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

Every essay — page 25

Page 25 of 54, 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

Where the model breaks

Seventeen observers in 1931, an error in the blue that was never fully repaired, colour vision deficiency, and the display this page is being read on.

One palette under normal vision and three dichromacies. The same 7 colours simulated by the Brettel–Viénot–Mollon construction at severity 1.0. protanopia and deuteranopia collapse the red-green distinctions, and tritanopia leaves them and collapses blue against yellow instead. This shows which discriminations survive, not what anybody sees.

Simulating what cannot be simulated

A colour-blindness simulation cannot show what anybody sees. What it can show is which discriminations survive, and that is a narrower claim, a checkable one, and the only one worth making.

8 figures A gamma probe: which grey matches a half-white dither?. The striped block on the left is half white and half black, so it carries half the luminance of white. Stand back until the stripes blur and find the patch that matches it. On an sRGB display the answer is code 188, not 128 — code 128 has only 22 per cent of white's luminance.

The display is an unknown

This site is displayed on the very apparatus it is about, and it knows almost nothing about that apparatus. Two figures here stop assuming and ask instead — a probe for the transfer function and a probe for the gamut.

6 figures 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.

6 figures Three ways to spend a thousand code values. Normalised code value against luminance, for PQ, HLG and a conventional gamma curve, all covering 0.001 to 10000 cd/m². PQ spends 51% of its range below 100 cd/m² — roughly where a picture lives — and the gamma curve spends 15%, leaving the rest for highlights. A PQ code is the only one of the three that names a luminance rather than a fraction of whatever the display can manage.

How bright is white

An sRGB value says a pixel is some fraction of whatever the display can manage. A PQ value says it is two hundred candelas. The change is the largest in display encoding since gamma, and what it removed was the honest admission that nobody knew.

10 figures Chromaticity-triangle area against CIELAB volume, both relative to sRGB. Two ratios for each space, both against sRGB. The upper bar is the area of the primary triangle on the CIE 1931 diagram; the lower is the volume of the gamut solid in CIELAB, computed by tetrahedral decomposition of the RGB cube at 24 cells per axis. Display P3 is 1.36× sRGB by area and 1.50× by volume; Rec. 2020 is 1.89× sRGB by area and 2.26× by volume. The chromaticity diagram divides luminance out, so its triangle is a projection along the axis the eye is most sensitive to — and a coverage percentage quoted on it is a statement about the shadow.

The triangle is a shadow

A display's gamut is drawn as a triangle on the chromaticity diagram, and coverage is quoted as a percentage of that triangle's area. Chromaticity has luminance divided out, so the triangle is a projection along the axis the eye cares most about — and the ratios computed on the solid are not the ratios computed on its shadow.

6 figures 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.

6 figures A 8-bit ramp from 0.0008 to 0.006 of white, 12° wide. The top strip is the ramp as delivered: 16 distinct levels, each a step of one code value. Below it is the quantisation error as a Weber contrast against the local luminance, filtered by the luminance sensitivity function. The largest response is 8.51 per cent contrast against a threshold of 0.3, which is 28.4 times over — and it occurs at 0.09 per cent of white, at the dark end, because a code step is a Weber contrast and the same step is a larger fraction of less light.

Banding is not a bit depth

Eight bits bands at thirty times threshold in the shadows and at under three at mid grey, on the same ramp with the same encoding. What decides is where in the tone scale the gradient sits, how sharp each step's edge is, and how far away the reader is — and a bit count contains none of the three.

6 figures The colourfulness the sRGB cube reaches, against the light in the room. The display is the same display throughout and the signal is the same signal. What moves is the adapting luminance, which enters the appearance model and nothing else. The furthest colourfulness the cube reaches falls from 131 to 57, a factor of 2.29. A gamut in CIELAB cannot show this at all, because CIELAB has no light level in it — which is why every gamut percentage in circulation is quoted without one.

The gamut shrinks in the dark

Every gamut number here is a property of a device and of nothing else, which is why the same display has the same gamut in a studio and in a cinema. It does not. Turn the room down four decades and the solid loses a fifth of its reach and two thirds of its volume, with the signal unchanged.

7 figures How far a judgement is from the settled one, second by second. The light changed from one white to another at t = 0 and nothing else moved. The model has one degree of adaptation and no clock, so the distance plotted is what a clock adds: 3.6 CAM16-UCS units half a second in, still 1.3 after a minute, and 0.11 after five. Every appearance number on this site is the value at the right-hand end.

The model has no clock

An appearance model takes a stimulus and a situation and returns what it looks like. It does not take a time, and adaptation is not instantaneous — half a second after the light changes a judgement is three and a half CAM16-UCS units from the settled one, and a minute later it is still 1.3.

8 figures How much colour a display delivers, against how bright the room is. The appearance solid of the whole code cube, with the room's reflected light added to every code value and the surround ratio computed from the room's own white against the display's. A 300 cd/m² panel delivers most at 200 lux, and the curve falls on both sides: darker costs the surround, brighter costs the black. At the 32 lux the softproofing standards specify, the solid is 89 per cent of its best — which is not a criticism of the standard, since it is written for matching a screen to a print viewing booth rather than for delivering the most colour.

A display in a room is a smaller display

Two results here turn the room's light in opposite directions and neither knows about the other. A room has one light level and does both at once — so there is a brightness at which a display delivers the most colour, it is not at either end, and it scales with the panel.

6 figures 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.

8 figures What a dither mask is worth, read as components, in two dimensions. Five luminance ramps, each quantised to 8 bits with and without a high-passed mask of the same power. The bars are the most visible single sinusoidal component of the error, as a multiple of the contrast that component needs to be seen: above the line at one it is visible. The mask lowers it by 20–22×, on every ramp — which the one-dimensional model on this site says it does not, and that disagreement is the finding.

Every threshold was measured with a grating

An earlier essay here claimed that the model cannot explain why dither works, and named two missing pieces. One of them was real and worth thirteen times the guess; the other was not needed. The piece nobody named was the detector — and reading the same model two ways changes the answer by a factor of fifty.

5 figures