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

Worst case — where it appears

The largest value a quantity takes over an admissible set, as distinct from its average. It is a statement about the set's boundary as much as about the quantity, so a worst case with no stated admissible set is a reading of whatever somebody happened to bound.

Named by 13 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A published residual is a mean, and the worst object in the room costs twice it. Three bars for each of the 14 changes of light in the adaptation census, ordered by how uneven the change is across surfaces. The first bar is the published mean residual. The second is the worst single surface in the audit's published test set. The third is the worst surface anywhere in the region that set is drawn from, found by search rather than by reading a maximum off a lattice. The mean-to-worst ratio runs from 1.90 to 4.02 and averages 2.43, so every published adaptation number has a worst case about twice it that no essay had ever quoted. The gap between the second and third bars is the other finding: a maximum over 125 sampled points understates the region's own maximum by up to 34 per cent.

A mean is not a worst case

Every adaptation number this collection publishes is an average over objects, and the reader asking whether adaptation will fail them is asking about the object it fails on. That object costs between 1.9 and 4.0 times the published figure, and how uneven a change of light is across objects turns out to be a property of the change rather than a constant.

limits · Limits A published residual is a mean, and the worst object in the room costs twice it. Three bars for each of the 14 changes of light in the adaptation census, ordered by how uneven the change is across surfaces. The first bar is the published mean residual. The second is the worst single surface in the audit's published test set. The third is the worst surface anywhere in the region that set is drawn from, found by search rather than by reading a maximum off a lattice. The mean-to-worst ratio runs from 1.90 to 4.02 and averages 2.43, so every published adaptation number has a worst case about twice it that no essay had ever quoted. The gap between the second and third bars is the other finding: a maximum over 125 sampled points understates the region's own maximum by up to 34 per cent.

An extremum is still not a sample

Two rounds ago three measurements turned up that took a maximum over a sample of a set and were short by up to a factor of two. The same error was live in a fourth place the whole time, on the set of surfaces every adaptation number is averaged over, and it is short by up to a third.

matching · Gamut Every worst surface sits on a number somebody typed. The region the test surfaces are drawn from, in its own two modulation coordinates: a square of allowed depths with a diamond inscribed in it, the diamond being the requirement that the two depths sum to no more than 0.7. The 14 marked points are the worst surface for each change of light in the adaptation census, found by search over the whole region. Every one of them lies exactly on the diamond, and every one is also at the brightest level the region allows — both declared constraints active, on all 14 rows, with no interior maximum anywhere. That is the opposite of what bounding the wall gave: there the worst case turned over at a band width of six nanometres because a narrow band returns too little light, which is physics. Here the worst case is a reading of two numbers. The one constraint that is about the world — a paint's excitation purity may not exceed 0.6 — is slack everywhere: the most saturated surface the region admits reaches 0.459.

Every worst surface sits on a declaration

Bounding the wall in a painted room produced a real worst case — the residual turns over at a band six nanometres wide because a narrower band returns too little light. Bounding the surfaces the residual is averaged over produces nothing of the kind, because all fourteen answers sit exactly on two numbers somebody typed and the one constraint that comes from the world never binds at all.

scene · Scene 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.

light · Light 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.

light · Light Each departure over forty-two surfaces rather than one. The same six departures measured over a family of forty-two analytic reflectances — an absorption band of stated centre, width and depth — with the smallest, the median, the ninety-fifth percentile and the largest marked. Every one of them spans more than a factor of three, and the ranking between them is not stable across the family: what decides a departure's size is which sample it is asked about, because a departure is a pairing and the sample is one of the two factors. Quoting any single number for what an observer's age is worth is quoting a choice of example.

The ranking is not stable

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

eye · Cones The angle between two departures, which nothing in the audit records. Every pair of the six departures on every surface — 2520 pairs — binned by the angle between their two deviations in the local metric. The distribution reaches both ends: 440 pairs sit under thirty degrees and point almost the same way, and 615 sit above a hundred and fifty and point almost opposite. On 1095 of the 2520 the two together cost less than the larger of them alone. A table of magnitudes cannot say which case it is in.

A size is not a direction

An audit that reports magnitudes cannot say what two of them cost together. Over two and a half thousand pairs of observer departures the angle between them in the local metric runs from one degree to a hundred and seventy-nine, and on forty-three per cent of them the two together cost less than the larger of the two alone. Adding the angle predicts the composition to one and a quarter per cent; Pythagoras is out by twenty-eight.

matching · Gamut What a code lattice costs, and where. Twelve thousand colours quantised to 8 bits per channel through the sRGB transfer function and read back, with lightness across the bottom and the colour difference the rounding cost up the side. The mean is 0.191 and the worst case is 1.15, a factor of 6.0. The bars are band means, and they rise: the encoding spends its codes in the shadows, so the top of the ramp is where the lattice is coarsest against a metric that does not compress as hard.

A lattice has no derivative

Every departure priced here was priced by perturbing something and reading the answer, which requires the thing being perturbed to have a derivative. A file written on a code lattice does not have one — its output is flat almost everywhere and jumps on a set of measure zero — so quantisation can be bounded and never propagated. The bound is 1.15 colour differences at eight bits per channel against a mean of 0.19, and it is worst where the encoding spends fewest codes.

matching · Gamut The same highlight, clipped in two places. A ramp running from inside the sensor's range to 1.6 times over it, clipped at the sensor and clipped after the matrix. Below the ceiling the two are identical to the floating-point floor. Above it they part, reaching 21.0 colour differences and 78 degrees of hue. Clipping late keeps a highlight neutral and clipping early keeps its hue, and converters do both.

Two converters and one highlight

The clip is the only step in a raw pipeline that destroys information rather than moving it, and it is the step whose position varies most between converters. Below the sensor's ceiling its position changes nothing at all, exactly. Above it, clipping at the sensor and clipping after the matrix land twenty-one colour differences and seventy-eight degrees of hue apart, and which hues are affected is a property of the camera's own dyes.

imaging · Capture The budget's three numbers, and the units they are in. The published three-stage budget's own figures, with each one's unit named, beside the same stage re-measured in a single unit over the same colours. Two of the three are colour differences between stimuli and the third is a distance between appearances, and the budget adds them. The fourth row is a stage the budget has no entry for: the colours the separation cannot reach even after the mapping has moved them, which comes to 1.45.

The budget adds two units

This collection publishes a three-stage error budget for a colour-management chain and prints its sum. Two of the three stages are colour differences between stimuli and the third is a distance between appearances, and the conversion between those is not a constant. Re-measured in one unit over the same colours the chain has four stages rather than three, its end-to-end error is 5.05 against a sum of 7.66, and the profile's contribution where a job actually lands is 3.2 times its published average.

applied · Delivery Six departures, and three ways of adding them up. The six audited observer departures on 120 smooth reflectances, across the dial. Summing them assumes they all point the same way and is an overestimate everywhere; taking the largest alone assumes only one matters and is an underestimate everywhere. Quadrature — the usual way of combining contributions taken to be independent — assumes they are mutually perpendicular, and the measured combination crosses it at a degree of 0.8618. Below that the departures are on balance pointing together and quadrature is too small; above it they are on balance pointing apart and quadrature is too large. It is exactly right in one room.

Quadrature is exact in one room

An observer allowance is built by adding the departures in quadrature, which assumes they are mutually perpendicular. Over fifteen pairs their angles run from 18 degrees to 179 and hardly any are perpendicular. Measured against the real combination, quadrature is too small in a cinema by eight per cent and too large under the sky by fourteen, crossing at an adapting luminance of 22 candelas a square metre — and on individual surfaces it is out by a third in both directions in every room.

difference · Metric 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.

light · Light 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.

light · Light

Named alongside it

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

SpecificationTest setBoundColour differenceAuditDeclared inputSpectral structureWavelength gridChromatic adaptationMeasurement errorMeasurement uncertaintyQuadrature

All concepts