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

Every essay — page 27

Page 27 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.

What the confusion points charge, across a population. A histogram of 200 members of a population of eyes, each scored by what the adaptation basis their own confusion points determine leaves after the gain. It runs from 1.22 to 2.24 ΔE00 with a median of 1.78. Vertical marks show the unconstrained floor at 0.97, the published transforms, and the single observer this site quotes at 1.65. The distribution straddles Hunt–Pointer–Estévez and reaches below CAT16: 18 per cent of members are better served by their own receptors than by a matrix built to make a gain behave, and 2 per cent than by the current recommendation.

The price is also the person

The receptor construction costs seventy per cent above the unconstrained floor, which is a number usually quoted as a property of the construction. Propagated across a population of eyes it runs from a quarter above the floor to a hundred and thirty per cent above it, and the population's own spread is wider than the entire gap between the published transforms the seventy per cent was being compared against.

7 figures A quadratic is believed least far at the one place anybody takes one. One bar per basis: the radius, in the nine coefficients, within which the second-order model predicts the objective to within ten per cent in every one of eighteen directions. The shortest bar is the objective's own optimum, at 2.3×10⁻², and the longest is XYZ scaling at 1.1×10⁻¹ — several times further. The reason is not that the model is worse at a minimum but that it has less to do there: away from one the linear term is exact and carries most of the change, so a ten per cent error in the prediction takes longer to accumulate. It does not make a Hessian at a minimum wrong; it says the picture drawn from it describes the smallest neighbourhood in the table.

How far a quadratic can be believed

A second-order model has a radius inside which it describes a surface and outside which it does not, and that radius can be measured. Measured at eight places on one objective, it is smallest at the optimum — the one place anybody ever takes a Hessian.

7 figures Room is not safety: two orderings of the same three claims. Three pairs of bars, one pair per published statement about the confusion points. The upper bar in each pair is the margin — how far the measured number is from the threshold that makes the statement true, as a ratio. The lower bar is the headroom — the factor by which one declared width of the population model would have to be wrong for the statement to fail. Both start at one, which is the line. Ordered by margin the three read the protan margin, the tritan margin, the deutan margin; ordered by headroom they read the protan margin, the deutan margin, the tritan margin, and the middle two change places. Every one of the three is inside a factor of two of failing, which the margins do not say.

What would have to be wrong

A great many statements here have thresholds written into them, which turns out to make an audit possible — for each one, the smallest change in a declared input that would stop it holding. Most are unreachable. One is inside a factor of one and a third.

6 figures Every census row under five constructions of the same test set. A slope chart with 5 columns — lattice, coarse, fine, uniform, natural — and one line per change of light in the census, each line joining that row's mean residual under each construction. Four of the five columns describe the same region of surfaces walked at different densities or against different measures; the last is the clamped, realistic family, which is not linear in its parameters and is therefore answering a slightly different question. The levels move: between the coarse and fine lattices every row shifts by seven to nine per cent, in the same direction, which is a common-mode factor no published residual here has ever carried. The order almost survives. Inside the region exactly one pair crosses, and it is the pair the standard error had already flagged; under the clamped set two more cross, including one the error separates by nearly nine standard errors. The crossing lines are drawn heavy.

The instrument named the pair that moved

A standard error over a test set flagged four steps of the adaptation census as unresolved. Rebuilding the set three different ways reversed exactly one pair, and it was one of the four. Rebuilding it to a different rule reversed a pair the error separated by nearly nine standard errors — which is not a failure of the instrument but a statement of what it is about.

9 figures How far each census row moves when the test set's own description does. A grid of bars, one row per change of light in the census and one bar in each row per number that describes the region the test surfaces are drawn from: how saturated they are, how bright, and how far the two modulations may go together. A bar's length is the elasticity — the proportional change in the published residual for a proportional change in that number. Saturation runs from 0.49 to 0.91 and brightness averages 0.104, so a test set's chroma range is nearly everything and its lightness range is nearly nothing. For scale, the largest elasticity found anywhere among this collection's five declared population widths is about a half — and those at least have declared ranges, while these three numbers have never been quoted with one.

The input nobody declared

An audit that swept every declared width in this collection found the largest elasticity anywhere to be about a half. The most elastic input turns out to be one that was never declared, never quoted with a range and never varied — and being undeclared is exactly why it escaped the audit that was looking for it.

9 figures 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.

8 figures Every census row under five constructions of the same test set. A slope chart with 5 columns — lattice, coarse, fine, uniform, natural — and one line per change of light in the census, each line joining that row's mean residual under each construction. Four of the five columns describe the same region of surfaces walked at different densities or against different measures; the last is the clamped, realistic family, which is not linear in its parameters and is therefore answering a slightly different question. The levels move: between the coarse and fine lattices every row shifts by seven to nine per cent, in the same direction, which is a common-mode factor no published residual here has ever carried. The order almost survives. Inside the region exactly one pair crosses, and it is the pair the standard error had already flagged; under the clamped set two more cross, including one the error separates by nearly nine standard errors. The crossing lines are drawn heavy.

What the audit still cannot reach

Two rounds have now swept every declared width in this collection and one of its structural choices. Three structural choices remain, none of them has a multiplier to sweep, and the reason each resists is different — which makes the list a description of where this kind of audit ends rather than a queue of work.

7 figures 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.

A choice with no magnitude

An audit can multiply a width by 1.25 and report an elasticity. It cannot multiply CIEDE2000 by anything. Auditing a structural choice needs a different instrument, and building one shows that six published numbers in this collection each carry a factor of about two of unit-choice — after the change of scale has been taken out.

9 figures Which steps of the census ranking a change of unit reverses. Every adjacent pair in the published census ranking that at least one unit puts the other way round. The bar counts how many of the five other units reverse it. The marker on the left says whether the test set had already declared the pair unresolved — a gap smaller than twice its own paired standard error, which is a statement about sampling over 125 surfaces and shares no arithmetic with a change of ruler. The two pairs every unit reverses are both flagged, which is the agreement. The pair at the bottom is the disagreement: the test set resolves it at 9.1 standard errors and four of the five units reverse it anyway, because a sampling error cannot see a change of ruler and a change of ruler cannot see a sampling error.

Two instruments and one ranking

A sampling error over a hundred and twenty-five surfaces and a change of colour-difference formula share no arithmetic at all, and they were asked the same question of the same table. Every adjacency the whole menu reverses had already been flagged as unresolved. And one the test set settles at nine standard errors is reversed by four of the five formulae, which is what makes them two instruments rather than one.

7 figures 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.

Three choices reached

Two rounds ago this collection named three things it rested on and could not audit — a unit, a diagonal and a template. All three are now reached, and the interesting part is not the three answers but that four of the round's own predictions were refused by the arithmetic and one of its measurements was wrong in a way only a cross-check caught.

7 figures The six arguments a surface's response has, and the one this model keeps. A surface's response to light is a function of six arguments: the wavelength, direction and place the light arrives with, and the wavelength, direction and place it leaves with. The model every colour here is computed from keeps one number per wavelength, which means it takes the diagonal of the first pair, integrates the second away, and assumes the third pair equal. Each departure drawn here restores one of them. The fourth departure is not on the diagram: the wavelength grid is the range of the index that was kept rather than an index that was dropped, which is why it is the cheapest of the four to fix and was still not fixed.

The model has six arguments

Every colour computed here is an integral of a reflectance against a light against three curves, and a reflectance is one number per wavelength. A real surface's response is a function of six arguments — the wavelength, direction and place light arrives with, and the three it leaves with — so the model keeps one of them, takes a diagonal, integrates two away and assumes two more equal.

8 figures Eight conditions under which the model equation is exact, and how exact each one is. Each of the four departures vanishes if either of its two factors is empty, which is eight conditions. The axis is logarithmic in the residual that is left when the condition is imposed. Three of the eight are identities: the fluorophore's loading is zero so the emitted term is an empty sum, and a Lambertian surface or a uniform field makes the pairing's second argument identically zero. The other five are limits — a Gaussian excitation band has no edge, an opaque sample still has a kernel a few microns wide, a four-metre aperture is still finite, and the observer is small rather than absent at 380 nanometres. Each limit is drawn with the sequence its residual falls along as the condition is pushed, because a small number is not evidence of a limit and a falling sequence is.

Either factor being zero

Four different departures from the colour integral turn out to have one algebraic form — each is an inner product of something the sample does that the model has no slot for with something the light does that the model assumed away. Either factor being zero makes the departure exactly zero, and the sizes of the two factors decide neither how large it is nor which way it goes.

6 figures