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

The thread: Computed, not quoted — page 12

Every swatch begins as a spectral power distribution and is carried through the colour-matching functions as it is drawn. None is a hex code recalled from a table.
Which steps of the census ranking a change of unit reverses. Every adjacent pair in the published census ranking that at least one unit puts the other way round. The bar counts how many of the five other units reverse it. The marker on the left says whether the test set had already declared the pair unresolved — a gap smaller than twice its own paired standard error, which is a statement about sampling over 125 surfaces and shares no arithmetic with a change of ruler. The two pairs every unit reverses are both flagged, which is the agreement. The pair at the bottom is the disagreement: the test set resolves it at 9.1 standard errors and four of the five units reverse it anyway, because a sampling error cannot see a change of ruler and a change of ruler cannot see a sampling error. Where the model breaks

Two instruments and one ranking

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

 Where on the scale the units disagree. The reference pairs split into bands by how far apart they are in ΔE2000, with each unit's root-mean-square relative departure from the published one plotted per band. Every unit is calibrated once, over the whole sample, so a band is not refitted and the shape is the effect rather than an artefact of fitting. Every one of the five falls: the disagreement is proportionally largest on the pairs that are closest together, which is the opposite of what being fitted to threshold data would suggest. The appearance unit is the extreme case, at 91 per cent on the narrowest band and 17 on the widest, because CAM16-UCS raises its distance to the power 0.63 and a power below one inflates small differences against large ones. In absolute terms every curve here runs the other way — the widest band disagrees by 1.16 to 2.37 ΔE₀₀-equivalent against 0.14 to 0.68 on the narrowest — so which reading is right depends on whether the published quantity is a level or a ratio. This is the mechanism behind the census's own behaviour, where the mildest rows spread furthest across the menu. Difference and uniformity

The disagreement is at the near end

Every colour-difference formula on the menu was fitted to threshold data, so the expectation is that they agree about pairs an observer can only just tell apart and diverge on large differences. They do the opposite. Proportionally the disagreement is largest at the near end, by a factor of six for the appearance unit, and the cause is an exponent of 0.63.

 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. Matching and measuring

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.

 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. Matching and measuring

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.

 Pairs built to sit exactly on a ΔE2000 tolerance, read in every other unit. Twenty-four pairs of surfaces, each constructed by walking one member along a fixed direction until the difference is exactly 1.0 ΔE2000 under D65. The bar spans what those same pairs read in each unit, after calibration, with the tick at the mean. ΔE2000's own row is a point at 1.0 by construction. Every other unit spreads them: ΔE*uv reads them from 0.69 to 1.75, so a contract written at "one unit" accepts and rejects a different set of deliveries depending on which unit it means. CAM16-UCS rejects all twenty-four: it reads the closest of them at 1.43. What it takes to deliver it

A tolerance is a boundary through pairs

Twenty-four pairs of surfaces built to sit exactly on a ΔE2000 tolerance of one read from 0.69 to 1.93 in the other five units. A contract quoting "one unit" without naming the formula does not become slightly wrong in another; it accepts and rejects a different set of deliveries, and in one case rejects every single one.

 Two sensitivities from two libraries, under every unit. Two quantities that share no code, no test set and no physical question: how much the adaptation census's residual depends on how saturated its surfaces are, and how much a camera profile's reported error depends on how saturated its test chart is. The first is a mean over fourteen changes of light built from cosine combinations; the second is one number about one silicon sensor scored on Gaussian bumps. Under the published unit they sit at 0.687 and 0.656. Across the whole menu they move together, from about 0.5 under the appearance unit to about 1.15 under plain CIELAB, staying within 12 per cent of each other at the worst point. Two numbers agreeing once is a coincidence; two curves agreeing at six points across a factor of two and a half is a shared mechanism, and the mechanism is the compression the unit applies to a chroma difference. What a camera does

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 camera matrix refitted to minimise each unit, rather than solved in XYZ. Every camera profile here, and as far as can be told every camera profile anybody ships, is a linear least-squares solve in XYZ. That is an objective and it is on nobody's menu: it weights a difference by how large the tristimulus values are. Each row here refits the same 3×3 by direct search to minimise one of the six units instead. The upper bar is how much better the fit gets in that unit; the lower is how far the matrix itself moves, as a relative Frobenius norm. Both matter and they do not agree: CAM16-UCS moves the matrix least, at 0.34 per cent, for the largest improvement of the six, while ΔE*94 moves it 6.8 times as far for less. A score that changes is a report changing; a matrix that changes is the camera rendering different pixels. What a camera does

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.

 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. What the brain does

A model judged in another model's unit

An appearance shift is a change in what an observer would report, not a change in a stimulus, so measuring one with a matching difference means first asking what stimulus a settled observer would need to be shown to give the same report. That step is not bookkeeping — it is the whole distinction the field rests on, and it costs a factor of 1.7 across the menu.

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

Three numbers the scene supplies

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

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

A partial correction is worth its fraction

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

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

A model is a claim about what can be known

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

 How far this site's median observer sits from the 1931 standard, by template. Twenty-four natural reflectances under D65, each given a tristimulus value twice: once by the 1931 colour-matching functions and once by this site's median member, with each judged against its own white. The bar is the mean difference, which is the residual this collection bounds and calls inescapable. It is inescapable, and it is smallest for the simpler template: Lamb's 1995 nomogram gives 0.9006 against Govardovskii's 0.9522, and removing Govardovskii's secondary band brings it down again to 0.9354. Neither is an argument for changing template — a nomogram is fitted to measurements of individual receptors, not to colour matches, so agreement with the standard observer is not what either was trying to achieve. What it says is that the residual is a mismatch between two kinds of observer rather than a shortfall a better pigment model would close. The number after each bar is the template's tail ratio: how far the L cone's half-maximum reaches below its peak against how far it reaches above. What the eye does

The population rests on a template

Two hundred observers here are built from one formula fitted to microspectrophotometry in 2000. The obvious alternative — the tabulated cone fundamentals — is not available, and the reason is the finding. A tabulated fundamental has no peak wavelength to move, so the moment it is used the population collapses to a single observer.

 A template's asymmetry against what its observer costs. The horizontal axis is the tail ratio of the L cone's pigment absorbance — how far the curve reaches below its peak at half maximum against how far it reaches above — and the vertical is how far the observer built from that template sits from the 1931 standard. A real visual pigment has a long short-wavelength tail, so the three curves derived from a published nomogram sit above 1.1 and the two Gaussians sit below. The four are matched in width, so nothing here is about size. The ordering is the point: the two caricatures cost between two and four times what either nomogram does, and the axis they are separated on is the one feature the caricatures do not have. What the eye does

A template is mostly its tail

Four pigment templates matched to the same width at the same peak, differing only in which side of the peak their half-maximum reaches further. Ordered by that one number, the observers they build are ordered by how far they sit from the standard one — and the two with the tail on the wrong side cost two and four times what either real nomogram costs.

 The secondary band, dialled from nothing to twice what Govardovskii published. Govardovskii's template has a second, smaller absorption band below 400 nm, published at 0.26 of the α-band's peak. It is the one coefficient in the whole template whose contribution is somewhere else in the spectrum than the peak, and it is the part of the template a reader is least likely to have heard of. Sweeping it from nothing to twice the published value moves the median observer's distance from the 1931 standard from 0.9354 to 0.9790 ΔE₀₀, monotonically upwards. That is a small effect — about a fiftieth of the residual — and its being monotone is the interesting part: there is no interior optimum, so nothing here recommends the published value over any other, and a coefficient whose measured value is not the one that best fits an unrelated agreement is a coefficient to leave where the measurement put it. What the eye does

The band below four hundred

The pigment template every observer here is built from carries a second, smaller absorption band in the ultraviolet, published at 0.26 of the main one. Dialling it from nothing to twice that moves the median observer monotonically away from the standard one, with no interior optimum — which is what a physical constant looks like when nothing downstream is pulling it anywhere.

 Every figure a surround dial would apply to, weighed. The eleven generators in the appearance family, by the size of the drawing each emits — which is what a dial multiplies, because every frame carries the figure's whole body. The dashed rules are the thresholds the dial policy here is written in: under 3 KB gets thirteen stops, under 6 gets nine, under 10 gets seven, and above about 12 KB nothing gets a dial at all. The median body here is 2.25 KB and 4 of the eleven are inside the most generous tier, against a policy written when the distribution had a median of 4.0 KB. Two phases deferred a surround dial on the grounds that appearance swatches are not small. The exception is unique-hues at 14.1 KB, which is over the ceiling that says it should have no dial — and it has one, on chroma, declared in the same file as the ceiling. What it takes to deliver it

A dial has a price

Two rounds declined to give the appearance model's surround a continuous control, both times because the frames would be too heavy, and neither time was the weight taken. It is 2.25 kilobytes at the median — the light end of these figures rather than the heavy end — and one figure is already breaking the rule the deferral was made under.

 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. Where the model breaks

Three choices reached

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

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

The model has six arguments

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

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

Either factor being zero

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

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

A surface has a kernel

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

 The share of a sample's reflectance an aperture recovers, by how wide it is. Six materials, and the fraction of each one's true reflectance that a measurement recovers through an aperture of the stated radius. The horizontal axis is logarithmic in millimetres; the vertical is a share, so 1.0 is the whole of it. The dashed line is a 4-millimetre radius, which is about what a hand-held spectrophotometer has. At that aperture coated paper reads 98 per cent of its own reflectance and candle wax reads 48. Every curve approaches one from below and none of them reaches it: the kernel's tail is what is being cut, and it falls as one over the aperture rather than exponentially. What it takes to deliver it

An aperture is a filter

A measuring aperture throws away the light that came back outside it, and the light that comes back furthest is the light at the wavelengths the sample absorbs least. So an aperture does not attenuate a translucent sample evenly — it attenuates its peaks more than its troughs, which is a filter whose transmission curve the sample itself decides.

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

The hue the hole decides

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

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

A room is not a sphere

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

 The share of a sample's reflectance an aperture recovers, by how wide it is. Six materials, and the fraction of each one's true reflectance that a measurement recovers through an aperture of the stated radius. The horizontal axis is logarithmic in millimetres; the vertical is a share, so 1.0 is the whole of it. The dashed line is a 8-millimetre radius, which is about what a hand-held spectrophotometer has. At that aperture coated paper reads 99 per cent of its own reflectance and candle wax reads 66. Every curve approaches one from below and none of them reaches it: the kernel's tail is what is being cut, and it falls as one over the aperture rather than exponentially. What it takes to deliver it

Either disc can be the wide one

Every standard on translucent samples says to illuminate a larger area than is measured, and explains it by saying that light leaks out of the lit spot. That is true and it is not the reason, because the instruction works equally well the other way round — measuring a larger area than is lit gives a reading just as exact. The error is a product of two apertures and either one being wide kills it.

 What the interface does to a reflectance, and the straight line it is taken for. The Saunderson relation between the reflectance inside a pigment layer and the reflectance an instrument reads off it, for a boundary of refractive index 1.50. The curve is the real map; the dashed line joins its two endpoints, which is the straight relation an additive pedestal assumes. They are 0.216 of a reflectance unit apart at their widest, which is 5 times the pedestal itself. The curvature comes from the k₂ term — light reflected back down into the layer from underneath the boundary — which is 0.60 where the outward reflection is 0.04. What a scene does

A mixture in the variable nobody named

Kubelka–Munk works because absorption and scattering add over a mixture and reflectance does not. What adds is the absorption of the pigment layer, and what an instrument reports is that layer seen through an interface — related by a Möbius function rather than by a constant. Mixing in the reported variable instead of the internal one costs between three and eight ΔE₀₀, and no source this collection quotes says which variable its curves are in.

463 essays on this thread, page 12 of 20 · all threads · all essays