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

Every essay — page 29

Page 29 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 a scene does

A reflectance measured on a patch is a patch. Put it in a room and the light bounces, and a bounce is a multiplication — so shadows carry their own illuminant, highlights carry the lamp, and two surfaces that matched go on matching only until the second bounce.

The worst case is wherever the box stops. Four horizontal tracks, one per parameter of a painted wall. Each track spans the range an ordinary paint is allowed to occupy, with a second, wider range drawn behind it, and two markers show where the search for the worst change of light came to rest under each. Under the narrower box the answer sits on the wall in centre and width; under the wider one, in centre, width, base. The residual rises monotonically towards a narrower notch at a shorter wavelength on a darker wall, so there is no interior maximum to find. The worst change of light is 21.3 ΔE00 under one box and 28.4 under the other, and the census's own worst row is 3.37.

The worst case is where the box stops

The worst change of light this collection quotes is two bounces off a green wall, and it is the worst of fourteen changes somebody wrote down. Searching the family those fourteen were drawn from reaches six times further — and does not stop, because the residual rises monotonically towards a narrower notch on a darker wall. There is no worst case in this family, and the number anybody quotes for one is a number about their own constraint.

4 figures A room applies its wall a different number of times at each wavelength. The mean number of bounces the surviving light has made, wavelength by wavelength, in a closed room whose walls are the green paint the adaptation census uses. It runs from 0.33 in the band the wall absorbs to 5.67 in the band it reflects — a factor of 17.00 — because the light that survives many bounces is the light the wall was reflecting all along. The census has one bounce and two bounces as separate rows and a search treats the count as a free integer; a room has neither, and what it has is bounded by the walls reflecting less than everything.

A room bounds its own bounces

The adaptation census has one bounce and two bounces as separate rows, and a search over the family treats the count as a free integer it always takes to the largest value offered. A room offers no integer at all — it applies a geometric mixture of every number of bounces, and that mixture is bounded by the walls reflecting less than everything.

6 figures The three worst walls, drawn as the reflectances they are. Three reflectance curves, one per bound: the wall each search settled on. All three are dark over most of the spectrum with a single band near the short-wavelength end — the arithmetic bound's is 10 nanometres wide, the physical one's 40, and a paint somebody sells the same. None of them is a saturated colour: their excitation purities are 0.18, 0.52, 0.52 against a ceiling of 0.6, which is why the purity constraint never bites. What breaks an adapted observer is a wall that takes most of the light away, not one that is a strong colour.

The darkest wall anybody sells

Asked which property of a paint decides the worst change of light a room can produce, anybody would answer how saturated it is allowed to be. A ceiling on saturation never comes near binding, because the worst wall is dark rather than colourful — and the constraint that does bind is one nobody would nominate.

7 figures What one change of light costs, surface by surface — daylight to tungsten. A rising curve of 125 points, one per surface in the test set, sorted from the surface this change of light costs least to the one it costs most, with the published mean drawn across it as a horizontal line. The published residual for daylight to tungsten is 1.635 ΔE₀₀. The curve runs from 4.4e-14 — 5 of the surfaces are flat greys, on which an adapted observer's gain is exactly right and the residual is exactly zero — to 3.058, which is 1.87 times the mean. The mean line crosses the curve about two thirds of the way along, so most surfaces cost less than the published number and a minority cost a great deal more. This is what a single published residual is a summary of.

A mean has a set under it

Every adaptation number this collection publishes is an average over a hundred and twenty-five surfaces that were written down once, in one file, with no argument for how many there should be or how saturated. The average runs from exactly zero to twice itself across them, and the set has never been varied.

9 figures What a fourth reflectance dimension costs the theorem that a change of light is a matrix. Four rising curves on axes of the fourth dimension's amplitude, left to right, against what is left of daylight to tungsten after the exact 3×3 change-of-light matrix has been applied, in ΔE₀₀. All four begin at exactly zero: on the three-dimensional family the matrix is solved rather than fitted and there is no remainder at all, which is the theorem this collection's adaptation argument is built on. Adding a fourth reflectance dimension breaks it, and how badly depends far more on the fourth function's shape than on its size — at five per cent amplitude the four shapes cost 0.329, 0.572, 0.063, 0.124 ΔE₀₀ respectively, a factor of 9.1 between the dearest and the cheapest. For scale, the smallest von Kries residual anywhere in the census is 0.26 ΔE₀₀, so the cheapest of the four is a quarter of it and the dearest is twice it.

A theorem about a family

A change of light acts on the test surfaces used here as an exact 3×3 matrix with no residual whatsoever, and the whole adaptation argument is built on that being exact. It is exact because the surfaces span exactly three dimensions, and they span exactly three dimensions because three basis functions were written down.

7 figures 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.

8 figures What an observer is left with, by how much it is allowed to know about the room. Six ways of discounting a change of light, averaged over the fourteen changes in the adaptation census and 125 test surfaces each. The bar is what each leaves behind, on a logarithmic axis because the models span two orders of magnitude. The second line under each name is the count that matters: how many numbers about this room the model has to be given. Doing nothing leaves 15.7 ΔE₀₀. A single gain read off the two whites' luminances leaves 15.3. A matrix fitted across half the census and then applied everywhere, knowing nothing about the room at all, leaves 12.5. The published von Kries gain, which is told the white and nothing else, leaves 1.312 — and bolting a fixed correction onto it, at no cost in scene information, leaves 1.368, which is very slightly worse. The exact matrix leaves nothing and is not on the chart: its nine numbers are the change of light, which is the quantity being discounted.

Three numbers the scene supplies

An adaptation model's parameters are not all the same kind of thing. Some are numbers an observer must estimate from the room it is standing in; others could have been settled once by evolution. Counting them separately turns the diagonal gain from a crude approximation into the only model of the set that gets a large answer from information the observer can actually have.

7 figures How much of the residual a partial correction removes. Between the diagonal gain and the exact matrix there is a line: apply the correction that would make a row exact, but only a fraction of it. The horizontal axis is that fraction and the vertical is the share of the row's residual it removes, for all fourteen census rows. The straight diagonal is where a correction worth exactly its fraction would fall, and in the published unit every curve lies on it to within 2.2 percentage points. The lower band of curves is the same interpolation measured in CAM16-UCS, which departs by up to 17 points — because its distance is a power of the Euclidean one and a power is not homogeneous along a ray, where every ordinary norm is. The straight line is therefore a property of the ruler rather than of the correction, and the exception is what says so.

A partial correction is worth its fraction

Between a diagonal gain and the exact matrix there is a line, and a bounded observer's natural hope is that the first part of it is worth a disproportionate share. It is not. On all fourteen changes of light, at every setting, the share of the residual removed matches the share of the correction applied to within 2.2 percentage points — which closes the last way the gap could have been cheap.

6 figures A correction an observer could have been born with, fitted on half the census and tested on the other. The same six models, each scored twice: on the seven census rows the fixed matrices were fitted to, and on the seven they were not. The split alternates by position so both halves contain daylight changes and discharge lamps. The upper bar is in sample and the lower is out, on a logarithmic axis. For the four models with nothing fitted the two bars differ only because the halves are different questions. For the two fitted ones the gap is the finding, and it is largest where it matters least: bolting a fixed correction onto the von Kries gain takes it from 1.2724 to 1.2592 on the rows it was fitted to, and from 1.3511 to 1.3679 — worse — on the rows it was not. There is no correction to the diagonal that an observer could arrive with.

A model is a claim about what can be known

The exact answer to chromatic adaptation is nine numbers, and the nine numbers are the change of light itself. A model whose parameters are quantities the observer cannot obtain is not a worse model of the same thing — it is a model of something else, and counting parameters without asking where they come from hides the difference.

7 figures How much light comes back at each distance from where it went in. The diffuse reflectance kernel of 3 materials at 550 nanometres, computed from the dipole approximation to the diffusion equation. Both axes are logarithmic. The horizontal axis is the distance from the point the light entered, in millimetres; the vertical is how much comes back out per unit area there. Each curve's own diffusion length is marked with a tick. Coated paper returns almost everything within a fifth of a millimetre; marble is still returning light at ten. The reflectance the model wants is the whole of each curve, integrated over the plane, and what an instrument reads is only the part inside its aperture.

A surface has a kernel

Light that enters a translucent material does not come back where it went in. It scatters some thousands of times and leaves a few millimetres away, so what the surface has is not a reflectance but a function of distance — and the reflectance the model wants is that function's integral over the whole plane, which no instrument ever collects.

8 figures Where a sample's colour goes as the aperture closes. The a and b of three translucent materials as the measuring aperture narrows from forty millimetres to one. Each track starts at the open circle, which is the colour the model says the sample has, and ends at the filled one. The axes cross at the neutral point. pale marble passes through neutral at a radius of 5.32 millimetres and comes out on the other side; candle wax passes through neutral at a radius of 7.07 millimetres and comes out on the other side; skin passes through neutral at a radius of 0.76 millimetres and comes out on the other side. Nothing about the sample changed: the aperture is a filter with a colour of its own, and the colour is decided by how the sample scatters rather than by what it absorbs.

The hue the hole decides

A piece of pale marble measured through a wide aperture is faintly yellow. Measured through a narrow one it is faintly blue, and between the two there is an aperture at which it is exactly neutral. Nothing about the stone changes; the aperture is a filter with a colour, and what decides that colour is the size of the particles rather than the pigment between them.

8 figures Five fields, by how much light arrives from each elevation. The radiance arriving at a surface from each direction in one vertical plane, for five ways of lighting it. The vertical axis is logarithmic, spanning the three decades between a sun and the sky around it. The number beside each name is the share of the light that would have to be moved to make the field uniform: zero for the overcast sky, 0.93 for a lamp on a stand. A uniform field is the condition under which a reading is the sample's own reflectance, and the only place it exists is inside an instrument.

A room is not a sphere

An integrating sphere reads a surface's own reflectance exactly, and the exactness is a theorem rather than good engineering — under a hemisphere of constant radiance, reciprocity makes the reading the sample's directional-hemispherical reflectance whatever the surface is. Every room fails that condition, and a viewing booth and a window get the sign of the error wrong in opposite directions.

6 figures