Concept

Wavelength grid — where it appears

The set of wavelengths a spectral calculation is sampled on, which is a decision about range and interval. It is exact rather than approximate wherever every function in the integral is zero outside it, and it is the assumption that stops being true first.

Named by 31 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What a coarse wavelength grid costs, by source. Colour error against grid size, for four sources through one reflectance. Daylight survives every grid tested: 0.67 ΔE00 even at 40 nm. A source with lines in it does not — the narrowband source reaches 16.2. The grid is not a property of the arithmetic; it is a claim about what the light has in it.

Five nanometres is a choice

Every integral here is taken in five-nanometre steps, and the interval has never had to be defended. Coarsening it to twenty costs daylight two hundredths of a colour difference and a fluorescent tube six and a half — and which way of coarsening is used decides a further factor of six.

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.

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.

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 grid is a range, not an index

Three of the four departures in this round restore an argument the model dropped. The fourth does not — the 380-to-780-nanometre grid is the range of the one argument the model kept, chosen in the first weeks and never revisited. It costs 6.70 ΔE₀₀ on a coated printing paper, it is the cheapest of the four to fix, and it is the one still unfixed.

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.

What an instrument's slit width does to a tabulated colour. The horizontal axis is the full width of a triangular slit, from zero — perfect point sampling — to twenty nanometres; the vertical is the distance from the true colour, logarithmic. For a smooth light the lines are flat: a slit narrower than any feature changes nothing. For a line spectrum they fall off a cliff at the left. Point-sampling a mercury line at five nanometres costs 1.26 ΔE₀₀ and integrating the same spectrum through a five-nanometre slit costs 0.014. A spectrometer does not sample a spectrum; it integrates one, and the blur everybody would remove if they could is what makes a five-nanometre table safe.

The slit is what makes it legal

Point-sampling a mercury line at five nanometres costs a colour difference of one unit, and a laser projector thirty-seven. Integrating the same spectrum through the five-nanometre slit every spectrometer already has costs 0.014 and 0.19. The blur anybody would remove if they could is what makes a coarse table honest.

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

A finer reading of a coarser table

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

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

How much the answer moves when the 5-nanometre grid is slid through one cell. Each bar is the spread of one light's colour across five grid origins, all at the same 5-nanometre step, in ΔE₀₀. A smooth light barely moves, and what movement it has is the end cells rather than the sampling. The fluorescent tube moves by 3.18 units and the laser projector by 35.0, because their emission lines are narrower than the step and whether a sample lands on one is a coincidence of arithmetic. This is the measurement that separates a quadrature error from an aliasing error, and no average over origins can substitute for it.

Where the grid starts

Holding the step at five nanometres and sliding the grid's origin through one cell moves a fluorescent tube's computed colour by 3.18 ΔE₀₀ and a laser projector's by 35.0. Refining the step does not fix it and averaging over origins hides it. It is the one tabulation fault with no smooth error to cancel against.

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.

The two tabulation choices over forty-two surfaces, under a 6500 K thermal radiator. 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 9.1 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.

Which end to buy

Refining a five-nanometre grid to one buys a daylight calculation 0.05 ΔE₀₀ and widening its range buys 0.54. Under a fluorescent tube the same two purchases are worth 0.83 and 0.0001. The ranking reverses completely, and what decides it is one length compared against one other length.

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

The normaliser carries the error too

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

difference · Metric

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

The endpoint term has a name

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

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

What a tabulation step costs, by light, on paper. The horizontal axis is the tabulation step in nanometres, from one to twenty; the vertical is how far the resulting colour is from the same integral taken at a tenth of a nanometre over the same range, in ΔE₀₀, on a logarithmic scale. Each line is one light. The three with no feature narrower than the step fall smoothly and stay below a tenth of a unit at five nanometres, which is the grid used throughout. The fluorescent tube and the laser projector do not fall at all: their lines are narrower than any step drawn here, so the answer depends on where the samples land rather than on how many there are. The sample is held at paper throughout.

A grid is not a resolution

Ten essays into this collection there is one sentence about wavelength sampling, and it is that five nanometres is enough. Ten measurements later there are three decisions, three mechanisms, three repairs and two rankings, and the word resolution names none of them.

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

The two tabulation choices over forty-two surfaces, under a 6500 K thermal radiator. 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 9.1 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.

The grid under the census

The adaptation census is computed on eighty-one wavelengths from 380 to 780 nanometres. Under the daylight and blackbody sources it uses, the range is worth about half a colour difference on ordinary surfaces and the step about a twentieth — so the census carries a tabulation term as well as an observer one, and they are not the same size.

brain · Appearance $The share of each light outside 380–780 nanometres, as power and as visual product. Two measurements of the same truncation. The upper bar is the fraction of the light's radiant power that lies outside the range; the lower is the fraction of the product of light, sample and observer — which is what a colour is made of. A thermal radiator puts a fifth of its power outside and about a thousandth of its colour, because the observer is zero where most of that power is. The gap between the two bars is the observer's own tails doing their job, and reading the upper number as though it were the lower is how a range gets argued about without being measured.$

A lamp is two audits at once

A lamp's ultraviolet content decides what its tabulation costs and its blue content decides what its observer costs, and the two run in opposite directions with colour temperature. So no lamp is good for both audits and no lamp is bad for both, and a single figure of merit for either is a figure of merit for one property of a spectrum.

A 2-nanometre notch, and what two five-nanometre grids record of it. The reflectance of a sample with a 2-nanometre notch at 552.3 nm, drawn finely from 535 to 570 nm. The dark ticks are the samples of a five-nanometre grid starting at 380 nm and the pale ticks those of the same grid started half a step later. The true minimum is 0.06; the first grid's deepest sample reads 0.70 and the second's 0.08. The sample has put a line into a calculation whose light has none.

The line can be in the sample

The rule for which tabulation defect to fix compares the light's narrowest feature with the grid's step, and it named its own failure case — a sample with structure narrower than the step. Given one, a two-nanometre notch under a thermal source with no feature at all costs 2.1 colour differences at five nanometres and moves 2.0 when the grid slides, which is what a fluorescent tube costs on a smooth pigment. Under that tube a notch twelve nanometres wide, more than twice the step, moves 8.1 when it sits on the mercury line.

What a five-nanometre grid costs a steep-sided notch, against its width, under a 6500 K source. The cost of a five-nanometre grid starting at 380 nm, against a reference at two hundredths of a nanometre, for a sample with a flat-bottomed notch at 552.3 nm under a 6500 K thermal radiator, against the notch's width from 2 to 30 nm, for edges rising in 0.4, 2.2, 6.6 nm. With the steepest edges the cost is 0.02 at 10 nm, 1.99 at 12.5 and 0.03 at 20: it rises and falls with the step as its period and does not die away as the notch widens. With the softest edges it stays under 0.10 at every width.

The cost of a steep notch repeats every step

A Gaussian notch is safe on a five-nanometre grid once it is a couple of steps wide. A flat-bottomed notch with steep sides never is. Its cost on the grid rises and falls with its width, with the step as its period — 0.02 colour differences at ten nanometres, 1.99 at twelve and a half, 0.03 at twenty — and it does not die away as the notch widens. What sets its size is how fast the edges rise, and an interference filter's edges rise in under a nanometre.

A 12-nanometre notch at 546.1 nm under a fluorescent tube, tabulated five ways. The cost against a tenth-nanometre reference, on a five-nanometre grid, of a notched sample under a fluorescent tube, mercury lines on a phosphor bed, when the two factors of the colour are tabulated as points, when the lamp alone is measured through a five-nanometre slit, when the sample alone is, when each is measured through its own slit, and when the light the sample reflects is measured through one slit. The costs are 2.535 for both sampled at points, 0.379 for the lamp through a slit, 2.724 for the sample through a slit, 0.727 for both through their own slits, 0.019 for the product through one slit. The tick on the two-slit bar is the same two tables summed at a tenth of a nanometre, 0.749: what the separate slits leave is not the grid's.

Two slits are not one slit

A spectrometer's slit is what makes a coarse table honest, for a lamp and for a notched sample alike. But a colour is a sum over the product of the two, and a notch measured through one slit and a lamp measured through another are not the product measured through a slit. Under a smooth light the difference is nothing. Under a fluorescent tube a notch on the mercury line comes out 0.73 colour differences off from two slits — worse than no slit at all for some notches — and 0.02 off from one slit on the reflected light.

What a slope limit costs the object-colour solid, direction by direction. For each transition width, how much of its ideal reach the solid keeps: the median direction, the tenth percentile, and the worst. At twenty nanometres the median keeps 0.997 and the tenth percentile 0.985; at eighty they keep 0.946 and 0.766, and at 160 0.826 and 0.417. The worst direction falls from 1.00 at five nanometres to 0.20 at 160, with directions reaching under five units beyond black set aside. The cost is in a corner only at widths sharper than an ordinary pigment's.

The limits assume a pigment that switches instantly

The hardest boundary in colorimetry is reached by reflectances that jump between nought and one at a wavelength, and no material does that. Constrain the jump to take twenty nanometres — a sharp dye — and the median direction of the object-colour solid loses under half a per cent of its reach. Constrain it to eighty, an ordinary pigment, and the median loses five per cent, the tenth percentile nearly a quarter, and seven directions in ten lose more than one. The cost is in a corner only for chemistry sharper than paint.

limits · Limits

Six ways of tabulating one notch on one mercury line. A 12-nanometre notch centred on a fluorescent tube's 546.1 nm line, its colour computed on a five-nanometre grid six ways, on a logarithmic scale. Point sampling costs 2.54 colour differences and two separate slits 0.727. Sharpening both blurred tables with the published three-term correction takes it to 0.188 — a real improvement, four times better — and one slit on the light the sample actually reflects gives 0.019. The correction recovers the part of the damage that is a blur, and the part that is left is not a blur.

A linear repair for a bilinear loss

The Stearns correction sharpens a table blurred by a triangular slit, and the obvious question was whether applying it to a lamp's table and a sample's restores the product the two of them are wrong about. It restores four fifths of the damage and cannot touch the rest: a three-term filter is linear, the covariance two separately blurred tables discard is bilinear in the two factors, and no linear operator applied to each factor separately produces a bilinear term. What is left is ten times the one-slit answer, at every position of the notch.

One instrument, one slit, two requirements. The slit's width swept, with three measurements on a logarithmic scale: a smooth sample under the line lamp, where only the lamp's structure is at stake; the notched sample under a smooth lamp, where only the notch is; and the real case, both at once. The lamp wants a slit of 5 nanometres and the sample wants 1, and each wants what it wants for the same reason: a slit should spread a feature the grid cannot resolve and leave one it can. The real case is best at 3 nanometres — which is neither requirement's answer — and costs 0.247 there, an order of magnitude more than either requirement alone.

One slit, two requirements

A line lamp wants a wide slit, because a wide slit spreads a line where a coarse grid can see it. A notched sample wants a narrow one, because a wide slit fills the notch the grid could have resolved. An instrument has one slit. Measured on the two requirements separately the best widths are five nanometres and one; measured on the two together the best is three, which is neither — and it costs twelve times what the lamp alone would cost and thirty-four times what the sample alone would.

An interference notch filter, and where a five-nanometre grid lands on it. The transmittance of a Fabry-Pérot etalon of order 24 and finesse 20, drawn at a fifth of a nanometre, with the standard grid's points marked. Its features are 2.29 nanometres wide and spaced 22.9 apart, so the grid steps over them: between two adjacent grid points the transmittance rises and falls completely, and neither point records it. That is what a real coating looks like, and a Gaussian notch — which is what this collection's earlier work used — is a much gentler object.

A finer table is a worse table

A real interference filter is not a Gaussian notch. It is an etalon, with pass bands a nanometre or two wide spaced twenty-three apart, and a five-nanometre grid steps over them. Resampled from the maker's one-nanometre table its colour is out by five colour differences under every fill-in rule — the three rules agree to three decimals, because none of them is ever handed a sample inside a feature. The same filter measured through a five-nanometre slit is out by 0.03.

A 40-nanometre limit written in nanometres and written in energy. The transition width a reflectance is allowed, across the spectrum, for two ways of stating the same sharpness. Written in nanometres it is 40 everywhere. Written as a fixed spread of photon energy, which is how an absorption band's width is set, it is 40 at 550 nanometres and grows as the square of the wavelength: 21 at 400 and 67 at 700. The steps are the quantisation the calculation actually imposes.

A limit written in energy charges the reds

A slope limit on reflectance is usually written in nanometres and applied the same way across the spectrum. An absorption band's width is closer to a fixed spread of photon energy, which is nearly twice as many nanometres at 700 as at 500. Written that way, a limit that is forty nanometres at 550 is kinder to the object-colour solid overall — 489 of 913 directions lose a per cent rather than 544 — and it charges the reds more. Which directions pay is decided by one thing: whether their optimal edges fall above or below the reference wavelength.

limits · Limits

Every pair of slits, over 68 notches. The colour error, in ΔE₀₀ from the truth, for every pair of slit widths — the lamp's table blurred through the width down the side, the sample's through the width across — on 68 notches, the mean over all of them under a fluorescent tube. Circle area follows the error. The best pair is 5 nm on the lamp and 1 nm on the sample, at 0.26; the best single slit, on the diagonal, is 5 nm at 0.36. One slit on the reflected light, at 5 nm, averages 0.016.

A second slit buys a quarter

A line lamp wants a five-nanometre slit and a notched sample a one-nanometre slit, so an instrument with a slit for each should do much better than one with a single compromise. Over sixty-eight notches under a fluorescent tube, it does better by 28 per cent. One slit on the reflected light does fifteen times better than the best pair, and an oracle choosing the best pair for every notch is still six times worse. The error was never that the factors were flattened; it was that they were flattened separately.

Three bounds against the error they bound, over 68 notches under a fluorescent tube. Each notch placed across by its actual colour error from blurring the lamp and the sample separately, and up by a bound on that error, both on logarithmic scales; the dashed diagonal is where a bound equals the error, and a valid bound sits above it. Cauchy–Schwarz with the true window variances is above the diagonal on every notch, a median 14.7 times the error. Estimated from the blurred tables it falls below on 6 of 68, as low as 0.45 of the error. The Bhatia–Davis bound from the tables and declared ranges is above on every notch and a median 196 times the error.

The tables cannot bound what they discarded

A colour computed from a lamp's blurred table and a sample's blurred table is wrong by the covariance the two blurs threw away, and Cauchy–Schwarz bounds a covariance by two variances. With the true variances the bound always holds and sits fifteen times above the error. With variances read from the tables it fails on six of sixty-eight notches under a fluorescent tube and twenty-two under a laser projector — on the line, where the error is largest. A blurred table does not carry the width of a line, and the covariance depends on it.

The gap has to be dark, not the line narrow

A lamp whose light sits in three narrow emitters lets a blunt pigment reach most of its ideal solid, and the reason was given as the spacing of the lines. Broadening those emitters without moving them says otherwise. At 1.3 times their nominal width the lamp still looks like a line spectrum, its closest spacing has not changed at all, and half the rescue is gone — because the darkest point of the narrow gap has risen from one per cent of the lamp's peak to seven.

limits · Limits

How steep an edge a band draws, and what it costs. A Gaussian absorption band of stated width produces a reflectance edge whose own width depends on how deep the band is, because the exponential saturates: where the absorbance is large the reflectance is already nought and the edge is over. A forty-nanometre band at an absorbance of 3 draws an edge 32 nanometres wide; at 12 it draws one 21 nanometres wide. Below an absorbance of 2.3 the band never reaches a reflectance of a tenth at all and has no edge in this sense. The dashed lines are each band's own width, which is the number a slope limit would have been given.

A sharp edge is bought with depth

A slope limit on reflectance was introduced as the weakest honest statement of a pigment's bluntness, with a band-shape limit named as the stronger version to be written later. Written, it is not stronger. Three absorption bands none narrower than forty nanometres reach further than a forty-nanometre slope limit in 94 of 154 directions of the object-colour solid, because a band's width and the width of the reflectance edge it draws are different quantities — and what converts one into the other is how much colorant is in the film.

limits · Limits

What declaring a narrowest feature buys, and where it stops being true. The median looseness of a Cauchy–Schwarz bound whose lamp variance is bounded by a declared narrowest feature, against the width declared, for a fluorescent tube and a three-laser projector. Each lamp's own Bhatia–Davis bound — the peak declared and nothing else — is the upper dashed line, and the bound with the true variances is the lower one. The marks are the width each lamp's lines actually have. Declaring it truly takes the tube from ×196 to ×86 and the projector from ×30 to ×14. The open circles are declarations the lamp does not meet, where the bound falls below the error.

A declared width buys a factor of two

A colour engine given two separately blurred spectral tables cannot bound its own error from them, and the bound that always holds — the peak declared and nothing else — sits a median 196 times above the error under a fluorescent tube. Adding one number, the width of the lamp's narrowest feature, brings that to 86. It never fails on any declaration the lamp truly meets, it fails on 47 of 68 notches on one it does not, and its rank correlation with the error it bounds is 0.27.

Named alongside it

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

Integration Spectral structure Quadrature Measurement error Aliasing Spectrophotometry Bandpass Instrument Audit Modelling assumption Reflectance Sampling