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

Every essay — page 12

Page 12 of 40, continuing through the fields in the same order.

What light is What the eye does Matching and measuring Difference and uniformity What the brain does What a scene does What a camera does Where the model breaks What it takes to deliver it

SeriesObserversNamed objectsRefutationsSearch

What the eye does

Three cone types project an infinite-dimensional spectrum onto three numbers. Everything colour science can and cannot do follows from that one collapse.

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.

6 figures 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.

6 figures No one surface carries the answer, and the set is smaller than it looks. A falling bar chart of the 125 surfaces in the test set, ordered by how much each contributes to the published mean for daylight to tungsten. The tallest bar is 1.50 per cent of the total, so the mean is not a few awkward objects with a crowd behind them and a leave-one-out would move it by well under a per cent. The tail is the other half of the story: 5 surfaces contribute essentially nothing, because a flat grey is a surface an adaptation gain handles exactly. Counting the set by how evenly it contributes rather than by how many members it has gives 108.5 effective surfaces out of 125, which is what "a mean over a hundred and twenty-five surfaces" is really worth.

The surfaces that answer nothing

Five of the hundred and twenty-five test surfaces contribute exactly zero to every number the adaptation census reports — not approximately, exactly — and the reason is the one fact about von Kries adaptation that makes it worth having at all. Counting the set by how much it contributes gives about a hundred members rather than a hundred and twenty-five.

8 figures A confusion point is about the pigments that remain. Three groups of three bars. Each group is one dichromat's confusion point; each bar is how far that point moves in chromaticity when one of the three cone pigments has its absorption peak shifted by eight nanometres. In every group the bar for the pigment that dichromat is missing has length zero — exactly zero, to machine precision, not merely small. The protanope's point does not move when the L pigment moves, the deuteranope's does not move when the M pigment moves, and the tritanope's does not move when the S pigment moves. The reason is algebraic rather than physiological: a confusion point is the direction that excites only the missing cone, which is the null space of the other two receptors' rows, and rescaling a row does not move where the other two are zero. So the point at which a protanope's confusion lines meet is not a fact about the pigment a protanope lacks, which is why the claim about it restates in nanometres of the M pigment.

A point about the pigments that remain

The chromaticity at which a protanope's confusion lines meet does not move at all when the long-wave pigment moves — not slightly, exactly not at all. It moves a great deal when the medium-wave pigment does. A dichromat's confusion point is a fact about the two receptors they have rather than about the one they lack.

6 figures The same claim in nanometres of pigment, where no declared width can reach it. Five horizontal bars on a scale of nanometres, one per published chromatic-adaptation transform, each showing how far the medium-wave cone pigment's absorption peak would have to move for the receptors' own protan confusion point to land where that transform puts it. Zero is the measured peak. The bars run from -10.5 to 18.2 nanometres — in both directions, so two of the transforms want the pigment shorter and two want it longer. Drawn across them is the 25 nm separation between the L and M pigment peaks, which is the whole basis of red-green vision and is not a number this collection declared. The nearest transform asks for a displacement of 30 per cent of that separation, and the span across the table is 28.7 nanometres — larger than the separation itself. No population, cloud or standard deviation appears anywhere in the statement.

The claim, in nanometres

For four rounds the claim here has been that every published adaptation transform puts the protanope's confusion point outside any real population of eyes, stated in standard deviations of a population whose widths were declared rather than measured. Restated as a pigment displacement it needs no population at all — and the nearest transform asks the medium-wave cone to move thirty per cent of the way to the long-wave one.

7 figures 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.

7 figures 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.

6 figures 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.

6 figures What is read at each distance from the edge of a lit region. Three materials under a half-plane of light, with the boundary at the centre of the horizontal axis and the lit side on the right. The vertical axis is the radiance leaving the surface as a share of what it leaves far inside the lit region. On the unlit side the sample is emitting light while receiving none, so the ratio the model calls a reflectance has a zero denominator there. The distance over which the curve runs from a tenth to nine tenths is 0.21 millimetres on coated paper and 5.1 on pale marble — which is the width of the neighbourhood a point's colour is decided by.

Two blurs before the eye's own

A translucent object arrives at the eye already blurred, by a kernel that is a property of the material rather than of the optics. On every material in this collection's table that blur is coarser at ordinary reading distance than the finest detail the eye can resolve — so the softness of marble or skin or wax is not a failure of vision, it is the object.

7 figures 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.

5 figures 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.

7 figures 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.

7 figures