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

Gamut — the series

72 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. The CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram with its unreachable region marked. The spectral locus encloses every chromaticity a human eye can see. Cells inside the sRGB triangle are drawn in their own colour; the 85 per cent outside it are hatched, because no value this display accepts is the colour belonging there.

    Most of this diagram cannot be shown

    The chromaticity horseshoe is the canonical illustration of colour science, and nearly every printed copy is filled edge to edge with colours the page cannot produce. The honest version marks them, and the marking covers most of the picture.

    part 1 · matching
  2. Two identical grey patches on different surrounds. Both inner squares are #868686. The one on the dark field looks lighter. The values are checked to be equal before the figure is drawn, so the claim is a fact about the drawing rather than a promise.

    Matching is not appearance

    CIE XYZ predicts when two lights will look the same under identical viewing conditions. It was never a model of how anything looks, and most of the confusion in applied colour comes from using it as one.

    part 2 · matching
  3. sRGB, Display P3 and Rec. 2020 compared on the chromaticity diagram. Three nested triangles inside the horseshoe. sRGB covers 74 per cent of the area P3 covers. Rec. 2020's red and green primaries sit on the spectral locus itself, within 0.000 and 0.002 of it, meaning they are monochromatic.

    What a gamut costs

    Three primaries reach a triangle and the visible region is not a triangle, so something has to give. Widening the primaries helps, has a price in precision and compatibility, and runs into a limit that is geometric rather than technological.

    part 2 · matching
  4. The sRGB transfer function, and the gamma 2.2 curve it is not. Code value against relative luminance. The sRGB function is piecewise — a short linear segment near black, then a 2.4 power law with an offset — and it is close to but not the same as a plain 2.2 power law. Half-way along the axis of stored values sits at 21 per cent luminance, and half the luminance of white is at code 188.

    A hex code is not a colour

    Six hexadecimal digits identify three numbers. Turning three numbers into a colour needs a colour space, a transfer function, a white point and a display, and leaving any of them unstated is the everyday version of every confusion in colour management.

    part 2 · matching
  5. The 1976 uniform chromaticity diagram, with the unreachable region marked. The u′v′ diagram: the same spectral locus and the same sRGB primaries as the 1931 picture, projectively transformed. Straight lines stay straight, so mixtures and the gamut triangle survive; what changes is the distribution of area, and the green region that dominates the 1931 diagram is much reduced. 8% of the cells sampled inside the locus are reachable at Y = 0.55; the rest are hatched.

    The diagram was replaced in 1976

    The CIE knew the 1931 diagram was badly distorted and published a better one. Half a century later almost every chromaticity plot in print is still the old one, and both are still printed filled edge to edge with colours no display can show.

    part 3 · matching
  6. Three lightness scales, seventy years apart. Munsell value, CIELAB's L* and CIECAM16's J against luminance, all rescaled to run 0 to 100. Each is somebody's answer to how evenly spaced lightness steps map onto light. They put the midpoint of the scale at 19.8%, 18.4% and 28.0% of the white's luminance respectively — close enough to be three measurements of one thing, far enough apart to be three measurements rather than one restated twice.

    Colour by catalogue

    A colour order system arranges physical samples on a regular lattice so a person can find one and name it. The space it samples is not regular, and everything interesting about such systems is what happens at that mismatch.

    part 3 · matching
  7. A 20 nm bandpass, and what it does to the sample. The true reflectance, the same reflectance as a 20 nm instrument reporting every 20 nm returns it, and the slit function responsible, drawn at its own scale around 550 nm. The reconstruction is what every calculation downstream will use, and it differs from the truth by ΔE 2.97 under D65. Nothing in the file the instrument writes marks which values were measured and which were interpolated.

    What the instrument reports

    A spectrophotometer sees a sample through a slit of finite width, at a finite number of wavelengths. What it writes down is the truth convolved with its own bandpass, and nothing in the file says which values were measured and which were invented.

    part 3 · matching
  8. One pair of colours, blended in four spaces. Every row starts and ends at the same two colours and visits different ones in between. The chroma of the middle falls furthest in linear light, by 83 units below the straight line between the endpoints' chromas — the grey dead zone that every blue-to-yellow gradient has and that no endpoint mentions. Any colour a route visits that this display cannot show is hatched rather than clipped.

    A gradient is a path

    Two colours fix the ends of a blend and nothing else. The middle is decided by the space the interpolation happens in, and four spaces in daily use put the halfway point of one ordinary gradient as much as thirty-seven units of colour difference apart.

    part 3 · matching
  9. Dominant wavelength as a construction on the diagram, against equal-energy E. A ray is drawn from the white point through each sample and continued until it leaves the diagram. The sample at (0.28, 0.52) leaves through the spectral locus at 537 nm, at excitation purity 0.43. The sample at (0.36, 0.19) leaves through the line of purples, so it has no dominant wavelength at all and is written 544c nm — the crossing on the opposite side, marked with a c. The hatched region is colour this display cannot show and is not drawn as though it could.

    Not every colour has a wavelength

    The question every reader arrives with is which wavelength a colour is. For close to a third of the directions on the chromaticity diagram the honest answer is that there is none, and the construction colorimetry offers instead is a statement about a diagram rather than about light.

    part 4 · matching
  10. What a coarse wavelength grid costs, by source. Colour error against grid size, for four sources through one reflectance. Daylight survives every grid tested: 0.67 ΔE00 even at 40 nm. A source with lines in it does not — the narrowband source reaches 16.2. The grid is not a property of the arithmetic; it is a claim about what the light has in it.

    Five nanometres is a choice

    Every integral here is taken in five-nanometre steps, and the interval has never had to be defended. Coarsening it to twenty costs daylight two hundredths of a colour difference and a fluorescent tube six and a half — and which way of coarsening is used decides a further factor of six.

    part 4 · matching
  11. One match, and what it says about the observer making it. The anomaloscope: a monochromatic 589 nm yellow set against a mixture of 545 and 670 nm. Only two cone classes respond at those wavelengths, so the match is two equations in two unknowns and has one solution for any observer whose two pigments differ. The bar is the fraction of the accepted band; the mark is the solution. A normal observer accepts 0.7 per cent of the scale; an observer whose two pigments are the same accepts all of it, because their two equations are one equation twice. Nothing here is fitted to clinical data: the pigments are the same template used for every observer here, at stated peaks, and the match is the solution of the linear system.

    One match names the observer

    A yellow at 589 nanometres set against a mixture of 545 and 670 is two equations in two unknowns. It has one solution for a normal observer, a solution somewhere else for an anomalous one, and no unique solution at all for a dichromat — whose two equations are one equation twice.

    part 4 · matching
  12. A colour-order system's chips, sorted by what they would be called. A regular lattice in lightness, chroma and hue — the idealisation of a swatch book, and regular by construction because a person has to be able to find a page. Named, it comes apart: 1320 chips inside the gamut divide into 198 for grey and 66 for blue. And 22 per cent of one-step moves in the lattice change the name, so a page of a swatch book is not a page of a vocabulary.

    A catalogue is not a vocabulary

    A colour order system is a regular lattice, because a person has to be able to find a page. Sorted by what its chips would be called, that lattice comes apart into piles differing by a factor of three — and a fifth of all one-step moves in it change the name.

    part 4 · matching
  13. sRGB, Display P3 and Rec. 2020 compared on the chromaticity diagram. Three nested triangles inside the horseshoe. sRGB covers 74 per cent of the area P3 covers. Rec. 2020's red and green primaries sit on the spectral locus itself, within 0.000 and 0.006 of it, meaning they are monochromatic.

    Six numbers make a space

    An RGB colour space is eight numbers — three primary chromaticities, a white point, and a transfer function — and everything else about it is derived. Deriving it rather than copying the matrix is the difference between having a colour space and having a table somebody else computed.

    part 5 · matching
  14. Grassmann's four laws, exact — and the two things that break them. For a linear observer every one of the four is exact and the residual is floating point, which is the control that makes the two failures below measurements rather than artefacts. Rods break a cone-metameric match by 23 per cent of a rod excitation at dusk; bleaching breaks it by 0.59 per cent of a cone excitation in the sun. Both are stated as fractions of a receptor's own response, so they can be put on one scale.

    The laws that make colour add up

    Colorimetry is an integral, and an integral assumes matching is linear. Grassmann's four laws are exact for a linear observer, to floating point — and they fail at both ends of the light range, by two different mechanisms, leaving colorimetry an operating band of three and a bit decades that no standard states.

    part 5 · matching
  15. A fourth primary, swept — every setting an exact match, none of them the same. Four primaries matching three numbers leave one degree of freedom. Along the horizontal axis it is the fourth primary's share of the white's luminance; at each value the other three powers are solved exactly, so every point on this plot is a floating-point-exact match for the reference member — worst residual 1.3e-15 — and no colorimeter can tell them apart. What the population sees runs from 13.7 ΔE00 at the ninety-fifth percentile to 17.3, a factor of 1.26. The best setting is the largest share the arithmetic admits, so what stops it is not colour but the requirement that four powers stay positive.

    Four primaries have a choice

    Three primaries matching three numbers have one answer. Four have a family of them, every member exact to floating point for the observer they were solved for — and the members are not equally good for anybody else, so a display with a fourth primary has a setting that is robust to who is looking at it and a setting that is not.

    part 5 · matching
  16. What a fourth primary actually buys. All three displays are floating-point-exact matches for the reference observer, so no colorimeter can tell them apart. The bars are the 95th percentile of what two hundred other eyes report. Held to the same gamut floor of 1.4× sRGB, the four-primary design leaves the population 2.6 times closer together than the three-primary one. That is what the extra emitter is worth, and it is not more colour — the gamut is held fixed while it is measured.

    A fourth primary is a design

    A display's fourth emitter is sold as more colour. Optimised instead against how far apart two hundred eyes are about its white — with the gamut held fixed so it cannot cheat — it buys agreement, and two and a half times closer together than three primaries reaching the same area, and the wavelengths it chooses are not the ones anybody would pick.

    part 6 · matching
  17. Which of these paints the display can show, and to how many people. Each row is a real surface under D65, and the bar is the share of 120 observers for whom a non-negative mixture of this display's three primaries reproduces it. The question has no observer-free answer: the paint is a reflectance, the primaries are emission spectra, and whether one matches the other is a fact about somebody's cones. A dot marks the rows the 1931 observer calls displayable. 2 of them are rows some real people cannot see, and 4 more go the other way.

    A gamut has a population

    Whether a display can reproduce a paint is a fact about somebody's cones, so the boundary of a gamut is not a curve but a band. On a laser projector, ten of twenty-eight boundary surfaces are ones the standard observer calls displayable and some real people cannot see — and the wider the gamut, the wider the band.

    part 7 · matching
  18. The same twenty-four samples, measured two standard ways. How far apart a 45°/0° instrument and a sphere with its gloss port closed are, on samples running from three per cent reflectance to seventy. The whole of the difference is the interface reflection — four per cent of the light, returned without ever meeting a pigment, thrown away by one geometry and collected by the other. It is the same four points in every row, which is why the disagreement is a property of how dark the sample is rather than of what colour it is: ΔE00 8.7 on the darkest samples against 1.93 on the lightest.

    An instrument has a geometry

    Every reflectance here arrives through a model with a bandpass, a sampling interval and no position at all. Real instruments say where they were standing, and the two standard answers disagree by ΔE00 8.35 on a dark gloss sample — a difference that adds rather than multiplies, and that no adaptation removes.

    part 7 · matching
  19. Outside the set of colours a reflecting surface can be. How far each stock sits from the boundary of the object-colour solid, as a fraction of the bound. The line at zero is the boundary: a perfect diffuser sits exactly on it, and every reflectance ever made sits to its left. The pale marker is the sheet measured with the ultraviolet excluded and the dark one with it included. Two of the six cross the line — they are brighter, in a direction that can be written down, than any reflecting surface of their colour could be. This is a proof rather than a hull: for each sample a direction is found in which the largest value any reflectance can reach is computed exactly, and the sample exceeds it.

    A white that is not a reflectance

    The object-colour solid is the hardest boundary in colorimetry — the set of tristimulus values any reflecting surface can produce, with no assumption about pigments in it at all. A coated press stock under a measurement standard's own lamp sits 1.5 per cent outside it, and a heavily brightened one 4.0, and with the ultraviolet removed both come back inside.

    part 8 · limits
  20. The locus and the triangle, drawn on one of the diagrams. The spectral locus and the sRGB triangle in CIE xy (1931) — the default of the discipline, and the default used here. The triangle covers 33.6% of the enclosed area here. Nothing about the observer or the display has changed between this picture and any other in the family; the coordinates have, and the coordinates are what an area is measured in.

    The diagram has no area

    A chromaticity diagram is a projective picture of a three-dimensional space, and the freedom colour matching leaves in the observer acts on it as a projective map. Straight lines and mixture ratios survive that; area, distance and angle do not — so half of what the diagram is used to say is a statement about the paper.

    part 8 · matching
  21. What share of the diagram the sRGB triangle covers, in twelve published coordinate systems. Each row is a chromaticity diagram somebody has printed, and each bar is the fraction of the enclosed visible area that the sRGB triangle covers in it. Every row describes exactly the same observer and exactly the same gamut. The answer runs from 8.5% to 38.4%, a factor of 4.52, because area is not preserved by the projective maps that carry one of these diagrams to another. The familiar "about a third" is a fact about CIE xy.

    Two thirds is not a property of the eye

    It has been said from the beginning here that about two thirds of the chromaticity diagram cannot be shown on a screen. The figure is right, on the diagram it was measured on, and across twelve published diagrams the same triangle covers anything from 8.5 to 38.4 per cent of the same locus. Counting stimuli instead gives an answer that does not move.

    part 9 · matching
  22. A display's primaries, scored as the adaptation basis they are. Four primary sets ranked by the mean ΔE00 an adapted observer is left with when the white point moves — which for a display is a gain on R, G and B, and so a von Kries adaptation in the inverse of its own primary matrix. sRGB leaves 2.36, as much as scaling XYZ directly and therefore as much as having no cone basis at all. Rec. 2020 leaves 1.09, better than every published adaptation transform fitted to corresponding-colour data. Nobody chose that: it is what wanting a wider gamut does to a primary's spectral selectivity.

    The gamut race chose the basis

    Twenty years of arguing about how much of the diagram a display should cover has produced primaries whose inverse is a better adaptation basis than any transform ever fitted to corresponding-colour data. On the invariant count of what those displays can actually show, the same twenty years produced nothing at all.

    part 10 · matching
  23. What a display's red primary is allowed to be, under four requirements at once. A close view of the chromaticity plane around one designed primary, 0.101 units across. Four outlines: the set of positions the primary can take before each of four requirements gets one per cent worse — how well a gain in the display's own basis undoes a change of light, how much of the diagram the three primaries enclose, how many real surfaces fall inside them, and whether a light of that colour exists at all. The shaded region is where all four hold. It is 5% of the smallest outline's area, because the outlines are long and thin and cross at an angle rather than nesting. adaptation holds 42% of its boundary, gamut holds 10% of its boundary, realisable holds 48% of its boundary.

    A primary is chosen for four things

    A display's primaries have to adapt well, cover the diagram, hold the surfaces anybody photographs, and be colours a light can actually have. Drawing all four tolerance regions around one primary shows that no single requirement decides where it can go, and that one of the four never decides anything.

    part 10 · matching
  24. The bowl the eigenvalues describe and the bowl a sample found. Six points on a logarithmic vertical axis — the distance from the optimum of the adaptation residual to a 5 per cent rise along each of the six directions the objective can see — with a shaded band behind them showing the whole range 24 random directions reported. The eigen-radii run from 1.2e-2 to 3.6e-1, a factor of 29.8. The band runs from 2.2e-2 to 1.8e-1, a factor of 8.0, and sits entirely inside the ends of the true range: a random direction in nine dimensions carries a share of every eigenvector and so reports the middle of the bowl, never an end of it.

    How long is the bowl

    The optimum of an adaptation objective is twenty-nine times longer one way than another, and the two ends have names — the stiffest direction is almost entirely the short-wavelength row of the basis, the flattest almost entirely the long-wavelength one. Twenty-four random directions reported a factor of eight, and no number of them would have done better.

    part 11 · matching
  25. How far a fitted transform is from anybody's eyes. Five groups of three bars: for each published adaptation transform, the distance from the population's own cloud to the confusion point that transform is committed to, measured in the population's standard deviations on that point. On the protanope's point every one of them is between 2.2 and 14.4 out, and on the deuteranope's between 3.7 and 11.8. On the tritanope's, 5 of the five are within three standard deviations — indistinguishable from a member of the population. The claim that these matrices are not cone responses is safe, and the evidence for it is two points out of three.

    Two points out of three

    Every published adaptation transform implies three dichromat confusion points, whether or not it was fitted to any. Measured in the population's own standard deviations they are two to fourteen out on the protanope's point and four to twelve on the deuteranope's — and between half a standard deviation and two and a half on the tritanope's, which is inside the population. The claim that these matrices are not cone responses is safe. The evidence for it is two points.

    part 11 · matching
  26. The same tolerance, in the two numbers somebody actually sets. The plane a maker of a single-peak emitter works in: peak wavelength across, full width at half maximum up. Each marker is a candidate emitter whose chromaticity falls inside the colorimetric tolerance drawn for this display's green primary. They occupy a narrow band — peaks from 528 to 535 nanometres, a span of 7, against widths from 25 to 45 — so a tolerance stated as a region in chromaticity becomes ±3.5 nanometres of peak and a great deal of latitude in width. 2.0% of the 2501 candidates land inside at all: most of a region drawn in chromaticity is a colour no single-peak emitter makes.

    A tolerance in the wrong coordinates

    A display primary's tolerance is written as a region in chromaticity, because that is where the colorimetry lives. Nobody has a knob for chromaticity. What a maker of an emitter sets is a peak wavelength and a bandwidth, and the map between the two is so anisotropic that on the red primary its condition number is over eleven thousand.

    part 11 · matching
  27. Exactly flat everywhere, and eigenvectors at one point only. Two columns over the same nine places. On the left, how far from zero the objective's second derivative is along a row-scaling direction, on a logarithmic axis — it is between 10⁻⁹ and 10⁻⁶ of the largest eigenvalue at every one of them, which is a numerical zero. Scaling a row of the basis is a straight line along which the cost does not change, and that is true at every point, not only at the optimum. On the right, the angle between those three directions and the Hessian's own three smallest eigenvectors: 0.025 degrees at the optimum and up to 88 away from it. An invariance is a property of the function; being an eigenvector is a property of the function at a minimum, and the two coincide only where everybody computes.

    Only the flat directions keep their names

    Three of the nine numbers a colour match leaves free do nothing, and they do nothing everywhere — exactly, at every basis in this collection's table. They are the objective's own principal directions at one point only, and everywhere else the directions carrying the curvature have turned by tens of degrees.

    part 11 · matching
  28. 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.

    An extremum is still not a sample

    Two rounds ago three measurements turned up that took a maximum over a sample of a set and were short by up to a factor of two. The same error was live in a fourth place the whole time, on the set of surfaces every adaptation number is averaged over, and it is short by up to a third.

    part 12 · matching
  29. 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.

    The observers differ by a unit's worth

    The gap between the 1931 and 1964 standard observers is the one quantity in this collection's audit with no published number under it — nothing here reports it as a single figure over a stated set. It also has the second-largest dependence on which colour-difference formula is used, running from 1.60 to 3.55 across the menu.

    part 12 · matching
  30. Two slabs with one reflectance, and two colours through an aperture. Two constructed media whose bulk reflectance agrees at every wavelength to fifteen figures, and whose diffusion lengths differ by a factor of four. The upper curve is that shared reflectance — both slabs lie on it exactly. The two patches on the right are what a 4 millimetre radius returns from each, and they are 6.3 ΔE₀₀ apart. This is a metamerism with no observer in it: the two samples are the same colour to anybody under any light, and the instrument separates them because it is measuring a kernel through a hole rather than measuring a reflectance.

    A pair the aperture separates

    Two constructed slabs with the same reflectance at every wavelength, to fifteen figures — the same colour to any observer under any light — and 6.25 ΔE₀₀ apart when measured through a four-millimetre aperture. It is a metamerism with no observer in it, no illuminant in it, and no spectral difference to construct it from.

    part 12 · matching
  31. MacAdam's twenty-five ellipses, measured in each unit. The uniformity instrument used here, applied to units rather than to spaces. The upper bar is anisotropy — the mean over the twenty-five of the largest radius divided by the smallest, where 1 would be a circle. The lower is spread — the largest mean radius divided by the smallest across all twenty-five, which asks whether a step of the same size means the same thing in different parts of the diagram. Reading down the three CIELAB-based formulae in the order they were published, the anisotropy falls 3.42 → 2.89 → 2.74 and the spread rises 3.24 → 3.59 → 4.12: the weighting divides a difference by the chroma it was measured at, which equalises directions at a point and unequalises magnitudes between points. Neither number is scaled, so no calibration is applied here. CAM16-UCS is ahead on both.

    A unit rests on a space that was ranked

    This collection ranks three colour spaces by how nearly they make MacAdam's ellipses circles, and CIELAB comes last. It then publishes every difference it computes in a formula built on CIELAB. Turning the same instrument on the formulae rather than the spaces shows the repair works — and that it buys roundness by paying in evenness.

    part 13 · matching
  32. What this collection's grid does to its own observer audit. Two bars per light: the mean departure of the observer computed on this collection's five-nanometre grid, and the same computation on a quarter-nanometre one. For five of the six lights the two agree to two decimal places, which is what a well-sampled spectrum looks like. For the laser projector the coarse answer is exactly zero and the fine one is 1.80 — the largest in the table. On a five-nanometre grid a three-line spectrum with lines at 465, 532 and 638 nanometres is a one-line spectrum, and a single wavelength is a stimulus every observer agrees about to the last bit. The two departures do not compound here; the first conceals the second.

    One wavelength is everyone's colour

    A stimulus with a single wavelength in it produces the same relative cone excitations for every observer, exactly, whatever their age or field size. A display made of three such stimuli is where observers disagree most. Both statements are consequences of the same algebra, and the second is why laser projection has an observer problem.

    part 13 · matching
  33. The same white, matched at six primary widths. At every width the three primaries are solved to match D65 exactly for the reference member; the bands are what the population sees. A broad primary integrates the observer differences over a band and averages them away; a narrow one samples them at a point and passes them straight through. From 40 nm to 2 the ninety-fifth percentile rises from 11.3 to 17.9 ΔE00, monotonically, and the technology has been moving from left to right for thirty years.

    A narrow primary buys a disagreement

    The observer audit decomposes what a display costs a population. Narrowing the primaries raises the pigment-peak departure monotonically, moving one raises or lowers the macular departure, and the two respond to different design variables — so a wide gamut and an observer-robust display are bought with the same money.

    part 14 · matching
  34. One surface dimmed sixteen times, and the two things that happen to it. A single surface, dimmed by successive halvings, with the lens age departure measured on it at every level. The tristimulus deviation falls by exactly the dimming factor — 16 times over the sweep, to the last bit, because the colour integral is linear in the stimulus. What a unit of that deviation is worth rises by 8.2 times over the same sweep. The colour difference the audit reports is the product of the two, and it falls by only 1.95.

    A deviation is not a difference

    The previous round priced twenty departures in colour differences and treated each number as a property of the thing that departed. Every one of them is a product of two factors — how far the reading moved, which is linear and belongs to the departure, and what a unit of that movement is worth where it landed, which is not linear and belongs to the colour. Dimming one surface sixteen times scales the first by exactly sixteen and the second by eight.

    part 15 · matching
  35. The angle between two departures, which nothing in the audit records. Every pair of the six departures on every surface — 2520 pairs — binned by the angle between their two deviations in the local metric. The distribution reaches both ends: 440 pairs sit under thirty degrees and point almost the same way, and 615 sit above a hundred and fifty and point almost opposite. On 1095 of the 2520 the two together cost less than the larger of them alone. A table of magnitudes cannot say which case it is in.

    A size is not a direction

    An audit that reports magnitudes cannot say what two of them cost together. Over two and a half thousand pairs of observer departures the angle between them in the local metric runs from one degree to a hundred and seventy-nine, and on forty-three per cent of them the two together cost less than the larger of the two alone. Adding the angle predicts the composition to one and a quarter per cent; Pythagoras is out by twenty-eight.

    part 16 · matching
  36. The straight piece under the cube root, and where it stops. CIELAB's lightness against relative luminance, over the bottom 5.0 per cent of the range. Below Y = 0.008856 it is a straight line of slope 7.787; above it, a cube root. The two meet at L* 8 in value and in slope, exactly — the CIE's two constants are chosen to make that true. The dashed curve is the pure cube root, which reaches negative lightness before it reaches zero luminance and has an infinite slope there. The break is marked, and the axis runs to Y = 0.050.

    The straight piece under the cube root

    CIELAB's lightness is described everywhere as a cube root and below a stated luminance it is a straight line, spliced on with two constants chosen so the join is exact in value and in slope. Every black a delivery chain reaches is inside that straight piece — a press black at L* 2.4, a projected black at 1.1 — where the compression does not compress, the price of a deviation is flat to two parts in a thousand, and the second derivative the composition of two departures needs does not exist.

    part 16 · matching
  37. What one tolerance accepts, around four colours. The surface in tristimulus values that ΔE₀₀ 1.0 draws around four colours, each outline scaled to its own size so the shapes can be compared. The volumes they enclose differ by a factor of 1.0e+5 across the sRGB cube, and the longest axis of one shell is between 3.3 and 29.9 times its shortest. A tolerance is written as one number and is a different set of samples at every colour it is applied to.

    What one number accepts

    A delivery tolerance is written as a single colour difference and it acts on three tristimulus values, so what it actually accepts is a closed surface. Measured over sixty-four colours in the sRGB cube, the volume inside that surface varies by a factor of a hundred thousand and its longest axis is between three and thirty times its shortest. The same contract, applied to a dark colour and a light one, is two different requirements.

    part 17 · matching
  38. What a code lattice costs, and where. Twelve thousand colours quantised to 8 bits per channel through the sRGB transfer function and read back, with lightness across the bottom and the colour difference the rounding cost up the side. The mean is 0.191 and the worst case is 1.15, a factor of 6.0. The bars are band means, and they rise: the encoding spends its codes in the shadows, so the top of the ramp is where the lattice is coarsest against a metric that does not compress as hard.

    A lattice has no derivative

    Every departure priced here was priced by perturbing something and reading the answer, which requires the thing being perturbed to have a derivative. A file written on a code lattice does not have one — its output is flat almost everywhere and jumps on a set of measure zero — so quantisation can be bounded and never propagated. The bound is 1.15 colour differences at eight bits per channel against a mean of 0.19, and it is worst where the encoding spends fewest codes.

    part 17 · matching
  39. What a small neutral deviation costs as the grey darkens, in two lightness scales. The price of a fixed fraction of deviation on a neutral — how much lightness it is worth per unit of luminance — from L 40 down to L 0.25, both axes logarithmic. CIELAB's L is a straight line below L 8 and its price there is exactly flat. The appearance model's J′ has no straight piece: its price keeps rising, by a factor of 5.0 across the same range, as the luminance to the power -0.442 — the derived exponent is -0.441 in an average surround.

    The appearance model has no straight piece

    CIELAB's lightness is a straight line below L* 8, so a deviation near black has a fixed price and a black has a floor under it. CIECAM16 has no such piece. Its lightness near zero goes as the luminance to a power set by the room, the price of a deviation rises without limit as the black deepens — as Y to the power −0.44 in a lit room and −0.58 in a dark one — and on a projected black a lightness unit in the model allows under half the luminance change a unit of L* allows.

    part 17 · matching
  40. Two primaries mixed, and the line a reader assumes they take. The additive mixture of two sRGB primaries, walked in twenty steps, plotted in the a and b of CIELAB. The filled points are where the light actually goes, which is exactly straight in tristimulus values because that is Grassmann's second law. The open points are the straight line between the two readings. They part company by 26.7 ΔE₀₀ at their furthest, at 60 per cent of the way along, and the half-and-half mixture misses the midpoint by 21.1.

    The mixture line bows

    Grassmann's second law says an additive mixture is exactly linear in tristimulus values, and tested here it is exact to floating point. Nothing downstream of the three numbers preserves it. The physical half-and-half mixture of two colours sits a median of 5.5 colour differences from the midpoint of their two readings and up to thirty; on a green and a blue display primary it is twenty-one, which is a quarter of the distance between them.

    part 18 · matching
  41. Which way each tolerance is tightest, colour by colour. Sixty-four colours on a lattice through the sRGB cube, with lightness across the bottom. For each, the tolerance ΔE₀₀ 1 is pulled back into tristimulus values and its shortest and longest axes are found. The filled points are the angle between each colour's shortest axis and the direction common to all of them: a median of 15 degrees, ninety per cent within 32. The open points are the same for the longest axis, at 23. The common short axis is 3.1 degrees from X up and Y down, which is the direction of a*.

    A tolerance has a grain

    A colour tolerance pulled back into tristimulus values is a long thin shape, and across the whole sRGB cube its shortest axis points the same way, fifteen degrees off at the median — the direction in which X rises as Y falls, which is the direction of a*. So what one colour difference allows depends on which way a delivery drifts. An instrument's X filter may age 1.4 per cent before the tolerance is used up, its Z filter 5.1, and the light on the sample 9.3.

    part 18 · matching
  42. Four mixtures of display primaries, bowing by different amounts in two units. The half-and-half mixture of each pair of sRGB primaries, measured from the midpoint of the two readings as a share of the pair's own separation. The upper bar is ΔE₀₀ and the lower is the appearance model's J′a′b′. In ΔE₀₀ green and blue bows most, at 25 per cent; in the model it is red and blue, at 20, and blue and yellow falls from 22 to 12. The right-hand column gives the model's distance with its power correction, which is smaller than the Euclidean one for every pair here.

    Which mixture bows most depends on the ruler

    The physical half-and-half mixture of two lights misses the midpoint of their two readings in any unit a person is shown, and the share it misses by is about the same in ΔE₀₀ and in the appearance model's own space — 12.8 and 14.6 per cent at the median. Which mixtures miss most is not. The rank correlation between the two units is 0.57, a display's blue and yellow is the worst pair in one and the mildest in the other, and the smaller number usually quoted for the appearance model is its power correction rather than a straighter line.

    part 19 · matching
  43. Where a press's variation lies, and where the tolerance charges for it. Each printed patch's sheet-to-sheet variation under four stated mixes of press variation, split along the three axes of a one-unit ΔE₀₀ tolerance at that patch, tightest first. The upper bar of each pair is the share of the variation along each axis and the lower the share of the price, averaged over 29 patches. For an even mix the tightest axis holds 1.5% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 83% and pays 36%. For inking alone the tightest axis holds 2.0% of the variation and pays 34% of the price, and the loosest holds 79% and pays 28%. For a gain-led press the tightest axis holds 1.8% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 83% and pays 39%. For a trap-led press the tightest axis holds 1.6% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 82% and pays 35%.

    A press is charged for the direction it barely moves

    A press run varies almost entirely along the direction a colour tolerance forgives. Split along the tolerance's own axes under four stated mixes of press variation, its tightest axis holds about one per cent of the sheet-to-sheet variation and pays a quarter to a third of the price — and on a blue overprint four fifths, for the balance between two inking units rather than the level of either.

    part 19 · matching
  44. The straight line between two colours, and the formula's own shortest path. Five gradients seen from above, in the a and b plane of CIELAB: the straight line between the two colours in grey, and the shortest path under ΔE₀₀'s own local metric in colour. The lightness coordinate bows too and is not drawn. red to green saves 3.6 per cent and leaves the straight line by 13; blue to yellow saves 7.5 per cent and leaves the straight line by 21; cyan to magenta saves 3.9 per cent and leaves the straight line by 10; black to white saves 0.0 per cent and leaves the straight line by 0; red to blue saves 0.3 per cent and leaves the straight line by 4 CIELAB units at the widest. Black to white is the flat case: its shortest path is the straight one.

    The straight line is not the shortest gradient

    A colour difference formula says what a small step costs at every colour, and that is enough to ask which path between two colours is shortest. It is not the straight line: between red and green the shortest path bows thirteen CIELAB units away, saves four per cent — and stays inside sRGB on every step where the straight line leaves it. The formula's own answer for the two endpoints, meanwhile, is neither length.

    part 20 · matching
  45. The metamerism index, computed three ways, as the reference match loosens. The special metamerism index of 6 metameric pairs under an incandescent test light, against how well each pair matches under the reference light. Uncorrected, the index absorbs the reference mismatch and rises from 2.86 to 3.76. Corrected multiplicatively it rises to 3.31 and additively to 3.87. All three are the same number when the pair matches exactly, which is the only case the definition covers.

    The metamerism index has two corrections

    The index for a metameric pair is defined for a pair that matches exactly under the reference light, and no real pair does. The standard's remedy is to correct the sample first, and it names two corrections — scale the tristimulus values, or add the difference. On six pairs matched to one colour difference, the two answers differ by a tenth to four tenths of an index unit; at two, by a whole one.

    part 20 · matching
  46. Two uniform spaces, two answers: cyan to magenta. The gradient from above, in the a and b plane. The grey line is the straight path in CIELAB; the two coloured curves are the shortest paths under ΔE₀₀'s own local metric and under CAM16-UCS's. They are 15.7 CIELAB units apart at their furthest, against bows from the straight line of 9.9 and 12.2. Both spaces are published as uniform and both are used to decide what lies between two colours; they do not agree.

    Two uniform spaces disagree about between

    ΔE₀₀'s own local behaviour says which colours lie between two colours, and so does CAM16-UCS's. They do not agree. On cyan to magenta the two shortest paths run fifteen CIELAB units apart — more than either runs from the straight line — and on that gradient ΔE₀₀ would rather have the straight line than CAM16-UCS's answer. Getting the comparison at all takes noticing that one of the two has no local metric: its published difference is a Euclidean distance raised to the power 0.63, and a power below one has an infinite derivative at zero.

    part 21 · matching
  47. What a gamut charges a gradient, against what the relaxation's noise is. For each gradient, how much longer the best path that stays inside sRGB is than the free shortest path, as a percentage of the free one. The shaded band is the relaxation's own noise, measured by relaxing the same free path from two different starting points: 0.42 per cent at its worst. Every excess is inside it. So holding a gradient inside a display's gamut costs nothing measurable in the metric's own units, on any of these pairs — including the ones whose free path is outside at most of its points.

    A gamut charges a gradient nothing

    On red to green the shortest path happened to stay inside sRGB where the straight line did not, and that was called a coincidence of mechanism. Made into a measurement it is not a coincidence: constraining a path to stay inside the gamut costs less of the metric's own length than the relaxation's own noise, on every gradient tested — including the ones whose free shortest path is outside at fifteen of its twenty-one steps. The gamut's boundary and the metric's cheap region point the same way, and the price of the constraint is nothing.

    part 21 · matching
  48. How often the choice of correction changes a pair's grade. Eighteen metameric pairs walked to each of eleven reference mismatches, with the share whose index falls in a different band under the two corrections the standard allows. At an exact match the share is zero and must be: there is nothing for either correction to correct. It rises to 44 per cent at a reference mismatch of 2, which is the quality a dyehouse reaches rather than the quality a laboratory constructs. The banding is a five-step convention at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3, stated here rather than quoted, and how much the count depends on it is drawn separately.

    The ambiguity is largest where the index is used

    The metamerism index is defined for a pair that matches exactly under the reference light, no real pair does, and the two corrections the standard allows for the residual give different answers. Over eighteen pairs at eleven match qualities the gap is nearly a function of the mismatch alone — its middle half spans a factor of 1.4 at the mismatches a dyehouse reaches — so it could be tabulated. And it is largest exactly there: zero at a laboratory's match, and re-grading eight pairs in eighteen at a trade's.

    part 21 · matching
  49. Three uniform spaces, three answers: red to blue. The gradient from above, in the a and b plane: CIELAB's straight line, and the shortest paths under ΔE₀₀'s local metric, under CAM16-UCS's and under Oklab's, whose shortest path is its own straight line carried back into CIELAB. They bow from CIELAB's line by 14.4, 42.5 and 42.6 units. ΔE₀₀'s and CAM16-UCS's paths run 28.3 apart at their furthest, Oklab's runs 29.0 from ΔE₀₀'s and 5.6 from CAM16-UCS's, and the space furthest from the other two here is ΔE₀₀.

    A third space breaks the tie only once

    ΔE₀₀ and CAM16-UCS disagree about which colours lie between two colours. Oklab was the obvious tie-breaker, and it breaks the tie on one gradient of five: on red to blue its path runs within six CIELAB units of CAM16-UCS's and twenty-nine from ΔE₀₀'s. On red to green and cyan to magenta it keeps to CIELAB's straight line while both others bow, and on blue to yellow it bows further than either. Each of the three spaces is the odd one out somewhere. Asking also exposed a CAM16-UCS path that had never converged.

    part 22 · matching
  50. Six starts for every held gradient, and where each one lands. Each row is one gradient held inside a gamut, relaxed from six starts: the straight line, the free shortest path, and the straight line bent towards and away from the neutral axis and up and down in lightness. Each dot is how much longer than the free shortest path that start's result is, on a logarithmic scale from a hundredth of a per cent to a thousand; the ring marks the best. The first 10 rows are gradients between colours on a coated CMYK press's boundary whose straight line leaves the press: their best routes cost a median of 0.12% and at most 1.1%, and on 5 of them some start lands at more than twice the free length. The next 3 are the display gradients held inside sRGB, whose best cost at most 1.3% and whose starts spread by at most 4.2%. The last 6 are press gradients that never leave, where no start is trapped.

    A press makes the cheap route a search

    Holding a gradient inside a display's gamut cost nothing measurable, and the essay that found it credited the gamut's convexity. A press's gamut is not convex: 216 of 630 straight lines between colours on its own hue ring leave it. Holding gradients inside the press still costs little at best, a median of a tenth of a per cent. But the best route depends on where the relaxation starts, the free path is the best start on one gradient of ten, and on half of them some start is trapped at more than twice the free length. On the display no start is trapped.

    part 22 · matching
  51. The same gradients, priced by a penalty and by a projection. Each row is one gradient held inside a coated press from six starts. The pale dots are the penalised relaxation — a free step, with a price for leaving the press — and the dark ones are the projected relaxation, which takes the free step and then moves each point to the nearest printable colour. Across is how much longer than the free path each result is, logarithmic. On the 10 gradients whose straight line leaves the press, the penalty leaves 9 starts at more than twice the free length and the projection leaves none. The projection's best route costs a median 0.02% against the penalty's 0.13%, and its spread across starts is 0.95% against 132.5%.

    A projection has no reason to detour

    Holding a gradient inside a press by penalising the excursion turned the gamut's price from a number into a search: on five of ten crossing gradients some starting point leaves the relaxation trapped at more than twice the free length, and the spread across six starts runs to 271 per cent of the free path. Replacing the penalty with a projection — take the free step, then move each point to the nearest printable colour — leaves no trap on any gradient and a spread of 0.06 to 2.4 per cent.

    part 23 · matching
  52. How much of a coated press is left at each margin inside its boundary. The share of a coated press's printable volume in CIELAB that lies at least a given distance inside its boundary, for margins from half a unit to 32. A margin of one unit keeps 88%, two keep 80%, four 66% and eight 45%. At every margin up to 30 what is left is a single connected piece; at 31 units, with 0.14% of the volume left, it first splits, into a core of 623 cells and 2 fragments of one or two cells — the deepest point is 32.7 units inside, so what splits is the last crumb of the core, not a waist.

    A margin costs a press its corners

    A gradient held inside a coated press by projection was predicted to tear if the press were first shrunk by a safety margin, at any pinch narrow enough for the shrinking to cut. The press has no such pinch: shrunk by any margin up to thirty CIELAB units it stays in one piece, and projected routes on it are neither trapped nor torn. What a margin costs is concentrated at the corners — the solid yellow moves nearly four times the margin to get inside, like the tip of a 31-degree spike.

    part 24 · matching
  53. Each end colour's move into the eroded press, over the margin, in CIELAB and in ΔE₀₀. The 9 end colours of the census gradients, each moved to the nearest colour of the press eroded by a margin, for margins of one, two and four. Squares: the margin in CIELAB units and the move in CIELAB. Circles: the margin in ΔE₀₀ and the move in ΔE₀₀. The dashed line at one is a flat face and the one at 1.73 a cube's corner. In CIELAB every end colour moves further than a cube's corner at two units, the solid yellow ×4.6, ×3.9, ×3.8. In ΔE₀₀ six of them move between 1.06 and 1.34 times the margin, and only the solid yellow, at ×1.91, ×2.04, ×2.10, is still sharper than a cube's corner.

    A tolerance's own unit rounds the corners

    Shrinking a coated press by a margin in CIELAB units made its corners pay several times the margin — the solid yellow nearly four. A print buyer states a margin in ΔE₀₀, and in that unit the corners pay about half as much: six of nine saturated end colours move within a third of the margin, and only the solid yellow is still sharper than a cube's corner. The prediction that the dark corners would stay sharp was wrong; they round too. What the tolerance's unit costs instead is volume — two ΔE₀₀ keep two thirds of the press where two CIELAB units kept four fifths.

    part 25 · matching
  54. What keeps the solid yellow sharp in ΔE₀₀, and what rounds it. The solid yellow's corner read as a cone: the opening a margin of two ΔE₀₀ found, the opening a cone about the tongue's measured axis would have once rescaled by ΔE₀₀'s local lengths, and the same with each of three reasons changed — the axis along chroma, the lightness weight as at mid-lightness, the hue function at one. The tilt narrows the corner from 71 to 49 degrees; the two weights both widen it.

    The yellow stays sharp because it leans

    A safety margin stated in ΔE₀₀ rounds almost every corner of a coated press, and leaves the solid yellow nearly as sharp as a cube's corner. The explanation offered was that the yellow's tongue points up towards lightness as well as out in chroma, so ΔE₀₀ — which shortens chroma at yellow five times and lightness one and a half — shortens it less than a pure chroma spike. Measured from the press's own cells, the tongue leans 23 degrees, less than predicted, and a cone about that axis rescaled by ΔE₀₀ accounts for the yellow's opening to within ten degrees; about a chroma axis it would open twenty-two degrees wider. ΔE₀₀'s own low hue weight at yellow, offered as the alternative, works the other way: it rounds the yellow. And the same account fails at every other corner.

    part 26 · matching
  55. Every corner of the press against its own tangent cone, at two samplings of black. For the nine end colours of the margin census, how far each moves per unit of a four-unit margin: as a perfect corner of its own tangent shape would, on the press walked at thirty-three black levels, and on the census's press of nine. At thirty-three every corner sits within seven per cent of its cone; at nine every edge moved a fifth or more further, and the half-black yellow 63 per cent further.

    Nine black levels sharpened the press's corners

    Three essays measured how far a safety margin pushes the corners of a coated press inward, and found them sharper than anything a smooth solid would have: the solid yellow moving nearly four times the margin, every corner past a cube's. Read by their ink recipes, three of the nine corners are vertices and six are edges, and each has a shape the press model's own derivatives state exactly. Against that shape the edges moved a quarter to two thirds too far. The reason is not the press. It is how the press was built: as three-ink solids at nine levels of black with nothing between them, so that every face black helps to make was scalloped. Walked at thirty-three levels, every corner moves within seven per cent of its own tangent shape, three of the nine are rounder than a cube's corner, and the solid yellow moves 3.2 times the margin, not 3.8.

    part 27 · matching
  56. Every corner's own shape, carried into ΔE₀₀, against the ΔE₀₀ census. For the nine end colours, the move per unit of margin a perfect corner of each one's tangent shape makes in CIELAB; the same shape carried into ΔE₀₀'s local metric at the end colour; and the move a margin of two ΔE₀₀ makes on the press walked at thirty-three black levels. The second and third agree at every corner, the edges to within a tenth of the margin and the vertices within a seventh; only the solid yellow is still sharper than a cube's corner.

    The tolerance unit opens every edge

    On a finely sampled press every corner moves under a CIELAB margin as a perfect corner of its own shape would, the shape read off the press model's derivatives. A print buyer states the margin in ΔE₀₀, and the census in that unit had been explained one corner at a time. Carried into ΔE₀₀'s local metric, the same shapes explain all nine at once: each of the six edges' predicted move lies within a tenth of the margin of the census's, and each vertex's within a seventh. ΔE₀₀ opens the edges from 67–141 degrees to 123–157, nearly faces, because a unit along chroma is three to five CIELAB units at these colours. The solid yellow's cone opens only to 59 degrees and stays the one corner sharper than a cube's. Without its chroma term, ΔE₀₀ would leave every corner as sharp as CIELAB does, or sharper.

    part 28 · matching
  57. The blue corner and its edges, in both units. For six colours between the press's cyan and magenta — the blue corner, four edges beside it and the blue corner with half black — the move per unit of margin a perfect corner of each one's tangent shape makes in CIELAB, the move a four-unit margin makes on the finely sampled press, the same shape carried into ΔE₀₀, and the move a two-ΔE₀₀ margin makes. In CIELAB every one is already blunt, under 1.3; in ΔE₀₀ every one is within a tenth of a flat face.

    The blue corner has nothing to twist

    A safety margin's cost at each corner of a coated press is predicted by the corner's own shape, read off its ink recipe and carried into whatever unit the margin is stated in — for nine corners, none of them blue. At a hue near 275 degrees ΔE₀₀ has a rotation term that couples chroma and hue, and the prediction was that leaving it out would miss the press's blue corner by more than a tenth of the margin. At the blue corner the term is strong: ΔE₀₀'s local matrix correlates a chroma step with a hue step by three quarters. And it changes the prediction by three hundredths. The blue corner and its edges are already blunt in CIELAB — none moves more than 1.3 times a margin — and a corner that is nearly a face has nothing for a shear to twist.

    part 29 · matching
  58. How sharp each corner of two displays is, in CIELAB and in ΔE₀₀. For the three primaries and three secondaries of sRGB and BT.2020, the move per unit of margin that a perfect corner of each one's tangent shape makes in CIELAB and carried into ΔE₀₀ by its full local matrix. The blue is ×3.35 and ×3.17 in CIELAB, against the press's blue at ×1.25; in ΔE₀₀ it is ×1.42 and ×1.26. ΔE₀₀ brings every corner of both displays under ×1.9.

    A display's blue is sharp where the rotation is not

    ΔE₀₀'s rotation term shears chroma into hue near a CIELAB hue of 275 degrees, and at a press's blue corner it had nothing to act on because the corner was blunt. The prediction was that a display's blue — an additive primary — would be a sharp corner, and that there the rotation would change how far a safety margin moves it by more than a tenth. The first half holds: sRGB's blue moves 3.35 times a CIELAB margin and BT.2020's 3.17, against the press's 1.25, and insetting the curved gamut directly confirms it to the second decimal. The second half fails, twice. A display's blue sits at 306 degrees, thirty past the rotation's centre, where the term grips a quarter as hard; and ΔE₀₀ blunts the corner to 1.42 by compressing its chroma sevenfold. Along the edge from blue to cyan the hue does pass through 275 and the grip reaches −0.87 — where the edge is nearly a face. Nowhere near either display's blue does the rotation move a prediction by four hundredths.

    part 30 · matching
  59. What ΔE₀₀'s chroma length alone does to each corner of two displays. For the six corners of sRGB and BT.2020, the move per unit of margin their tangent shapes predict in CIELAB, with ΔE₀₀'s chroma length alone, and with its lengths along lightness, chroma and hue together. The chroma length alone brings every corner but the yellow under ×1.35; it leaves the yellow at ×1.78 and ×1.80, and the full metric at ×1.75 and ×1.78.

    The yellow is sharp where the tolerance unit does not compress

    A safety margin moves each corner of a display's gamut inward by a multiple of itself that depends on the corner's shape. In CIELAB, sRGB's blue is its sharpest corner and its yellow among its bluntest; carried into ΔE₀₀, the order turns over, and the yellow becomes the sharpest corner of both sRGB and BT.2020. The prediction was that the yellow keeps its sharpness because its faces run along lightness, where ΔE₀₀'s weighting is largest at the yellow's L* of 97. Taking ΔE₀₀ apart length by length says otherwise. Its lightness weighting changes the yellow's move by nothing. Its chroma compression — the term that opens every other corner — does, on its own, bring every other corner of both displays under 1.35 times a margin, and leaves the yellow at 1.78. Of the yellow's three directions only one runs along chroma; at the other corners two or three do, and a metric that compresses chroma pulls those together and flattens the corner between them.

    part 31 · matching
  60. How sharp each corner of two displays is, in three units. For the six corners of sRGB and BT.2020, the move per unit of margin that a perfect corner of each one's tangent shape makes in CIELAB, in ΔE₀₀ and in CAM16-UCS at the display's white, 64 cd/m² and an average surround. CAM16-UCS keeps the yellow the sharpest corner of both displays, at ×1.66 and ×1.66, and blunts the blue — the sharpest corner of sRGB in CIELAB — to ×1.17 and ×1.10, the bluntest of all twelve.

    An appearance model flattens the blue by its hue

    A safety margin moves a corner of a display's gamut inward by a multiple of itself set by the corner's shape, and the unit the margin is written in decides the shape. In ΔE₀₀ the yellow is the sharpest corner of an sRGB and a BT.2020 display, because its sharpness lies across hue where ΔE₀₀'s chroma compression cannot reach it. CAM16-UCS compresses colourfulness less steeply, and the prediction was that it would leave the blue sharper than the yellow. It leaves the yellow sharpest, at 1.66 times a margin on both displays, and flattens the blue to 1.17 and 1.10 — the bluntest corner of all twelve. Its colourfulness does what the prediction said: on its own it would sharpen the blue past the yellow. Its hue scale undoes that. At a display's blue one degree of CIELAB hue is three and a half degrees of the appearance model's, and a unit that counts hue that finely there spreads the blue's directions apart until the corner is nearly a face.

    part 32 · matching
  61. How sharp each corner of two displays is, in four units. For the six corners of sRGB and BT.2020, the move per unit of margin that each corner's tangent shape predicts in CIELAB, ΔE₀₀, CAM16-UCS and ΔEITP, the last with the white at 320 cd/m². ΔEITP keeps the blue the sharpest corner of both displays, at ×3.12 and ×3.24, where CAM16-UCS makes it the bluntest at ×1.17 and ×1.10. At the green, cyan, magenta and yellow the three tolerance units agree within a quarter.

    A quantiser keeps the blue a spike

    A gamut margin moves a display's corners inward by multiples set by the unit it is written in. ΔE₀₀ and CAM16-UCS both blunt an sRGB or BT.2020 display's blue, CAM16-UCS to nearly a face, and the prediction was that ΔEITP — the difference built on ICtCp for high-dynamic-range television — would blunt it too. It does the opposite. With the white at 320 cd/m² the blue is ΔEITP's sharpest corner on both displays, moving 3.12 and 3.24 times a margin, about as far as in CIELAB; at the green, cyan, magenta and yellow the three tolerance units agree within a quarter, and at the blue they span a factor of three. ΔEITP's lengths alone would blunt the blue as ΔE₀₀ does. What keeps it sharp is the perceptual quantiser: ICtCp's chroma rows sum to nought, so under a response that compresses like a logarithm, dimming the blue primary is a step in intensity and nothing else. Replace the quantiser by a linear response and the blue falls to 2.15; by a logarithm, it rises to 3.39. A brighter display sharpens it further.

    part 33 · matching
  62. The blue corner in four units, as the blue primary moves towards the violet. For displays with red and green primaries at 630 and 530 nm and a monochromatic blue primary from 440 to 490 nm, the blue corner's move per unit of margin in CIELAB, ΔE₀₀, CAM16-UCS and ΔEITP. ΔEITP's blue is sharpest at 485 nm, ×4.37, and falls to ×1.23 at 440; CIELAB's runs the other way, from ×1.92 at 480 nm to ×11.8 at 440, and ΔE₀₀ follows it; CAM16-UCS stays near a face.

    A violet primary is no spike to the quantiser

    ΔEITP makes a display's blue its sharpest corner, about three times a margin, and the account of why predicted that a shorter-wavelength blue would be sharper still — past four times by 450 nm. Moving a monochromatic blue primary from 490 nm to 440 does the opposite. ΔEITP's blue corner is sharpest at 485 nm, ×4.37, and falls at every step to ×1.23 at 440, where CIELAB's runs the other way, from ×1.92 at 480 to ×11.8, and ΔE₀₀ follows CIELAB. The spike needs the two primaries that can be added to the blue to move it in nearly the same direction. Adding red always raises the blue's L signal by the larger fraction. Adding green does so only while the blue carries enough M signal of its own; a violet primary carries almost none, so adding green raises its M by the larger fraction and the two steps split, from 37 degrees apart to 111. No cone response rescues it — a logarithm blunts the violet further — and a brighter display dulls it while sharpening the longer blues.

    part 34 · matching
  63. A longer green makes every blue sharper and keeps the spike at 485. For displays with a red primary at 630 nm, a monochromatic green at 505 to 555 nm and a blue from 440 to 490, ΔEITP's blue corner's move per unit of margin, the white at D65 and 320 cd/m². Every curve peaks at the 485 nm blue, from ×2.39 with a 505 nm green to ×8.19 with a 555 nm green; the violet end moves far less, ×1.18 to ×1.57.

    The green primary decides how sharp the blue is

    ΔEITP makes a display's blue its sharpest corner when the blue sits near 485 nm and nearly a face when it sits at 440, and the turn between them is where adding green stops raising the blue's L signal by the larger fraction. The prediction was that the turn follows the green — near 445 nm with a 545 nm green, near 470 with a 515 nm one. It follows the green, by less than half as much at the short end: 461 nm with a 515 nm green, 446 with a 545 nm one, and with a 555 nm green there is no turn left in the range at all. What the prediction did not ask is larger. The green sets how sharp the blue can be: with the blue at 485 nm the corner moves 2.4 times a margin against a 505 nm green and 8.2 times against a 555 nm one, while the sharpest blue stays at 485 nm for every green. The red primary, moved from 615 to 690 nm, leaves the turn where it was to a hundredth of a nanometre. The appearance model follows the green far more gently, under half of ΔEITP's move at every green.

    part 35 · matching
  64. A broad green sharpens the blue corner; a broad blue dulls it. For displays with a red at 630 nm, a green at 530 and a blue swept from 440 to 490, each primary a Gaussian spectrum of a stated width, the blue corner's ΔEITP move per unit of margin, white at D65 and 320 cd/m². At the 485 nm blue: ×4.37 with three single wavelengths, ×4.51 with a twenty-nanometre green, ×5.05 with a forty-nanometre green, and ×3.94 with a twenty-nanometre blue.

    A broad green sharpens the blue; a broad blue dulls it

    ΔEITP makes a display's blue corner sharp or blunt according to its primaries, and the census of single-wavelength primaries found the green deciding how sharp — the 485 nm blue's corner moving 4.37 times a margin against a 530 nm green and 8.19 against a 555 nm one. Real primaries have widths, and the prediction was that a broad green acts as a longer green, raising the spike and moving the turn towards the violet, while a broad blue barely matters. The first half holds: a green forty nanometres wide at 530 nm sharpens the 485 nm corner to 5.05 and moves the turn from 453.7 nm to 451.2, as a single-wavelength green at 535.8 nm would, though its dominant wavelength has moved only to 533. The second half does not: a blue twenty nanometres wide moves the turn by a nanometre but dulls the corner by a tenth, to 3.94. The two widths pull the corner opposite ways, and a display whose green and blue are both broad lands near where its line primaries were. The red, at forty nanometres, still changes nothing that matters.

    part 36 · matching
  65. A long tail sharpens the blue; a short one barely touches it. With the green's core twenty nanometres wide at 530 nm and a share of its power moved into a tail twenty-five nanometres long, the 485 nm blue corner's move per unit of margin in ΔEITP. A third of the power on the long side takes the corner from ×4.51 to ×5.70, past the symmetric forty-nanometre green's ×5.05; the same share on the short side leaves it at ×4.39.

    A green's long tail sharpens the blue; its short tail does not

    A quantum-dot green falls steeply on one side and trails on the other, and the prediction was that a tail on its long side, holding a third of its power, would make ΔEITP's blue corner treat the green as a line past 538 nm, further than a symmetric forty-nanometre green's 535.8, because all its spread is on the L side. It does: 540.7 nm, the 485 nm corner rising from ×4.51 to ×5.70. The control is the larger finding. The same tail on the short side costs the green far more purity — 0.77 against the long tail's 0.95 — and moves its equivalent line by under a nanometre and a half. The corner reads the green's ratio of L to M signal, to within a third of a nanometre for every long tail, and not its purity, its centroid or its dominant wavelength; a short tail lowers that ratio less than its colour suggests and brings S signal that pushes the corner back.

    part 37 · matching
  66. A brighter display sharpens every green's blue by much the same share. The 485 nm blue corner's ΔEITP move per unit of margin against the green primary, on displays balanced to D65 at 100, 320, 1,000, 4,000 and 10,000 cd/m². From 100 to 10,000 cd/m² the corner rises from ×2.36 to ×2.51 with a 505 nm green and from ×7.78 to ×9.12 with a 555 nm one: five curves of one shape, stacked.

    Brightness and the green sharpen the blue almost independently

    ΔEITP's blue corner is sharper the longer a display's green, and sharper the brighter the display. The prediction was that the two compound — that the 555 nm green's lead over the 505 nm one, 3.42 times at 320 cd/m², would pass four by 4,000, because a brighter display narrows every angle and the long green's was narrowest — and that the turn, where adding green starts raising the blue's L by the larger fraction, would not move with the peak at all. Both halves fail. The lead grows by a twentieth, to 3.60 at 4,000 and 3.63 at 10,000; across thirty-five displays the corner is a green factor times a brightness factor to within 4.5%. And the turn moves at every step, two to six nanometres towards the violet from 100 to 10,000 cd/m², crossing the blue at which green raises L and M equally near 1,000. The quantiser weighs a fractional rise in L against one in M by their encoded levels, and brightness evens the scales.

    part 38 · matching
  67. The turn is set by the level the blue arrives at. For displays with a red line at 630 nm, a green at 505 to 545 nm and the census's blues, balanced to D65: the turn — the blue at which adding green moves ICtCp's red–green axis from M-ward to L-ward — against the level the blue is delivered at, whatever peak and drive deliver it. With the 530 nm green it runs from 451.6 nm at 10,000 cd/m² to 457.3 at 10; a dimmer blue turns at a longer wavelength for every green.

    A tone-mapped blue turns where it lands

    In ΔEITP a display's blue corner, and the turn at which adding green to it changes which side of ICtCp's red–green axis it moves the colour to, both shift with the display's peak, because the quantiser reads absolute levels. A high-dynamic-range picture graded on a bright master and shown on a dimmer panel is tone-mapped, its blues delivered below the levels they were graded at. The prediction was that a blue at a tenth of full drive on a 1,000 cd/m² panel turns where a 100 cd/m² panel's full blue does, and that the corner's move differs, because the dimmed blue no longer sits at a vertex. The turn agrees within a hundredth of a nanometre. So does the corner, within half a per cent: the steps both are read from are directions at one absolute signal, whatever drive delivered it. The tone map's whole effect on the blue is where it puts the blue. Through ITU-R BT.2390's curve, a master's bright blues are gathered near a dim display's peak and share one turn there — two nanometres from where the master turned them — while blues under the curve's knee keep their turns exactly.

    part 39 · matching
  68. Per channel, a tone curve turns a sky's blue towards cyan. A blue of the 530 nm green's display mixed with a share of green, graded at full blue drive on a 1,000 cd/m² master and shown on displays of 100 and 300 cd/m² through BT.2390's curve applied to each channel or to the largest with all three scaled together: the change in the mixture's ICtCp hue from the master's. Per channel on the 100 cd/m² display the hue turns 23.4° towards the green at a tenth of green; scaled, it moves under three degrees at every share.

    A tone curve per channel turns a sky towards cyan

    A pure blue tone-mapped from a bright master to a dim display turns, in ΔEITP, wherever its delivered level puts it, and any tone curve that delivers it to the same level gives it the same turn. A picture's blue is not pure. The prediction for a blue mixed with a little green was that a tone curve applied to each channel separately raises the green's share by about half — the blue channel compressed above the curve's knee, the dimmer green left near it — turning the mixture's hue several degrees towards cyan and its turn a nanometre or more from where a curve that scales all three channels together puts it. The turn does move, by 1.6 to 3 nanometres on a 100 cd/m² display and up to 6.5 on a 300. But the share is not raised by half: through BT.2390 to a 100 cd/m² display, a blue graded with a tenth of green arrives with its green at 69 per cent of its blue, nearly seven times as much, and its ICtCp hue turns 23 degrees towards the green. The scaled curve keeps every mixture's hue within three degrees and its turn within half a nanometre of the pure blue's.

    part 40 · matching
  69. Per channel, a tenth of green lands where a half was graded. Each mixture's CIECAM16 hue quadrature on the master and through the per-channel curve, between unique green at 200 and unique blue at 300. On the master a tenth of green sits at 312.9 and a half at 277.5; per channel on the 100 cd/m² display the tenth lands at 260.9, past the master's half.

    An appearance model sees the per-channel sky turn twice as far

    BT.2390's tone curve, applied to each channel of a 1,000 cd/m² master shown on a 100 cd/m² display, raises a sky-blue's green share from a tenth to 69 per cent of its blue and turns its ICtCp hue 23°, where the same curve applied to the largest channel with all three scaled keeps the hue within 3°. ICtCp's hue is not an appearance, and the prediction was that CIECAM16, read under the display's own white, still shows the per-channel turn as more than twenty hue-quadrature units and more than ten ΔEITP, the scaled curve under three of each. The appearance model sees it as fifty-two units, more than half the way from unique blue to unique green, and its lightness more than doubles. The scaled curve keeps hue and lightness to a quarter of a unit. And ΔEITP between master and display ranks the two curves backwards: in absolute light the per-channel sky is the nearer one.

    part 41 · matching
  70. A blue's intensity sits below where the curve compresses. BT.2390's curve from the 1,000 cd/m² master to displays of 100 and 300 cd/m², with the level a pure blue, a tenth-green and a half-green sky present to it when the curve is applied to ICtCp intensity, and the level their blue channel presents when it is applied per channel or to the largest channel. The skies' intensity corresponds to 79 to 387 cd/m², against knees of 27.9 and 161.4; their blue channel sits at 1,000, the top of the curve.

    A curve on intensity cannot see a blue's brightness

    ITU-R BT.2390's tone curve applied to each channel of a bright master turns a tone-mapped sky's appearance fifty-two hue-quadrature units towards green on a 100 cd/m² display; applied to the largest channel with all three scaled, it keeps hue and lightness to a quarter of a unit. BT.2390 also describes applying the curve to ICtCp's intensity and scaling its chroma, which keeps ICtCp's hue by construction, and the prediction was that it keeps the appearance's hue within three units and its lightness within two. It keeps the hue, within 2.3 units. It cannot keep anything on the display: a saturated blue's intensity is the PQ level of 79 cd/m², under the 300 cd/m² display's knee, so the curve barely touches it and every sky asks for two to seven times the blue the display has. Clipped channel by channel, the sky turns as far as the per-channel curve turned it; scaled back into the gamut, it lands where the scaled curve put it. The step back into the gamut decides the appearance, not the curve.

    part 42 · matching
  71. Holding ICtCp's hue and lightening the chroma still turns the sky. Each mixture mapped by BT.2390 on ICtCp intensity on the 100 cd/m² display and brought into its gamut three ways — clipped channel by channel, scaled until the largest drive is full, and by its ICtCp chroma alone at fixed intensity and hue — read as the change in CIECAM16 hue quadrature from the master's. The chroma-only return moves −16.8, −14.4, −12.6, −17.0, −9.2 units at no green to half green; scaled into gamut, −1.3, −1.6, −1.8, −1.6, −2.2.

    Lowering only the chroma turns the sky white and its hue with it

    A tone curve applied to ICtCp's intensity keeps a high-dynamic-range sky's hue, but a saturated blue's intensity lies under the curve's knee, so the colour it asks for lies outside every display's gamut. The prediction was that bringing it back by lowering its chroma alone — intensity and ICtCp hue held — keeps the CIECAM16 hue within three units, lifts the lightness by ten and halves the chroma: a paler blue of the right hue. The ICtCp hue and intensity are kept to a hundredth. Everything else fails. The chroma must fall to a fifth or less on a 100 cd/m² display, the sky rises from a lightness of 22 to 76 and higher, and its hue quadrature moves eight to seventeen units toward green — a pure blue's by 17. Holding ICtCp's hue while lowering chroma does not hold the hue a viewer sees, and the intensity the curve chose was never a blue's.

    part 43 · matching
  72. Holding the true hue saves one or two units of seventeen. Each mixture's CAM16-UCS distance from the master on the 100 cd/m² display: mapped on intensity and returned by ICtCp chroma, returned along CIECAM16's hue at the same lightness, scaled into the gamut, and the master's drives shown unmapped. The CIECAM16 return lies 16.7, 17.2, 17.3, 16.8, 15.7 from the master, against 18.9, 18.7, 18.5, 17.6, 16.8 for ICtCp's; the master's own drives 4.14, 4.10, 4.07, 4.02, 4.05.

    The sky a dim display can show best is the master's own

    A tone curve applied to ICtCp's intensity maps a saturated high-dynamic-range sky to a colour no display can show, and bringing it back by lowering only its ICtCp chroma turns it pale and toward green. The prediction was that a return along CIECAM16's own hue line, at the lightness the curve chose, holds the hue by construction, needs a deeper chroma cut, and still lies at least twice as far from the master as simply scaling the drives. It holds the hue to a hundredth, keeps more chroma than ICtCp's return rather than less, and lies two and a half to four times as far as scaling — because holding the true hue removes only one or two of seventeen units of difference. The rest is the lightness the curve held. And the nearest a dimmer display can come to the master's appearance turns out to be the master's drives, shown unmapped.

    part 44 · matching

All series