Capture — the series
-
A camera is a fourth observer
The 1931 functions, the 1964 functions and a person's own cones are three sets of three curves that collapse a spectrum onto three numbers. A camera is a fourth, built from silicon and dye rather than from pigment and neural wiring, and it agrees with none of them.
-
Raw is not a picture
A raw file is three integrals per site and a list of decisions nobody has taken yet. Every one of those decisions has a defensible answer and none of them has a correct one, which is why two converters open the same file and disagree.
-
Silicon sees past the visible
A sensor's response ends at 1107 nanometres because that is the band gap, and the colour-filter dyes have stopped absorbing three hundred nanometres before it. So all three channels measure the same thing over the last third of the range, and every published sensitivity plot is drawn after the component that hides it.
-
The filter that makes colour possible
An infrared-cut filter is not a refinement on a colour camera. Removing it collapses the separation between the three channels by a factor of nearly nine under tungsten, and the component that keeps colour photography working is the one nobody photographs.
-
Luther said when it would work
There is an exact condition under which a fixed three-by-three matrix converts camera raw to XYZ correctly for every spectrum in existence. It was stated in 1927, it is a theorem rather than a guideline, and no camera ever built satisfies it.
-
A grey edge arrives coloured
A sensor site measures one channel and the other two are interpolated from neighbours that sat somewhere else. Across a black-and-white step that reconstruction gives an achromatic scene a chroma of 144 per cent of its own local mean, and nothing in the scene or the sensor was coloured.
-
Most things are pale in the infrared
A spectrophotometer stops at 780 nanometres and a black cotton shirt reflecting five per cent of visible light reflects more than half the near infrared. The measurement everybody has and the quantity a camera integrates are different quantities, and nothing in the first says so.
-
The camera has its own metamers
Two surfaces a camera records as identical can be plainly different to a person, and two a person cannot tell apart can be recorded as different. Both pairs are constructed rather than found, from one projection, used for both.
-
A camera profile is a fit
Since no matrix is exact, the one a manufacturer ships is a least-squares compromise over a set of surfaces somebody chose. Fitted on desaturated patches it is excellent on desaturated patches — and the sample set is a hidden argument to every camera profile in existence.
-
A blown highlight turns
An exposure that clips nothing changes no hue at all. Once one channel reaches the ceiling the recorded hue rotates by as much as sixty-seven degrees, with nothing in the scene having changed colour — and every response a converter can make to that is an invention.
-
No matrix is right everywhere
The best three-by-three this sensor admits, fitted and tested on the same twenty-four surfaces, leaves a worst case of ΔE00 2.85. A control sensor built to satisfy Luther's condition reaches ten to the minus seven under the identical computation, which is what makes the first number a measurement.
-
The highlight is the white balance
Every estimator a camera uses is an assumption about the scene wearing the costume of a measurement. The specular component of a glossy surface is not — it carries the illuminant to within a third of a degree on a scene where averaging is fifty times worse, and it does so without knowing what colour the paint underneath is.
-
Correcting colour costs noise
The matrix that turns a sensor's raw into XYZ has large off-diagonal terms of both signs, because that is what correcting a sensor which fails Luther's condition requires. Differences of large numbers are where noise grows, and the full correction amplifies photon noise by 1.66 times.
-
The grid outside every figure
Every figure here is computed on 380 to 780 nanometres, which is exactly right for an eye and insufficient for a sensor. This field met the first subject the grid cannot hold, and the decision was not to widen it — because widening it honestly is impossible.
-
A photograph is not a measurement
A photograph is a measurement made by an instrument whose kernel nobody published, under an illuminant nobody recorded, corrected by a matrix fitted to somebody else's surfaces, with two thirds of every pixel invented. It supports relative claims well and absolute ones badly, and it is used for the second.
-
Fitted to an eye nobody has
A camera profile's residual against the observer it was fitted to is under a unit, and that is the number everybody quotes. Against a person drawn from a population it is 3.35 at the ninety-fifth percentile — and a camera with no spectral error whatever, reporting the standard observer's tristimulus values exactly, would carry 3.47. The camera is not the problem.
-
The shutter samples the lamp
A lamp switched between two drive currents at a hundred hertz is one steady colour to a person and two spectra to a camera. A thousandth-of-a-second exposure catches whichever phase the shutter opened at — two and a third stops of exposure and five units of colour, decided by nothing but timing — and a rolling shutter writes the difference across the frame as bands.
-
The lamp that stopped emitting ultraviolet
A blue-pumped white LED has a die at 450 nanometres and emits nothing shorter. Between about 2005 and 2020 that lamp replaced almost every other indoor source, which removed the excitation supply from a great many rooms — so brightened materials stopped glowing indoors without a single one of them being reformulated.
-
A camera balances in another basis
White balance is a per-channel gain on raw values, which makes it a von Kries adaptation in whatever axes the filter dyes happen to give. Those axes are not a property of the dyes alone — they move with the light, by up to seventeen degrees across the adaptation census — and the sensor for which they would not move is the one that adapts worst of all.
-
A camera cannot record the excitation
Two lamps of nearly the same chromaticity, one with ultraviolet and one with none, put a brightened sheet twelve units apart after a perfect white balance. Nothing in the camera measured the difference — the filter stack removed the band before the sensor saw it — so the correction that would fix the picture needs a quantity the file does not contain.
-
The chart decides the profile
A camera's colour matrix is nine numbers fitted to a set of patches somebody chose, and the number that comes with it is the error on those patches. On a chart with no chromatic range that number is 0.19 ΔE00 and the matrix delivers 1.65 — and a second matrix, indistinguishable on the chart, delivers 2.03.
-
A matrix is fitted under one light
A camera's colour matrix is nine numbers determined by a chart photographed under a particular illuminant, and the error it quotes is the error under that illuminant. Fitted under a tungsten lamp and used under a cold sky it delivers eight times as much — and the two-matrix scheme every real profile uses turns out not to be a compromise at all.
-
A sensor designed for its inverse
A camera's white balance is a gain in a basis made from its own dyes and the light in the room. Choose the dyes for that basis instead of for cost and quantum efficiency, hold the sensor within a stated distance of the Luther condition, and the design reaches the best adaptation figure any basis achieves — and then the room moves it.
-
The condition chooses no axes
It has long been said here that a sensor satisfying the Luther condition exactly adapts worse than a silicon one, and offered a reason — that its channels are the matching functions, and a gain on those is the oldest mistake in the subject. The measurement was of one sensor. The condition leaves the axes entirely free.
-
The widths were free because nothing else was asked
A camera's three dye bandwidths carry almost all of the flattest direction of the adaptation objective, so that objective says a tolerance budget belongs on the centre wavelengths. The two requirements it was said to be silent about turn out not to bind either — and the one that does was in the model already.
-
Where a camera is blind to itself
A colour filter array is six numbers — three dye centres and three bandwidths — and how well the resulting sensor adapts is far more sensitive to some combinations than to others. The stiffest direction is almost entirely where the blue dye sits. The flattest is all three bandwidths at once, and the design can move twenty-five times further along it for the same cost.
-
Two tolerances do not meet in a tolerance
A specification lists requirements separately and a manufacturer has to satisfy them together. Where two long thin regions cross at an angle, what is left is much smaller than either, its longest direction is neither of theirs, and no list of tolerances describes it.
-
A chart decides what a camera scores
A camera profile's reported error changes by a factor of five when the test chart's saturation changes, with the camera and its matrix untouched. The elasticity is 0.67 — the same figure, to two per cent, that an entirely unrelated measurement over an entirely unrelated set of surfaces gives.
-
The coincidence was a mechanism
Two sensitivities from two libraries with no shared code came out two per cent apart, and the claim made about them was that they share a mechanism rather than a number. That claim has a colour-difference formula inside it, so it can be tested by changing the formula — and both curves move together across the whole menu, from 0.5 to 1.15.
-
A pixel has an aperture too
A camera photographing a translucent object has the same two discs a spectrophotometer has — one lit, one looked at — and gets them the other way round. Its illumination covers the whole scene, so the flat colour of a translucent surface comes out exactly right at any magnification, and the error moves entirely into the edges.
-
The objective nobody chose
Every camera profile here, and as far as can be told everywhere, is a linear least-squares solve in tristimulus space. That is an objective and it is on nobody's menu — it weights an error by how bright the patch is. Refitting the same matrix to minimise a real colour-difference formula improves the fit in all six, and moves the matrix, which means different pixels rather than a different report.
-
The chart was measured, not photographed
A camera profile is fitted so that the camera's response maps onto the chart's tristimulus values, and those values came out of a spectrophotometer. So the profile's target carries the instrument's departures and the camera does not — a mildly translucent chart read through a four-millimetre aperture supplies targets 2.55 ΔE₀₀ from the truth, which is twice the profile's own fitting error.
-
The chart was measured by an observer too
A camera profile is fitted so that the camera's numbers reproduce the chart's measured tristimulus values. Those values were computed through the 1931 observer, so the fit inherits every departure in this round — and the fit's own residual, at 0.19 ΔE₀₀ on the chart, is fifteen times smaller than the term it cannot see.
-
A sensor has no lens
A camera is a fourth observer and it is the only one with none of the six arguments this round measured. It does not age, it has no macular pigment, its response does not broaden with density and its peaks do not vary — so it is perfectly reproducible and is not any of the observers it is fitted to reproduce.
-
The order is not in the documentation
A raw converter performs a white balance, a colour matrix, a tone curve and a clip, and every account of the process lists them in that order without saying the order decides anything. Exchanging the first two moves the picture by nine colour differences at the mean and thirteen at the worst patch. The twenty-four arrangements collapse into five outcomes running out to sixty-five, and nothing a converter ships says which of them it is.
-
One step has no choice
Four of a raw converter's operations can be arranged twenty-four ways. The reconstruction cannot be arranged at all — a colour matrix needs three numbers and a mosaic site has one, so filling in the mosaic is forced to the front by arithmetic rather than by convention. What is not forced is whether it happens in linear light or after the curve, and that decision costs 5.8 colour differences at an ordinary edge and nothing at all four sites away from it.
-
A contrast control is three controls
A tone curve is a function of one number at a time and knows nothing about hue. Applied to each channel separately it rotates a hue circle by up to seventeen degrees, raises chroma by a factor of 1.27 at ordinary strength, and lifts lightness — so a photographer who moves a contrast slider has moved three things and the interface names one of them. All three scale with the curve's strength, monotonically, and the hue rotation depends on which hue it is.
-
A stop is not a stop afterwards
Doubling the light is exactly a factor of two in raw values and in tristimulus values, which is the one thing about exposure everybody is sure of. A stop taken after the tone curve is a factor of something else, and matching the two on an eighteen per cent grey leaves the rest of the frame between three and four colour differences apart at the mean and up to eleven at the worst patch. The gain that matches one stop is 2.47 rather than 2.
-
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.
-
The corner of the frame has another filter
A camera's infrared-cut filter is an interference stack, and light crossing it at an angle sees its edge moved towards the blue — from 665 nm at the centre of a frame to 646 at twenty-five degrees. The corner's red channel loses a tenth of its response under daylight and a sixth under tungsten. A grey-card gain map makes the corner exactly right under the lamp it was made under; under a tungsten lamp the same grey is 2.6 colour differences wrong, under a white LED 4.2, and even under its own lamp the coloured patches are not corrected, because a moved edge is not a gain.
-
A black level is multiplied by the balance
Every raw value carries a pedestal that is subtracted before anything else, and a white balance is then a different gain in each channel. Subtracting a constant and multiplying by one commute only when the constant is zero or the gains are equal. So a pedestal left three thousandths of white too high becomes 2.4 colour differences in a two per cent grey, most of it chroma, in the colour the lamp starves — and pushing that shadow four stops in editing makes it 8.9. An offset in proportion to the lamp's own white is the exception, and it is exactly grey.
-
Clipped noise does not average away
Noise on a raw reading is as likely to fall below the true value as above it, which is why averaging an area removes it. A converter that sets negative readings to zero keeps the upper half and throws the lower away, and the mean of what is left is the signal plus a pedestal. With no black level error anywhere, a half per cent grey under a tungsten lamp comes out 1.04 colour differences off at high gain, 8.98 after a four-stop push — and a blur that removes every trace of the noise leaves the tint where it was.
-
A corner is corrected by one row
A grey-card gain map makes the corner of a frame exactly right on grey and leaves coloured patches 1.86 colour differences wrong at twenty-five degrees. A three-by-three matrix fitted at that position halves it — and six of its nine numbers do nothing, because the moved filter edge is in one channel. The three that matter rebuild the lost red from green and blue, they carry to another lamp better than a gain map in eleven cases of twelve, and in the twelfth, a row fitted under tungsten and used in daylight, they leave the grey 9.2 off.
-
Two matrices do not reach a white LED
A camera profile's two matrices, blended by the scene's colour temperature, are as good as a matrix fitted anywhere along daylight. Under a white LED or a fluorescent tube the same blend leaves colours twice as far off as a matrix fitted under that lamp, and no weight inside the profile's range repairs it. What decides it is not how far the lamp sits from the Planckian locus — a triphosphor tube sits nearly on it and fares worst — but whether its spectrum has lines in it, which a white balance reading cannot see.
-
Filling in a highlight is a claim about the surface
A converter that rebuilds a clipped channel has to say what the highlight was. A matt surface over-exposed keeps its own colour, and filling the lost channel from that colour is exact. A glossy highlight is the surface's colour plus a reflection of the lamp, and the same fill leaves it 7.6 colour differences too colourful — while a fill that solves for surface and lamp is exact. Neither works once two channels are clipped, and a tungsten lamp keeps a highlight in the one-channel band more than twice as long as daylight does.
-
Flicker sorts lamps the wrong way
A camera cannot see a spectral line in its own white, so the essay on the two-matrix profile named the classifiers a device might have instead, and the first of them was flicker. Flicker is measurable, and it measures the wrong thing. It sorts lamps by how their power is delivered while the matrix needs them sorted by how their spectrum is shaped, and the two are independent: a white LED on a constant driver is perfectly steady and strongly structured, and it is what most indoor photographs are lit by.
-
The converter can choose except where it matters
A converter rebuilding a clipped highlight has to say whether the surface was matt and over-exposed or glossy and carrying a reflection, and the evidence is whether its raw chromaticity slides towards the lamp's on the way up. Read through the sensor's own noise, the slide is clear on most of the chart from the few tens of pixels a specular highlight holds — and on the surfaces where it takes half a frame, confusing the two models costs more than the median. A ratio cannot see a common scale, and an exposure supplies one.
-
Four places to clamp are two pipelines
The essay on clipped noise ended on a procedure: a black frame and a dim grey card at a high amplification would place each raw converter's clamp. A procedure is a claim that a measurement identifies something, and this one identifies less than it looks. A clamp at zero commutes with the white balance and with the tone curve and not with the colour matrix, so the four positions are two pipelines — and the measurement separates them, on a card at half a per cent of white rather than on the black frame.
-
One row for every lamp costs the lamps that lose least
A corner correction fitted under one lamp is right under that lamp and can be badly wrong under another, so a converter unsure of its lamp was offered a single row fitted under several at once. Pooled over four lamps, one row holds every lamp's corner between 1.33 and 1.56 colour differences — no lamp worse than a grey-card map, and none near the 4.91 a wrong row can leave. The price falls on the white LED and the fluorescent tube, which it leaves four times worse than their own rows, because they lose the least red at the corner and the pooled row is built to repair the lamps that lose the most. Two rows, one per class of lamp, keep almost all of both.
-
Two lamps decide what one lamp could not
Under one lamp a handful of surfaces cannot tell a glossy highlight from a matt over-exposure without most of a frame, because there the two differ by a scale a ratio cannot see. In a room lit evenly by a 3000 K lamp and daylight, every surface on the chart is decided from ten pixels. A body can sit at one lamp's white, not at two, and the rescue holds only while the second lamp carries a fifth of the light and its white sits far enough from the first.
-
Two sensors disagree about deep red, not lines
A phone's ambient-light sensor and its camera read the same lamp differently, and the difference sorts fourteen lamps into smooth and structured without a single mistake — where flicker made five. It is not reading their lines. Almost all of it comes from the sensor's clear channel collecting deep red the camera's infrared cut throws away, so daylight with its far red trimmed is called structured and a white LED with a far-red emitter is called smooth.
-
A narrow channel has to be read on its own
An ambient sensor with a clear channel tells structured lamps from smooth ones by reading deep red, and one without it reads structure but breaks at one per cent of calibration error. A narrow fourth channel between the camera's peaks was proposed to have both. Pooled into the sensor's disagreement with the camera, it reads structure and breaks at one and a quarter per cent — no better than the design it was meant to rescue. Read on its own, as its departure from what the camera predicts for it, a channel at 450 nm holds to four per cent, the clear channel's figure, and far red does not move it.
-
The lamps two channels miss are smooth to the camera
A narrow channel at 450 nm tells a phone which lamps are structured, and a white LED pumped in the violet might hide from it; a channel at 500 nm does the same job, and an LED with a cyan emitter should blind it. Reading both and calling a lamp structured if either departs was supposed to cover both families. It covers the cyan family only because the 450 nm channel already did, and half the violet-pumped LEDs escape both channels. Every one that escapes leaves the camera's colours as accurate as a smooth lamp does. What the classifier misses is what the camera does not need to be warned about.
-
Two channels estimate what one can only sort
A narrow sensor channel was fitted to call lamps smooth or structured, and the label turned out to be a proxy for the thing a camera cares about: its own colour error under the lamp. Scored against that error directly, the best channel is still the one at 450 nm — the band where camera and observer differ most comes close and no closer. Read as an estimate rather than a verdict, a second channel at 500 nm, useless as a vote, earns its place: together they predict the camera's error to within 0.14 ΔE00 over fifty-four lamps, and deciding when to repair from that estimate raises a quarter of the false alarms the label raises.
-
A straightened channel repeats the one beside it
A phone's narrow sensor channel at 570 nm ranks a camera's colour error under a lamp almost as well as the one at 450, and estimates it worse than guessing the mean, because one lamp reads ten times higher than any other. Read through a logarithm, the channel is rescued: its estimate improves from ±0.57 to ±0.23. It still does not reach the 450 nm channel's ±0.16, and put beside that channel it adds nothing at all, where a 500 nm channel cuts the error to ±0.14. Straightened, 570 nm sorts the lamps as 450 nm already does; and the two lamps it reads highest have the most different errors, which no transform of one reading can tell apart.
-
One ratio reads a peak and a trough
Two narrow sensor channels, at 450 and 500 nm, estimate a camera's colour error under a lamp to ±0.14 ΔE₀₀; the proposal was to read their ratio as one number instead. Taken as one channel's departure over the other's, the ratio is worthless — no better than the mean, because for smooth lamps both departures are nearly nothing. Taken as the departure of the two readings' ratio from what the camera predicts for it, one number estimates the error to ±0.141, as well as the two channels as two. The reason is a sign: under every structured lamp the channels depart in opposite directions, a peak at 450 and a trough at 500, and the ratio adds them; where a cyan fill lifts 500, it subtracts them, as the error falls. And no five per cent calibration error moves any of these estimates by a hundredth.
-
The tube a third channel misses has no family
Two narrow sensor channels read as one ratio estimate a camera's colour error under fifty-four lamps to ±0.141 ΔE₀₀, and their worst miss is the halophosphate tube, whose trouble lies in its long-wave phosphor. A third narrow channel in the long-wave gap was predicted to halve that miss near 610 nm. No channel does, at any centre or width: the best buys under a tenth of the whole error and leaves the tube's miss above three quarters of what it was. At 610 nm the camera already predicts the tube's share almost exactly. The tube's error follows where its main phosphor band sits, and a 620 or 640 nm channel does read that — inside the tube's own family. The census has one halophosphate tube, and a lamp left out of a census that holds nothing like it is a lamp no channel can be fitted to.
-
Two stages catch the tube and bill the lamps they misplace
A narrow-channel estimate of a camera's colour error missed the halophosphate tube because the census held nothing like it, and a line that learned the tube's family from four siblings cost every other lamp. The proposed cure was two stages: recognise a lamp's family, then apply that family's own line. Given each lamp's family, it works as predicted and better — the tube missed by 0.011 ΔE₀₀, the fifty-four lamps estimated to ±0.133 against the ratio's ±0.141. Found by the nearest other lamp in the sensor's departures, the family is right for the tube and wrong for five lamps, and those five, missed by ±0.41, take the whole census back to ±0.162. The gain is real; the classifier is where it is lost.
-
A classifier that abstains gives up the tube
Found by the nearest other lamp, a lamp's family cost a two-stage estimate of a camera's colour error more than it bought, because five lamps were placed confidently in the wrong family. The proposed repair was a classifier that abstains — falls back on the census-wide line — unless a lamp's three nearest neighbours agree. It abstains on the wrong lamps. The misplaced ones have three agreeing neighbours, all white LEDs; the lamp it gives up is the halophosphate tube the two stages were built to catch, whose third neighbour is a cyan LED, and its miss returns from 0.011 to 0.445. Two agreeing neighbours look better than knowing every family. Chosen without looking at the lamp being estimated, the rule is worth exactly what the ratio alone is worth.
-
A family's line runs through its neighbours
The halophosphate tubes differ from one another by one number — where their main phosphor band sits — and so lie along a line in the three departures an ambient-light sensor reads. The proposal was to classify a lamp by the family whose line passes nearest, which would keep the tube a vote of neighbours gives up. It keeps the tube, under every version that does not rescale the distances. It also places eighteen white LEDs on the radiators' line, because that line — fitted to six radiators close together — runs along the LEDs' own and, extended, straight through the violet-pumped ones; and the radiators' estimate, extrapolated to them, misses the triphosphor tube by 7.6. Clamped to the stretch each family spans, the lines still cost ±0.285; given to the halophosphate family alone, its line claims a cyan LED and costs ±0.179. The one line classifier that comes in under the ratio line's ±0.141 does so by two thousandths, having placed the tube with the LEDs.
-
Radiators and LEDs are one family to the sensor
An ambient-light sensor's three narrow departures see the collection's six smooth radiators and forty-four white LEDs along one line: the radiators' own short line lies on the LEDs' long one. Estimating a camera's colour error family by family, the census had treated them as two, and every classifier that tried to tell them apart paid for it. Merged into one family of smooth broadband sources, found by the nearest other lamp as before, the two-stage estimate comes to ±0.127 over fifty-four lamps held out — below the ratio line's ±0.141, and below the ±0.133 the separate families managed when every lamp's family was simply given. The halophosphate tube is still caught. The radiators, which the prediction said the merge would cost a little, are estimated better inside it than inside their own family, because a three-coefficient line fitted over five radiators was worse for them than the census-wide ratio line.
-
New LEDs miss the line their cousins drew
An ambient-light sensor's three departures can estimate a camera's colour error under a lamp, and merging radiators and white LEDs into one smooth family brought that estimate to ±0.127 over fifty-four lamps, each left out in turn. Every one of those lamps had relatives in the pool. Fourteen lamps the census never saw test what the relatives were worth. The prediction was that new smooth lamps would land on the line and tinted incandescents fall off it by four tenths or more. The radiators and daylights land on it, within ±0.13 each. The tinted lamps do too — the pink-glass incandescent, placed among the LEDs by its nearest neighbour, misses by 0.12. The lamps that fall off are the new white LEDs: ±0.20, half again the census's error, two of them by a quarter. Their misses follow the sensor's 640 nm channel at a slope of −0.72, explaining four fifths of their scatter, because the line learned what that channel means from LEDs varied only in their blue pump. Adding the fourteen to the pool does not help.
-
LEDs varied in their phosphors fall off every line
The merged smooth family estimates a camera's colour error from an ambient-light sensor's departures to ±0.127, and five new white LEDs, varied in their phosphors where the census's forty-four vary their pump, missed by ±0.196 because the family's line had learned almost nothing about the sensor's 640 nm channel. Rebuilt on forty-eight LEDs varied in pump, converter and red phosphor, the line learns it: its 640 nm weight goes from −0.13 to −0.74, most of the way to the −0.85 the new LEDs implied. The prediction was that the new LEDs would then land within ±0.13. They miss by ±0.229, worse than before, crossing to the other side of the line, and the census's own held-out error more than doubles, to ±0.294. No pool of LEDs restores it, and no line in the sensor's departures reads the grid's own LEDs better than ±0.29. Across the grid the camera's error is a V about the Planckian locus, rising away from it on the green side and on the pink — and every one of the census's LEDs sat on the green side.
-
LEDs built on the locus still fall off the line
A camera's colour error under a lamp can be estimated from three narrow channels of a small sensor, read as departures from a smooth lamp of the same colour, and the estimate held for the census's white LEDs, which varied only their blue pump. Rebuilt on LEDs varied freely in pump, converter and red phosphor, it failed: the error was a V about the Planckian locus, and no line in the departures read it. A maker does not let the white fall where it falls, so the proposal was to build the LEDs as a maker does — the converter tuned for each pump and red phosphor until the white sits on the locus — and the prediction was that the V would go and the line return, the census's held-out error to within ±0.15. Thirty of thirty-six such LEDs can be built. On the locus the V is gone and the line is not: the LEDs alone are missed by ±0.25 to ±0.28, the census's lamps by ±0.27. Taken one pump at a time, the departures read the LEDs pumped at 452 nm to ±0.05 and those at 440 and 465 nm no better than ±0.17. Within one pump the LEDs are readable, and across pumps they are not.
-
A channel at each pump cannot see the recipe
Thirty white LEDs built onto the Planckian locus defeat a line in a small sensor's three departures, except within one pump: the 452 nm LEDs are read to ±0.047 by the 450 nm channel, the others no better than ±0.15. The proposal was a channel at each pump — 440 and 465 nm beside the 450 — and the prediction that each pump's LEDs would be read from their own channel within ±0.08. The 465 nm LEDs' own channel halves their miss, to ±0.135; the 440 nm LEDs' moves it from ±0.171 to ±0.149. No line in any three of the five departures reads either pump better than ±0.1. Yet the camera's error is simple: a line in what each LED is made of — its red phosphor, its colour temperature and their product — reads every pump within ±0.07, the 440 nm LEDs to ±0.043. The error is easy; the channels cannot see the recipe that sets it. Knowing each LED's pump halves the pooled miss, to ±0.119, and two blue channels can tell only one pump of three from the others.
-
The converter gives the red phosphor away
A camera's error under white LEDs built onto the Planckian locus is simple in what each LED is made of — its red phosphor and its colour temperature — and a small sensor's narrow departures cannot read the red phosphor. The proposal was a channel at 610 nm, where a garnet converter falls and a red phosphor rises, and the prediction that it reads the red-phosphor strength within a tenth of its range. Within a pump it reads nothing: ±0.36 to ±0.43 at 440 and 452 nm against a spread of ±0.36, and no red channel from 600 to 680 nm does better than ±0.22. The reason is the locus. To keep the white's colour, each step of red phosphor pushes the converter's peak shorter, by 29 to 55 nanometres from none to the most, and in every red channel the two changes cancel. What survives is the converter: the 600 nm departure reads its peak to ±5 nm. Read across all thirty LEDs at once, the converter gives the red phosphor away — ±0.12 — and the error read through that estimated recipe comes within ±0.08 at every pump, the 440 nm LEDs at ±0.078, half their own channel's miss.
-
Beside the locus the converter still gives the red away
On the Planckian locus, a white LED's red phosphor pushes its converter to a shorter peak, so an ambient sensor's 600 nm departure, which reads the converter, reads the red phosphor too — within ±0.12 of a spread of ±0.36 — and through it the camera's colour error within ±0.074 ΔE₀₀. Real LEDs are binned a few thousandths off the locus, and the prediction was that a Duv of 0.003 moves the converter about as far as a fifth of the red phosphor does, so that the line learned on the locus misreads off-locus LEDs by a fifth of the range and their error falls back to ±0.12. The converter moves under two nanometres. The line reads the off-locus LEDs' red within ±0.11 and ±0.12, as well as it reads the locus's own held out — with a bias of about a twentieth that follows the Duv's sign. The error reads a third to a half worse, ±0.096 and ±0.107, and most of that is the camera's error itself moving off the locus with nothing in the recipe changed.
-
Across a bin, the camera's error bends with the temperature
White LEDs a Duv of 0.003 off the Planckian locus have their red phosphor read by an ambient sensor as well as LEDs on it, and their camera colour error read a third to a half worse, because the error itself moves with the Duv. The prediction was that one Duv term in the error's line, learned over all eighty-nine LEDs, brings those beside the locus back to the locus's ±0.074 ΔE₀₀ and costs the locus LEDs nothing. One term buys little: ±0.109 below the locus and ±0.085 above. The error turns across the locus one way at 2,700 K and the other at 4,000 and 6,500 K, and bends most where it is warmest, so the Duv has to enter as a slope and a curve for each temperature — ten numbers a pump, not five — before both sides come back, to ±0.056 and ±0.048. That line then reads the locus LEDs at ±0.073, worse than the ±0.062 a line with no Duv in it manages once it is learned across the bin.
-
The bin's curve holds between its points and breaks beyond them
A camera's colour error under a white LED was read from an ambient sensor across a manufacturing bin by a line with a slope and a curve in Duv for each colour temperature, fitted at three Duv values — on the locus and 0.003 either side — and reading the LEDs beside the locus within ±0.056 and ±0.048 ΔE₀₀. A curve through three points passes through them whatever happens between them. The prediction was that 119 new LEDs built at ±0.0015 are read within ±0.06, and those at ±0.006 worse than ±0.10. Both halves hold: ±0.045 and ±0.043 inside, ±0.153 and ±0.161 outside. But the error's own mean course stays on its parabola within 0.02 out to ±0.006. The line's bend is not the error's: it is the gap the line leaves between the locus LEDs and the bin's edges, and a gap spent as a curvature quadruples at twice the distance.
-
A level for each temperature lets the curve be the error's
An error line with a slope and a curve in Duv for each colour temperature read white LEDs inside a manufacturing bin within ±0.045 ΔE₀₀ and LEDs at twice the bin's edge only within ±0.16, though the camera's own error stays on its parabola there. Its curve was borrowed: the line's shared terms could not place each temperature's level, and the square of the Duv absorbed the gap. The prediction was that one more number a pump, the square of the mireds, brings the locus LEDs within ±0.05 and those at ±0.006 within ±0.08. It brings the locus to ±0.025 — three times better than the locus-only line that started this run of essays — and the outer LEDs to ±0.049 and ±0.058. The curvature the line now implies at each temperature is the error's own within a fifth; what it leaves is the warm whites' scatter at the bin's edges.
-
The red phosphor tilts the warm whites and bends nothing
An error line with a level, a slope and a curve in Duv for each colour temperature reads white LEDs at 4,000 and 6,500 K within ±0.04 ΔE₀₀ across and beyond a manufacturing bin, but warm whites at twice the bin's edge only within ±0.087. The prediction was that the red phosphor sets a warm white's bend, so that one term more a pump — the square of the Duv times the estimated red — brings them within ±0.05. It moves them by a thousandth. The red phosphor enters the slope instead: the Duv times the red takes them to ±0.046 below the locus and ±0.067 above. And the rest points upstream. The first stage reads a warm white's red phosphor squeezed toward the middle of its range, the warm misses follow that misreading times the Duv at r = 0.79, and given the red each LED was built with the warm whites come within ±0.05 — though the same substitution doubles the error at 4,000 K.
-
The line had already undone the squeeze
An ambient sensor's first stage reads a 2,700 K white LED's red phosphor squeezed about a third toward the middle of its range, and the camera-error line's warm misses outside the bin follow that misreading times the Duv. The prediction was that giving the first stage the Duv times its 600 nm departure and times the mireds would undo the squeeze. It changes nothing: the squeeze belongs to the temperature, and a level and a departure slope for each temperature read the warm red four times better, within ±0.035. But the eleven-term error line does not move — no warm LED by more than 0.006 — because at one temperature a squeeze is a rescaling its red and red-times-mireds terms had already undone. Only the red-slope line, whose one coefficient a pump spans three temperatures, gains: to ±0.034 below the locus, within 0.002 of the red known. And the cold whites pay for it.
-
Two estimates of one red each read their own end
Two first stages read a white LED's red phosphor from an ambient sensor: one squeezes the warm whites' red a third toward the middle, the other reads it four times better, and a camera-error line with a red slope prefers the first for cold whites and the second for warm. The prediction was that a line handed both — the eleven-term line on the squeezed estimate, the red slope on the faithful one — keeps each end's gain. It does, within 0.004 at the cold end. But the second estimate is not needed: the squeezed red alone, its red slope multiplied by the mireds, reads every LED within a ten-thousandth of the split line. And the two estimates' difference is worth a term of its own. Added to the line, it reads the cold whites within ±0.016 at every Duv and on the locus within a thousandth, and moves the warm whites and the middle by nothing.