichromatic reflection model, computed rather than assumed. Light that enters a dielectric binder, scatters off pigment and comes back carries the reflectance — the body component, ΔE00 = 33.7 from the lamp. Light reflected at the interface never entered, so it carries the lamp's spectrum with only Fresnel's slight dispersion on it: ΔE00 = 1.06. The interface term is computed from Fresnel's equations on a Cauchy index at 55°, so its near-neutrality is a result here rather than an assumption. This is why a highlight is the one region of a photograph that tells a white balancer what the light was, and why removing highlights removes the evidence.

The highlight is the lamp

Light reflected at the surface of a glossy material never entered it, so it never met a pigment. Fresnel's reflectance varies by 5.5% across the visible band and the paint underneath varies by a factor of twenty — which makes a highlight the one region of a photograph that reports what the light was rather than what the object is.

scene · Scene How far three channels drift from eighty-one, per bounce. One room, one geometry, one reduction to three channels, and the only thing changing is how many bounces of the Neumann series are kept. At one bounce the two agree to 2.5e-13 — the only reflectance in that path is the floor's, which is flat, and a flat reflectance is one of the few three numbers carry exactly. Every bounce after it multiplies another non-flat reflectance into the spectrum, and three numbers cannot carry a product they were never given the factors of. The curve levels off at ΔE00 = 2.38 because the light has run out, not because the disagreement has.

Rendering in three numbers

Almost every renderer ever shipped bounces red, green and blue rather than a spectrum. The error that costs is exactly zero at the first product and grows at every one after it — because three numbers cannot carry a product they were never given the factors of, and each bounce is another product.

scene · Scene The interreflection gain of a room, band by band. A closed cavity of reflectance ρ returns 1/(1 − ρ) times the light that entered it, and because that is computed per band it amplifies the wall's colour along with its brightness. The wall here is only 5% off neutral — a paint anybody would call white — and at albedo 0.9 the room's white point has moved by ΔE00 = 50.7 against the lamp it was lit with. The gain is a geometric series, so the last few percent of albedo cost far more than the first: 1.64× at ρ = 0.4 against 8.41× at ρ = 0.9.

What a white wall costs

A closed room returns 1/(1−ρ) times the light that entered it, computed band by band — so a paint that is five percent off neutral becomes a strongly coloured illuminant once the room has finished bouncing. The gain amplifies the tint along with the brightness, and the last few percent of albedo cost far more than the first.

scene · Scene The form-factor matrix of the box. F_ij is the fraction of everything leaving face i that arrives at face j. The diagonal is zero because a flat face sees none of itself; each row sums to exactly 1 because the cavity is closed; and A_i F_ij = A_j F_ji, which is reciprocity and is checked to 10⁻⁹. For a cube the opposite face takes 19.98% and each of the four adjacent faces 20.00%, and the near-equality of those two numbers is a coincidence of the cube rather than a rule.

A corner is not a wall

A form factor is the fraction of everything leaving one surface that arrives at another, and it is the only place geometry enters the colour of a room. It is also the one number here with a published closed form to check against — and the check turned out to converge at two different rates for two cases that look identical.

scene · Scene Every face of the solved room. The red room after the transport is solved in all 81 bands. Only the ceiling emits; the other five faces are lit entirely by what the ceiling and each other send them, so their colour is the lamp multiplied by every reflectance along every path that reached them. The ceiling itself comes out 1.05× brighter than it emits, because a closed room returns light to its own source. The two chromaticities under each swatch are the spectral solve and the three-channel one, and the faces furthest from the lamp — the ones the light reached by the most bounces — are where they disagree most.

The room is the illuminant

Colour bleeding is usually described as an aesthetic phenomenon of rendered images. It is better described as a measurement. In a room with one lamp, five of six surfaces emit nothing at all, so their light is entirely a product of other surfaces' reflectances — and the bleeding saturates rather than running away, for a reason worth deriving.

scene · Scene Mixing two paints and stacking two filters are different operations. The same two reflectances combined two ways. Stacking them as filters multiplies the transmittances, which is right for gels in front of a lamp and wrong for pigment stirred into pigment: a stirred mixture is one scattering layer, not two in series, and light meets whichever particle is nearest rather than passing through both. Kubelka–Munk handles it by moving to K/S = (1 − R)²/2R, in which absorption and scattering add by concentration, and inverting afterwards. The two answers differ by ΔE00 = 15.0, and the filter model is the darker of the two because it charges every photon for both pigments.

Paint is not a filter

Stacking two filters multiplies their transmittances. Stirring two pigments together does not multiply their reflectances, because a mixture is one scattering layer rather than two in series — light meets whichever particle is nearest. Treating the two as the same operation is a 15-unit error, and which way it errs turns out to depend on whether the comparison holds the amount of pigment fixed.

scene · Scene Why blue and yellow make green. 7 mixtures between a blue and a yellow pigment, mixed in Kubelka–Munk — K/S summed by concentration and inverted back to reflectance — and plotted against the straight line joining the two endpoints. The path bows towards green by 0.099 in chromaticity, and the reason is in the spectra rather than in the eye: the blue reflects below about 520 nm and the yellow above about 500, so the only band both return is the overlap between them. Mixing lights adds spectra and lands on the chord; mixing pigments intersects them and does not.

Why blue and yellow make green

The oldest fact in colour, and the usual explanations are wrong. It is not because green sits between blue and yellow, and it is not a fact about the eye at all — it is that the only band both pigments return is their overlap, and the overlap of a blue and a yellow reflectance is green. Computed, the mixing path bows away from the straight line by a measurable amount.

scene · Scene The same medium at six path lengths. Beer's law at 6 depths of one absorbing medium. The absorption coefficient is a single spectrum and the only thing changing is how far the light travelled, yet the patches differ in hue by 7.8° as well as in lightness — because absorption is exponential in depth and the observer is linear, so the bands that survive at d = 8 are not a scaled copy of the ones that survive at d = 0.25. Path length belongs to the geometry, not to the substance, which is why this sits in a field about scenes.

The colour is in the thickness

Transmittance is exponential in path length and the observer is linear, so doubling the depth of an absorbing medium squares the transmittance rather than halving the colour. A translucent object therefore has no one colour — its thin edge and its thick middle are different spectra of the same substance, and the hue moves between them.

scene · Scene One film, five viewing angles. The same 340 nm film seen from 5 directions. Nothing about the object has changed — not the light, not the material, not the thickness — and the colour swings by ΔE00 = 42. A pigment's spectrum contains no path length and no angle, so it cannot do this; a film's contains both. This is the clean separation between structural and pigmentary colour, and it is geometric rather than chemical.

A colour that moves with the viewer

A thin film has no pigment in it. Its reflectance spectrum is an interference condition containing a path length and an angle, so tilting the sample moves every maximum to a shorter wavelength and changes the colour by 40 units of ΔE. A pigment's spectrum contains neither, and cannot do this at all — which is the cleanest separation between the two kinds of colour there is, and it is geometric rather than chemical.

scene · Scene What no surface can be more colourful than. The MacAdam limits at 4 lightnesses under D65, each computed by sweeping two-transition reflectances over the whole band and keeping those that land at the target luminance factor. This is a physical bound rather than a gamut: a reflectance above 1 is a surface that emits, so no pigment anybody invents will ever put an object colour outside these curves. The boundary shrinks steeply as the surface lightens, from 0.310 at Y = 0.1 to 0.028 at Y = 0.9 — a very light surface has almost no room to be colourful, and that is physics rather than pigment chemistry. Drawn against it is sRGB at the same luminance factor rather than as a primary triangle, because a triangle is what a display can reach at some luminance and the bound is what a surface can reach at one; matched properly, sRGB covers 36% at Y = 0.1, 40% at Y = 0.3, 40% at Y = 0.6, 21% at Y = 0.9. The faint triangle is the familiar figure, kept only to show how much it misleads.

No surface can be that colourful

There is a hard bound on object colour that no pigment will ever move, and it follows from a reflectance being at most 1. Its boundary is generated by two numbers, it shrinks by a factor of eleven from dark to light — and measured against it properly, sRGB reaches 40% of what a surface could be at mid lightness while Rec. 2020 reaches 106%.

scene · Scene One white balance across a scene lit by two lamps. A neutral surface of albedo 0.6 under 7 mixtures of A and D65, corrected by one diagonal transform chosen for the middle of the run — which is what a camera does when it estimates a single illuminant. The middle patch comes out neutral to ΔE00 = 0.00 and both ends do not: 19.8 at the A end and 16.9 at the D65 one. The failure is structural rather than a matter of a better estimator: white balance is one transform for the whole image, and a scene with two lamps in it has no single answer for that transform to be. Every patch here is the same surface.

A scene has no white point

White balance is one transform applied to a whole image, and a scene lit by two lamps has no single answer for that transform to be. The failure is structural rather than a matter of a better estimator — and every colour-managed workflow in existence takes exactly one white point as an input, with no field in which to say there were two.

scene · Scene A glossy surface returns two spectra, and only one of them is the paint. The dichromatic reflection model, computed rather than assumed. Light that enters a dielectric binder, scatters off pigment and comes back carries the reflectance — the body component, ΔE00 = 33.7 from the lamp. Light reflected at the interface never entered, so it carries the lamp's spectrum with only Fresnel's slight dispersion on it: ΔE00 = 1.14. The interface term is computed from Fresnel's equations on a Cauchy index at 45°, so its near-neutrality is a result here rather than an assumption. This is why a highlight is the one region of a photograph that tells a white balancer what the light was, and why removing highlights removes the evidence.

Gloss changes the measurement

The same sample measured with the specular component included and excluded returns two different numbers, and both are correct answers to different questions. Colour is one of four appearance attributes and the only one most instruments report — so a specification that names a colour has silently named a geometry too, and usually does not say which.

scene · Scene A camera's spectral sensitivities, after the infrared-cut filter. Silicon quantum efficiency times the colour-filter dye times the infrared-cut filter, per channel, on a grid running to 1100 nm rather than to 780. With the filter removed, 68 per cent of the area under the three curves lies beyond the visible band, and all three curves are the same curve out there.

A camera is a fourth observer

The 1931 functions, the 1964 functions and a person's own cones are three sets of three curves that collapse a spectrum onto three numbers. A camera is a fourth, built from silicon and dye rather than from pigment and neural wiring, and it agrees with none of them.

imaging · Capture A silicon sensor's best possible impersonation of the standard observer. The 1931 matching functions in outline, and the closest linear combination of the sensor's three sensitivities laid over them; underneath, what is left over at each wavelength. The residual is 31.7 per cent of the matching functions' own magnitude, worst at 440 nm. Colour reproduction is exact if and only if this is zero.

Luther said when it would work

There is an exact condition under which a fixed three-by-three matrix converts camera raw to XYZ correctly for every spectrum in existence. It was stated in 1927, it is a theorem rather than a guideline, and no camera ever built satisfies it.

imaging · Capture Two reflectances the camera records as identical. Constructed by projecting onto the null space of the sensor's own sensitivities, so the two raw triples agree to 0.0000 per cent. To the eye they are ΔE00 15.33 apart, which the swatches show.

The camera has its own metamers

Two surfaces a camera records as identical can be plainly different to a person, and two a person cannot tell apart can be recorded as different. Both pairs are constructed rather than found, from one projection, used for both.

imaging · Capture A camera's spectral sensitivities, with the filter removed. Silicon quantum efficiency times the colour-filter dye times nothing else, per channel, on a grid running to 1100 nm rather than to 780. With the filter removed, 68 per cent of the area under the three curves lies beyond the visible band, and all three curves are the same curve out there.

The grid outside every figure

Every figure here is computed on 380 to 780 nanometres, which is exactly right for an eye and insufficient for a sensor. This field met the first subject the grid cannot hold, and the decision was not to widen it — because widening it honestly is impossible.

imaging · Capture D65, and a source built to have its chromaticity and nothing else. The smooth curve is the CIE's daylight reconstruction at 6504 K. The other is five Gaussian emission bands whose weights were solved so that the two agree in chromaticity to 8.5e-10 — closer than any instrument could tell them apart when looking at the lamps. Three numbers were matched and seventy-eight were not, and everything either source falls on will report the difference.

There is no D65 lamp

D65 is standardised by three numbers, and three numbers do not pin a spectrum. A source built to hit them exactly — matched to a part in a billion, with a third of the visible band nearly empty — separates pairs that D65 says are identical by up to eight and a half units of colour difference.

light · Light 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 A screen at 45°, 8 c/°, and where its energy sits. Left, the pattern. Right, its power in the frequency plane with the zero frequency at the centre and the edges at the sampling limit of 23 cycles per degree, on a logarithmic scale over five decades. The closed curves are the visual system's own sensitivity at 5, 25, 60 per cent of its peak; they are not circles, because sensitivity is lower on the diagonals than on the cardinal axes by a factor of 2.0 at high frequency. Energy inside a curve is seen; energy outside it is not, whatever its size.

A pattern has a direction

Every spatial claim here is a claim about a frequency, and a frequency has no direction in it. Turning a printed screen forty-five degrees makes it exactly twice as quiet with nothing else changed — and the same rotation does nothing at all to a chromatic one.

eye · Cones Cone density, out from the centre of gaze. Quoted landmarks with logarithmic interpolation between them: 199,000 cones per square millimetre at the fovea, 9,500 at ten degrees — a factor of 21. The shaded bands are the two standard observers' fields. The 2° observer averages over a region whose density falls by 3.3× between its centre and its edge and the 10° observer by 12.4×, which is what "a 10° field" contains and is why the two sets of matching functions are different shapes rather than the same shape scaled.

Colour stops at the edge of sight

Cone density falls twenty-one-fold between the centre of gaze and ten degrees out, and the three channels give out at three different rates — so a colour difference in the periphery does not merely shrink, it turns. At the exact point of fixation there are no short-wavelength cones at all.

eye · Cones Temporal sensitivity, and where each channel gives out. Modulation frequency in hertz against relative sensitivity. The luminance channel is band-pass, peaking at 8 hertz and running out at 60; an isoluminant modulation is low-pass and runs out at 15, which is 4.0 times sooner. Both cutoffs are at the same criterion of 5 per cent of that channel's own peak, so the ratio between them is a ratio between two measurements rather than between two conventions.

The eye has a shutter

An isoluminant flicker fuses at fifteen hertz and a luminance one at sixty, so a light whose colour changes forty times a second is a steady light of a colour it never emits. And the frequency at which flicker stops being visible is not a property of the eye — it moves twelve and a half hertz for every decade of light.

eye · Cones How often two colour-difference formulae disagree about which pair is worse. Pairs of colours sampled in CIELAB, compared two at a time. A rank inversion is a case where one formula calls pair A worse and the other calls pair B worse; no monotone rescaling of either can remove one. The left bar of each group is the rate over the whole space and the right bar is the rate among pairs sitting near a tolerance of ΔE 1, where the decision is actually made — and it is between 35 and 44 per cent, against a coin flip at fifty.

Which of two is worse

Two colour-difference formulae disagree about which of two pairs is the larger difference in thirteen per cent of comparisons overall — and in forty-three per cent of comparisons among pairs sitting near a tolerance of one unit, which is where every acceptance decision is actually made.

difference · Metric One colour difference, at four places in the visual field. The same pair of colours — ΔE00 22.0 at the fovea — with each of its three components divided by that channel's own threshold scaling at the stated eccentricity. What is left at 20° is 4.4, and its hue has turned by 26 degrees, because the red–green part is divided by more than the blue–yellow part. The swatches are the predicted colours, drawn where a reader will look straight at them; the figure states a prediction it cannot stage.

A difference has no place

A colour difference formula answers a question about two patches somebody is looking straight at. Move the same pair ten degrees into the periphery and a third of it is left — and it has turned twenty-four degrees of hue, because the three channels give out at three different rates.

difference · Metric Grassmann's four laws, exact — and the two things that break them. For a linear observer every one of the four is exact and the residual is floating point, which is the control that makes the two failures below measurements rather than artefacts. Rods break a cone-metameric match by 23 per cent of a rod excitation at dusk; bleaching breaks it by 0.59 per cent of a cone excitation in the sun. Both are stated as fractions of a receptor's own response, so they can be put on one scale.

The laws that make colour add up

Colorimetry is an integral, and an integral assumes matching is linear. Grassmann's four laws are exact for a linear observer, to floating point — and they fail at both ends of the light range, by two different mechanisms, leaving colorimetry an operating band of three and a bit decades that no standard states.

matching · Gamut One match, and what it says about the observer making it. The anomaloscope: a monochromatic 589 nm yellow set against a mixture of 545 and 670 nm. Only two cone classes respond at those wavelengths, so the match is two equations in two unknowns and has one solution for any observer whose two pigments differ. The bar is the fraction of the accepted band; the mark is the solution. A normal observer accepts 0.7 per cent of the scale; an observer whose two pigments are the same accepts all of it, because their two equations are one equation twice. Nothing here is fitted to clinical data: the pigments are the same template used for every observer here, at stated peaks, and the match is the solution of the linear system.

One match names the observer

A yellow at 589 nanometres set against a mixture of 545 and 670 is two equations in two unknowns. It has one solution for a normal observer, a solution somewhere else for an anomalous one, and no unique solution at all for a dichromat — whose two equations are one equation twice.

matching · Gamut One light, two eyes. The same stimulus through two sets of ocular media differing only in macular pigment (0.35 and 0.41) and lens age (55 and 55 years). Compared under one white the two differ by ΔE00 1.00; compared with each eye adapted to its own long-run white — which is what the visual system does — by 0.00. The second number is why nobody notices, and the first is why a person who has had one lens replaced reports that the other eye has turned yellow.

Nobody here has two eyes

One person's two eyes differ in macular pigment and lens density, so the same light produces two colours — a whole ΔE00 apart for an ordinary pair, seven for one replaced lens. Adaptation hides it exactly, which is why nobody notices and why nothing in colorimetry has a term for it.

limits · Limits The eleven basic colour terms, at their quoted centroids. Each patch is the CIELAB centroid quoted for that term, converted to a stimulus and drawn — except blue, whose focal colour is outside the sRGB gamut and is therefore hatched rather than clipped, which is the rule for an unreachable colour everywhere else and applies here too. The centroids are rounded to 5 units in each coordinate, and moving them by that much either way leaves the same term outside.

A colour has a name

Every quantity here is a number, and the question a reader arrives with is what colour something is called. The eleven basic terms of English divide the space into territories that differ by a factor of five, the metric accounts for fifteen per cent of that, and one of the eleven focal colours cannot be shown on this page at all.

brain · Appearance A colour-order system's chips, sorted by what they would be called. A regular lattice in lightness, chroma and hue — the idealisation of a swatch book, and regular by construction because a person has to be able to find a page. Named, it comes apart: 1320 chips inside the gamut divide into 198 for grey and 66 for blue. And 22 per cent of one-step moves in the lattice change the name, so a page of a swatch book is not a page of a vocabulary.

A catalogue is not a vocabulary

A colour order system is a regular lattice, because a person has to be able to find a page. Sorted by what its chips would be called, that lattice comes apart into piles differing by a factor of three — and a fifth of all one-step moves in it change the name.

matching · Gamut A fourth primary, swept — every setting an exact match, none of them the same. Four primaries matching three numbers leave one degree of freedom. Along the horizontal axis it is the fourth primary's share of the white's luminance; at each value the other three powers are solved exactly, so every point on this plot is a floating-point-exact match for the reference member — worst residual 1.3e-15 — and no colorimeter can tell them apart. What the population sees runs from 13.7 ΔE00 at the ninety-fifth percentile to 17.3, a factor of 1.26. The best setting is the largest share the arithmetic admits, so what stops it is not colour but the requirement that four powers stay positive.

Four primaries have a choice

Three primaries matching three numbers have one answer. Four have a family of them, every member exact to floating point for the observer they were solved for — and the members are not equally good for anybody else, so a display with a fourth primary has a setting that is robust to who is looking at it and a setting that is not.

matching · Gamut One tolerance decision, at four spectral distances. Every column is a pair of samples ΔE00 1.0 apart for the observer a colorimeter models — solved to that value by bisection, so the instrument would report the same number for all four. What differs is how far apart the two spectra are, which is achieved by adding a metameric black the reference observer cannot see. The bands are what two hundred people report: from 1.13 at the ninety-fifth percentile when the spectra are the same shape to 2.32 when they are not, and the worst case reaches 3.7. No specification records the quantity on the horizontal axis.

A tolerance is a probability

A colorimeter reports one number and a specification compares it with another, and both are computed for an observer who does not exist. Handed to two hundred people, the same pair at ΔE00 1.0 is read from 0.8 to 3.7 — and which of those two ranges applies depends on something no specification records.

difference · Metric The three constants a specification does not quote. ΔE2000 is defined with three parametric factors in it — kL, kC and kH — which the CIE leaves to the industry using the formula rather than fixing. Graphic arts uses ones throughout; the textile standard weighs lightness at half, which is kL = 2. Applied to 4000 pairs at a tolerance of 1, the two settings accept 46 and 75 per cent, and 29 per cent of pairs change verdict — a larger disagreement than any between the formulae themselves. The reference conditions the ones assume are diffuse illumination at 1000 lux, a mid-grey surround, samples abutting, subtending over four degrees, differing by under five units, with no visible texture.

Three constants nobody quotes

CIEDE2000 is defined with three parametric factors in it, the CIE leaves them to the industry using the formula, and the two settings in ordinary use differ by a factor of two in one of them. Twenty-nine per cent of acceptance decisions change between the two — a larger disagreement than any between the formulae themselves.

difference · Metric The hue circle cut into names, at L 60 and C 40. Left, the arcs each name claims, drawn at the colour of their midpoints; right, the same arcs measured in ΔE00 by integrating the difference along the ring rather than in degrees. The widest is 5.3 times the narrowest in degrees and 4.5 times in colour difference, so the metric accounts for 15 per cent of the inequality and no more. Only the eight chromatic terms compete on this ring: at this chroma the achromatic three would otherwise take the region where no basic English term sits, which is a defect of the model and is named in the essay.

There is no word for that colour

The naming model built this phase gives a saturated cyan the name green, calls part of a chromatic ring grey, and puts one of the eleven focal colours outside what a display can show. Each failure is a measurement rather than a disclaimer, and together they say what a vocabulary is that eleven points and a distance are not.

limits · Limits What the same eye reports about one field, in the middle and at the edge. Each row is a uniform field, drawn at the most saturated version of itself this page can show — the percentage is how much of the full stimulus survived, the rest being the adapting light added to bring it inside the gamut. The left patch is what the centre of gaze reports and the right one what 10 degrees out reports, each adapted to the same light as that position sees it. The adapting white comes out identical to 5e-13, because an adapted eye cancels its own filter exactly. Nothing else does, and the largest difference is in the blue. tungsten light is not drawn: it cannot be shown at any useful saturation, and at full strength it differs by ΔE00 1.87.

One person is two observers

The macular pigment is a yellow screen over the fovea and nowhere else, so a cone at the centre of gaze and a cone ten degrees away have different colour-matching functions in the same eye. A match made in the middle comes apart at the edge by six units — and fitting one filter to the gap between the CIE's two standard observers gives a density of 0.40 against a measured 0.35.

eye · Cones A colour rendering index, computed for everybody instead of for one observer. Each bar spans what 120 eyes make of one lamp: the same reflectances, the same reference illuminant, the same arithmetic, different colour-matching functions. The mark is the standard observer's own answer, which is the number printed on the box. One lamp's spread is 3.8 points wide while the whole range the standard observer puts these lamps in is 1.8 — so a ranking quoted to a tenth of a point is a statement about one set of tables. Two of the marks fall outside the population's range entirely.

The index is one observer's opinion

A colour rendering index is printed to a tenth of a point and computed for a single set of colour-matching functions that no standard names as a choice. Scored by two hundred eyes instead, one lamp's spread is wider than the whole range the standard observer puts five lamps in — and two lamps the standard separates by four tenths of a point come out the other way round for every member of the population.

light · Light What a fourth primary actually buys. All three displays are floating-point-exact matches for the reference observer, so no colorimeter can tell them apart. The bars are the 95th percentile of what two hundred other eyes report. Held to the same gamut floor of 1.4× sRGB, the four-primary design leaves the population 2.6 times closer together than the three-primary one. That is what the extra emitter is worth, and it is not more colour — the gamut is held fixed while it is measured.

A fourth primary is a design

A display's fourth emitter is sold as more colour. Optimised instead against how far apart two hundred eyes are about its white — with the gamut held fixed so it cannot cheat — it buys agreement, and two and a half times closer together than three primaries reaching the same area, and the wavelengths it chooses are not the ones anybody would pick.

matching · Gamut How wrong a camera profile is, and who it is wrong for. A colour matrix fitted against the 1931 observer, evaluated four ways. Its residual against that observer is ΔE00 0.92 — the Luther failure, which is a property of the sensor and is the honest measurement of the camera. Against a person drawn from a population of 160, the worst-off twentieth report 3.35. And a camera with no spectral error whatever, reporting the standard observer's own tristimulus values exactly, would leave 3.47. The camera is not the problem. It was fitted to somebody who does not exist, and so is the standard it was fitted against.

Fitted to an eye nobody has

A camera profile's residual against the observer it was fitted to is under a unit, and that is the number everybody quotes. Against a person drawn from a population it is 3.35 at the ninety-fifth percentile — and a camera with no spectral error whatever, reporting the standard observer's tristimulus values exactly, would carry 3.47. The camera is not the problem.

imaging · Capture Every change of light this site models, and how much of it a gain removes. Each row is a change of illumination. The pale bar is how far it moves an ordinary surface for an observer who does not adapt; the solid bar at its left end is what is left after the observer has applied the one gain adaptation gives them, which is the ratio of the two whites in the CAT16 basis and is not fitted to anything. Sorted by the fraction left rather than by the size of the change, because the two orderings are different: the largest change here is removed almost entirely and the worst row is a change less than a third its size.

What no adaptation can remove

A change of light is exactly a 3×3 matrix on tristimulus values, and adaptation is a diagonal one. Putting every change of illumination this site models through that distinction sorts them by how much of themselves they leave behind, and the smallest residual in the census belongs to a filter inside the eye.

limits · Limits Every published adaptation transform, and one computed from daylight, on every change. What each basis leaves an adapted observer with, row by row. Darker is worse. The last column is not a published transform: it is the basis in which a change from D65 to D50 is exactly diagonal, computed in closed form from the two spectra with nothing fitted. It is far the best on the daylight rows and it is beaten on the discharge lamps, which is the trade the published transforms are sitting in — they were fitted to data containing both kinds of light and are therefore optimal for neither. Over the census as a whole the winner is Bradford at ΔE00 1.14.

A gain needs a basis

Adaptation scales three signals, and which three is a choice. The basis in which a change from D65 to D50 is exactly diagonal can be computed in closed form from the two spectra, it beats every published transform on daylight by a factor of five, and it loses to all of them on a fluorescent tube.

brain · Appearance Which of these paints the display can show, and to how many people. Each row is a real surface under D65, and the bar is the share of 120 observers for whom a non-negative mixture of this display's three primaries reproduces it. The question has no observer-free answer: the paint is a reflectance, the primaries are emission spectra, and whether one matches the other is a fact about somebody's cones. A dot marks the rows the 1931 observer calls displayable. 2 of them are rows some real people cannot see, and 4 more go the other way.

A gamut has a population

Whether a display can reproduce a paint is a fact about somebody's cones, so the boundary of a gamut is not a curve but a band. On a laser projector, ten of twenty-eight boundary surfaces are ones the standard observer calls displayable and some real people cannot see — and the wider the gamut, the wider the band.

matching · Gamut Six functions of wavelength, and the six different places they stop. Every table this collection integrates against, drawn over the range the body that published it defined it on. The scale is logarithmic so that the ultraviolet and the near infrared both fit. The bottom row is the range used here before the infrared band was added, and it is the intersection of the two rows that matter for an eye looking at a reflector — which is the right answer only while everything in the integral is being multiplied together. The daylight basis runs 80 nanometres further down than that intersection, and it was published that way because the ultraviolet in daylight is what makes a brightened sheet of paper glow. The analytic row is drawn to the edge of the plot because it has no edge: Planck's law is a formula and is exact at every wavelength, which is why illuminant A needs no table at all.

The tables do not stop together

This collection integrates from 380 to 780 nanometres, and decided once, in writing, that the range could not honestly be widened. The argument was correct at the long end and wrong at the short one — the CIE publishes the daylight basis from 300 nanometres, and publishes it from there for exactly the reason it matters.

light · Light What reaches the retina, and why the observer's table stops at 360 nanometres. The transmittance of the eye's own optics across the short-wave band, at three ages, with the brightener's absorption shaded underneath. The upper curve is an eye whose lens has been removed — the cornea alone, opaque below about 295 nanometres and transparent above it. The photopigments absorb perfectly well in this band; what stops the light is a piece of optics in front of them, which is why the short-wave limit of colour vision moves with age and can be removed surgically. A twenty-year-old receives 21 times as much of the band a brightener works in as a seventy-year-old does.

The eye stops at the lens

Neither standard observer is tabulated below 360 nanometres, and the reason is not that the photopigments stop absorbing there. It is that the light never arrives — the cornea and the crystalline lens take it — so the short-wave limit of human colour vision is a piece of optics, it moves by a factor of twenty across a lifetime, and it can be surgically removed.

eye · Cones A radiance factor, split into the part that was reflected and the part that was not. The two components of what leaves a heavily brightened sheet under M₁ — D50 including its ultraviolet. The lower band is the reflected component, which is what a reflectance curve means and is everything a reflectance-based model can hold. The band above it is light emitted at wavelengths it did not arrive at, and its total is decided by how much ultraviolet the source had rather than by anything about the sheet's colour. The line at one is the boundary a reflecting surface cannot cross; the sum reaches 1.21 at 430 nanometres.

The eye weights where the light is not

A brightened sheet returns a quarter more light than arrives at 430 nanometres, and it is three tenths of one per cent brighter for it. The luminous efficiency function is 0.017 there against 1.0 in the middle of the band, so the whole effect lands in the blue-yellow axis — brighter than white is a colour claim wearing a brightness word.

matching · Cones One observer's matching functions, in three of the bases the matches leave free. The three colour-matching functions after a change of basis 0.00 of the way from Hunt–Pointer–Estévez towards the set built from the dichromat confusion points. Every one of these triples predicts exactly the same matches as every other, because a match is an equality and a matrix applied to both sides of an equality changes nothing. What moves is where the peaks are and whether the curves go negative — these ones do not, and going negative is what the 1931 committee constructed XYZ to avoid.

The matches do not name the cones

Colour matching is the whole empirical basis of colorimetry, and it fixes the observer's three curves only up to a nonsingular 3×3 — nine numbers that no match, in any quantity, to any precision, can see. One particular choice of those nine is used throughout here, and it was made for a different purpose.

eye · Cones Which of this collection's own claims survive a change of basis, and which are about the paper. Nine sentences this site says, sorted by whether they mean the same thing after the observer's three curves are replaced by a nonsingular combination of themselves. 5 of the nine do. The four that do not are not thereby wrong — they are statements about a chosen set of coordinates, and they are true of those coordinates. What they cannot be is statements about the eye, which is how every one of them is usually read.

Which of these is a convention

Nine ordinary sentences from this collection, put through one test — do they mean the same thing after the observer's three curves are replaced by a nonsingular combination of themselves? Five survive and four do not, and none of the four is wrong, because each is a statement about a set of coordinates being read as a statement about an eye.

limits · Limits Every width at the wide end of its span, and at the narrow end. One line per published quantity, each spanning the value it takes when all four declared widths are read at the narrow end of their reported ranges to the value at the wide end, with a marker at the value as declared. The largest span is the deutan margin at a factor of 2.62; the smallest is 1.22. This is the reading the population model's own documentation promised for four phases and nothing ever took. It is not a confidence interval — the four ends are not quantiles and the widths are not independent draws — it is what a reader who distrusts all four at once sees.

A width nobody varied

Five numbers say how much people differ from one another, and every conclusion drawn here about a population rests on them. Each was written down with the range the literature reports beside it, so that a result could be re-read at the pessimistic end. Nothing ever was.

eye · Cones Which width carries the answer, and which carries the doubt. Two columns of bars over the four things that differ between two pairs of eyes. On the left, the share of the population's disagreement each one accounts for — the attribution quoted here since the population was built, which puts the lens first at 81%. On the right, how much of the doubt each one puts on everything published here, which is its elasticity multiplied by how badly the width itself is known. The macular pigment comes first there, at 0.65 against the lens's 0.60 — a lead of 8%. The two lists agree exactly below the top.

Which measurement is worth making

Four things about an eye differ between people, and they have been ranked here by how much of the answers they carry since the population was built. Ranking them by how much doubt they carry gives a different order, and ranking them by which one takes a published claim closest to failing gives a third.

eye · Cones 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.

The observers differ by a unit's worth

The gap between the 1931 and 1964 standard observers is the one quantity in this collection's audit with no published number under it — nothing here reports it as a single figure over a stated set. It also has the second-largest dependence on which colour-difference formula is used, running from 1.60 to 3.55 across the menu.

matching · Gamut 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 secondary band, dialled from nothing to twice what Govardovskii published. Govardovskii's template has a second, smaller absorption band below 400 nm, published at 0.26 of the α-band's peak. It is the one coefficient in the whole template whose contribution is somewhere else in the spectrum than the peak, and it is the part of the template a reader is least likely to have heard of. Sweeping it from nothing to twice the published value moves the median observer's distance from the 1931 standard from 0.9354 to 0.9790 ΔE₀₀, monotonically upwards. That is a small effect — about a fiftieth of the residual — and its being monotone is the interesting part: there is no interior optimum, so nothing here recommends the published value over any other, and a coefficient whose measured value is not the one that best fits an unrelated agreement is a coefficient to leave where the measurement put it.

The band below four hundred

The pigment template every observer here is built from carries a second, smaller absorption band in the ultraviolet, published at 0.26 of the main one. Dialling it from nothing to twice that moves the median observer monotonically away from the standard one, with no interior optimum — which is what a physical constant looks like when nothing downstream is pulling it anywhere.

eye · Cones a fluorescent tube, mercury lines on a phosphor bed, with a 5-nanometre grid marked on it. The light drawn at a fifth of a nanometre, with the 5-nanometre tabulation points marked beneath. 38 of the 53 points carry more than a twentieth of the peak. What a summation over those points computes is not an approximation to the area under this curve; on a spectrum with features narrower than the spacing it is a different quantity, and the difference depends on where the points fall rather than on how many there are.

The index is a choice too

Every colour in this collection is a sum over eighty-one numbers running from 380 to 780 nanometres in steps of five. That index is not a property of the eye, the light or the sample — it is a tabulation, and it holds three separable decisions that behave completely differently from one another.

light · Light The two tabulation choices over forty-two surfaces, under a tungsten lamp at 2856 K. Each column is one choice, measured over a family of forty-two analytic reflectances rather than on a single example: an absorption band of stated centre, width and depth. The four marks are the smallest, the median, the ninety-fifth percentile and the largest cost in ΔE₀₀, logarithmically. Under a smooth light the range is worth 6.3 times the step at the median, so a collection wanting one repair should widen its range rather than refine its step — and under a fluorescent tube the ranking reverses outright.

A neutral has no grid

A perfectly flat reflectance computes to exactly the same colour on every wavelength grid, through every slit, at every origin, and for every observer — not nearly, but to the last bit of a floating-point number. The condition is an identity rather than a limit, and what makes it one is the white point.

difference · Metric What each end of the 380–780 nanometre range costs, by light. Two bars per light, on a logarithmic axis: the upper is what extending the range down to 300 nanometres moves the answer, the lower what extending it up to 830 does. The asymmetry is the whole figure. A thermal source has about a fifth of its power outside this collection's range and almost all of it at the long end, where the observer is already zero; what costs money is the short end, where the observer is small but not zero and daylight is still strong. A light with no ultraviolet — an LED lamp, a laser — pays nothing at either end, which is the pairing again: a range only costs what the light puts in it.

Two ends and one is empty

Extending this collection's wavelength range down to 300 nanometres moves a red pigment under daylight by 0.502 ΔE₀₀. Extending it up to 830 moves the same colour by 0.00015. A fifth of a thermal source's power lies outside the range and almost none of its colour does, and confusing those two shares is how a range gets argued about instead of measured.

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 The arguments a standard observer does not have. Seven choices inside a set of colour-matching functions, each with the shape it takes and what it is worth in ΔE₀₀ on a red pigment under a 6500 K radiator. Six are measurements: a field size, an age, a macular density, a cone optical density, three peak wavelengths and a rod contribution. The seventh is not — a change of basis is a change of curves and not a change of observer, and its entry is exactly zero because the space an experiment measures is what an observer is. Printing that zero beside the others is the clearest statement of what the other six are measurements of.

The third factor is a construction

Every figure in this collection names its observer, which was the whole point. None of them says what an observer is made of. Three curves are not a measurement of the eye; they are a projection of one, with a field size, an age, a macular density, three peak wavelengths and a luminance constraint inside them.

eye · Cones The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

A neutral is everyone's colour

Two eyes differing by fifty years of lens yellowing, by a factor of three in macular pigment and by six nanometres of long-wavelength peak agree about a grey card to four parts in ten thousand billion. The agreement is an identity rather than a coincidence, and it says exactly what an observer disagreement is a disagreement about.

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 The arguments a standard observer does not have. Seven choices inside a set of colour-matching functions, each with the shape it takes and what it is worth in ΔE₀₀ on a red pigment under a 6500 K radiator. Six are measurements: a field size, an age, a macular density, a cone optical density, three peak wavelengths and a rod contribution. The seventh is not — a change of basis is a change of curves and not a change of observer, and its entry is exactly zero because the space an experiment measures is what an observer is. Printing that zero beside the others is the clearest statement of what the other six are measurements of.

Three curves for one space

Rotate a set of colour-matching functions by an arbitrary invertible matrix, undo the rotation at the end, and the computed colour is identical to eight parts in a thousand million million. An observer is a three-dimensional subspace, not a set of curves, and the literature keeps reopening a question that is a theorem.

eye · Cones What choosing a space to divide the white out in is worth. Three pairs of routes to the same colour, over forty-two surfaces: dividing the white out in tristimulus values, in a published cone space, and in the observer's own cones. The first two agree to 0.59 ΔE₀₀ at the median. Either of them differs from the observer's own cones by more than fifteen. That is why the two exact conditions in this round are exact only in the eye's own coordinates: the identity belongs to the receptors, and every published arithmetic works in a basis somebody else chose.

The identity is in the eye's own coordinates

Two conditions in this round are exact — a gain on each cone is not a different observer, and three curves for one space are one observer. Imposed in a published cone space rather than the eye's own they leave 13.0 and 8.11 ΔE₀₀ standing. The identities belong to the physiology and every arithmetic in use works somewhere else.

eye · Cones Every departure under every light. Six departures across six lights, each cell the difference between two observers in ΔE₀₀, drawn as a bar whose length is the number. The rows are not multiples of one another: the lens is worst under tungsten and the pigment peaks are worst under a three-emitter LED, because a departure is a pairing and which light is being paired with decides it. The laser projector's row is empty, and that is not a fact about lasers — on this collection's five-nanometre grid a three-line spectrum is a one-line spectrum, and a single wavelength is a stimulus every observer agrees about exactly.

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.

eye · Cones 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 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 What this collection's grid does to its own observer audit. Two bars per light: the mean departure of the observer computed on this collection's five-nanometre grid, and the same computation on a quarter-nanometre one. For five of the six lights the two agree to two decimal places, which is what a well-sampled spectrum looks like. For the laser projector the coarse answer is exactly zero and the fine one is 2.34 — the largest in the table. On a five-nanometre grid a three-line spectrum with lines at 465, 532 and 638 nanometres is a one-line spectrum, and a single wavelength is a stimulus every observer agrees about to the last bit. The two departures do not compound here; the first conceals the second.

The grid hid the observer

On this collection's five-nanometre grid a three-laser projector's observer disagreement is exactly zero. On a quarter-nanometre grid it is 2.34 ΔE₀₀ and the largest in the table. The two audits of this round meet here, and the first one does not compound with the second — it removes it.

limits · Limits What this collection's grid does to its own observer audit. Two bars per light: the mean departure of the observer computed on this collection's five-nanometre grid, and the same computation on a quarter-nanometre one. For five of the six lights the two agree to two decimal places, which is what a well-sampled spectrum looks like. For the laser projector the coarse answer is exactly zero and the fine one is 1.80 — the largest in the table. On a five-nanometre grid a three-line spectrum with lines at 465, 532 and 638 nanometres is a one-line spectrum, and a single wavelength is a stimulus every observer agrees about to the last bit. The two departures do not compound here; the first conceals the second.

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.

matching · Gamut 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 The three cone absorptances at two settings of the age of the lens. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of twenty years old against seventy. 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 25.5 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.

The observer has no age

Five of the six arguments in this round are spreads — a population differs about them and the mean is a reasonable summary. The lens is not. Everybody's lens yellows in the same direction at about the same rate, so a standard observer with no age is not an average over a population; it is a snapshot of one moment in every reader's life.

eye · Cones The three cone absorptances at two settings of the rods. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of a tenth of the cone response, which is a dim room. 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 9.1 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.

The rods are a fourth curve

Colorimetry has three numbers and a rod signal is a fourth. It cannot be absorbed by a gain, it cannot be removed by a white point, and adding a tenth of one to a three-curve observer costs 1.60 ΔE₀₀ — the narrowest distribution of the six departures, because an addition behaves quite differently from a filter.

eye · Cones The three cone absorptances at two settings of the macular pigment. 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 31.5 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.

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.

eye · Cones The three cone absorptances at two settings of the pigment peaks. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of two standard deviations, and the L/M polymorphism on top. 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 8.9 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.

The peaks move the flanks

Shifting a cone's peak wavelength by three nanometres changes its sensitivity at its own maximum by almost nothing and on its flanks by several per cent, because a maximum is flat and a flank is steep. Every display primary sits on a flank, which is why a pigment polymorphism is worth 3.60 ΔE₀₀ under a laser projector.

eye · Cones The arguments a standard observer does not have. Seven choices inside a set of colour-matching functions, each with the shape it takes and what it is worth in ΔE₀₀ on a red pigment under a 6500 K radiator. Six are measurements: a field size, an age, a macular density, a cone optical density, three peak wavelengths and a rod contribution. The seventh is not — a change of basis is a change of curves and not a change of observer, and its entry is exactly zero because the space an experiment measures is what an observer is. Printing that zero beside the others is the clearest statement of what the other six are measurements of.

An observer is a contract

Six departures, all above a delivery tolerance, none dominant, and no reader matching the standard on any of them. That would be a demolition if the standard observer were a description of an eye. It is not — it is an agreement about what a number means, and an agreement is not falsified by being unlike anybody.

limits · Limits 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.

A tolerance with an observer in it

A delivery tolerance is written in ΔE₀₀ against the 1931 observer, and six departures of that observer combine to about three of the same units on an ordinary saturated sample. A one-unit tolerance is being asked to contain a three-unit uncertainty that nothing in its budget mentions.

difference · Metric The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

The instrument is one observer exactly

A spectrophotometer has no observer uncertainty. It computes through the 1931 tables to the last bit, reproducibly, forever — which is its whole value and is also why it cannot report the three colour differences of observer spread between itself and whoever is looking at the sample.

applied · Delivery 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 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 census under another observer

This collection's largest computed result is an adaptation census — fourteen changes of light judged over a hundred and twenty-five constructed surfaces. Every number in it was computed through one observer, and the observer's own departures are between one and two and a half units on the same surfaces, which is the size of the effects the census reports.

brain · Appearance What choosing a space to divide the white out in is worth. Three pairs of routes to the same colour, over forty-two surfaces: dividing the white out in tristimulus values, in a published cone space, and in the observer's own cones. The first two agree to 0.59 ΔE₀₀ at the median. Either of them differs from the observer's own cones by more than fifteen. That is why the two exact conditions in this round are exact only in the eye's own coordinates: the identity belongs to the receptors, and every published arithmetic works in a basis somebody else chose.

The appearance model takes XYZ

CIECAM16 predicts how a colour looks, and its input is three tristimulus values computed through a standard observer. Everything this round measures happens before the model is called, so an appearance prediction inherits six observer departures and a choice of cone space before it begins.

brain · Appearance The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

Two observers and one metamer

An observer departure is invisible on a single sample compared with nothing. It becomes a disagreement the moment two spectra are being asked to match, because a match is an identity between three integrals and a different observer takes different integrals. Everything in this round is a statement about pairs wearing a single sample's clothes.

eye · Cones The arguments a standard observer does not have. Seven choices inside a set of colour-matching functions, each with the shape it takes and what it is worth in ΔE₀₀ on a red pigment under a 6500 K radiator. Six are measurements: a field size, an age, a macular density, a cone optical density, three peak wavelengths and a rod contribution. The seventh is not — a change of basis is a change of curves and not a change of observer, and its entry is exactly zero because the space an experiment measures is what an observer is. Printing that zero beside the others is the clearest statement of what the other six are measurements of.

A sensor has no lens

A camera is a fourth observer and it is the only one with none of the six arguments this round measured. It does not age, it has no macular pigment, its response does not broaden with density and its peaks do not vary — so it is perfectly reproducible and is not any of the observers it is fitted to reproduce.

imaging · Capture The angle between the lens and the macular pigment, before and after adaptation. On each of 120 surfaces the angle, in the local metric, between what an older lens does to the reading and what a denser macular pigment does, binned in ten-degree steps. Read without adaptation, where both filters yellow the observer's white along with everything else, the two point nearly the same way: a median of 8 degrees. Read after each observer has adapted to its own white, the median is 156, and the two together cost less than the larger alone on 115 of the 120.

Two yellow filters cancel on a slope

An older lens and a denser macular pigment both take blue out of the light, and read before adaptation they move a colour in nearly the same direction, eight degrees apart. Once each eye has adapted to its own white they point a median 156 degrees apart on smooth reflectances and together cost less than the lens alone. On surfaces with a narrow absorption band they still sit 26 degrees apart and add. What decides it is the width of the surface's own features.

difference · Metric A soft proof exact for one observer, as two hundred others see it. Each display is driven to match each of thirty printed patches exactly for the reference observer, so for that observer screen and print are the same colour to fourteen decimal places. The bars are what two hundred observers drawn from the population make of the same pairs: the median observer's difference, median over the patches, and the ninety-fifth percentile observer's: 1.8 and 4.8 on the wide-gamut LCD, 2.0 and 5.4 on the OLED, 3.1 and 7.5 on the laser projector. The narrower a display's primaries, the larger both become.

A soft proof is exact for one reader

A display can be driven to match a printed patch exactly for the standard observer — three equations, three unknowns, agreement to fourteen decimal places. Two hundred observers drawn from a realistic population see the same screen and print a median of 2.1 colour differences apart on an OLED panel and 5.4 apart at the ninety-fifth percentile. On a laser projector the ninety-fifth percentile is 7.5. The patch that fails worst is unprinted paper, and in the chain's own unit the ninety-fifth percentile reader's stage is larger than every one of the four stages a delivery chain is budgeted for.

applied · Delivery A soft proof exact for one observer, and three proofs tuned for readers. For each display, the median over printed patches of the 95th percentile reader's mismatch between screen and print, for four ways of choosing the display's three drive levels: exact for the reference observer; least squares over a population of a hundred; tuned on that population's 95th percentile; and tuned on the two hundred readers it is scored on, which no workflow could do. On a wide-gamut LCD the four give 4.57, 4.99, 4.74, 4.39, and the three tuned proofs cost the reference observer 0.70, 0.82, 0.69. On an OLED panel the four give 5.12, 5.72, 4.99, 4.86, and the three tuned proofs cost the reference observer 1.35, 0.95, 0.67. On a laser projector the four give 7.54, 7.00, 6.81, 6.50, and the three tuned proofs cost the reference observer 1.88, 1.23, 1.14.

A proof cannot be tuned for readers who disagree

A soft proof matched exactly for the standard observer is five colour differences wrong for one reader in twenty. Giving up that exactness to tune the display's three drives for a population instead moves the ninety-fifth percentile reader by 4 to 14 per cent even when the tuning is done on the very readers it is scored against — because what readers see is mostly each other's disagreement, and three drives act on every reader at once.

applied · Delivery The metamerism index, computed three ways, as the reference match loosens. The special metamerism index of 6 metameric pairs under an incandescent test light, against how well each pair matches under the reference light. Uncorrected, the index absorbs the reference mismatch and rises from 2.86 to 3.76. Corrected multiplicatively it rises to 3.31 and additively to 3.87. All three are the same number when the pair matches exactly, which is the only case the definition covers.

The metamerism index has two corrections

The index for a metameric pair is defined for a pair that matches exactly under the reference light, and no real pair does. The standard's remedy is to correct the sample first, and it names two corrections — scale the tristimulus values, or add the difference. On six pairs matched to one colour difference, the two answers differ by a tenth to four tenths of an index unit; at two, by a whole one.

matching · Gamut How much of a display's gamut each observer names differently. Each of 60 observers names every colour of the displayable gamut that the panel can make — 823 of them — and the histogram is how much of that gamut each observer names differently from the standard observer. On an OLED panel the median observer renames 8.1 per cent and the furthest 13.1 per cent. Nobody agrees with the standard observer about all of it.

A name moves with the reader

Three earlier essays have moved a colour's name by changing the distance function, the room and the space. All three held the observer fixed. Handed the same light from the same display, sixty observers rename between 3.5 and 13.1 per cent of the gamut against the standard observer, a quarter of its colours have a dissenter in twenty, and the narrower the display's primaries the worse it gets.

brain · Appearance

Named alongside it

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

Individual variationObserver metamerismSpecificationCone fundamentalsMetamerismReflectanceColour-matching functionsΔEMacular pigmentIlluminantChromaticityPrimaries

All concepts