Theme

The thread: Computed, not quoted — page 14

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.

The conditions under which an observer's departure is exactly zero. A departure of the observer is the pairing of something belonging to the observer with something belonging to the stimulus, so emptying either factor empties the product. The axis is logarithmic in what is left when the condition is imposed. Six rows empty the stimulus's factor — a perfectly neutral sample is the same colour for every observer, at any age and any field size — and two empty the observer's, since a gain on each cone and a change of basis are both absorbed exactly. All eight are identities rather than small numbers. The last two are the same two conditions imposed in a published cone space rather than in the observer's own, and they are worth eight and thirteen units: the identity is about the eye, and the arithmetic everybody uses is in somebody else's coordinates.

What the eye does

A neutral is everyone's colour

Two eyes differing by fifty years of lens yellowing, by a factor of three in macular pigment and by six nanometres of long-wavelength peak agree about a grey card to four parts in ten thousand billion. The agreement is an identity rather than a coincidence, and it says exactly what an observer disagreement is a disagreement about.

The three cone absorptances at two settings of the cone optical density. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of two standard deviations of the reported spread. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 18.8 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

What the eye does

A gain is not an observer

Multiply one eye's three cone sensitivities by 1.6, 0.7 and 2.4 and it is not a different eye. The white-point division is that multiplication's inverse, so the two agree exactly — and most of what a cone optical density change does is that multiplication, which is why the largest number in the table of individual variation is the one that matters least.

The arguments a standard observer does not have. Seven choices inside a set of colour-matching functions, each with the shape it takes and what it is worth in ΔE₀₀ on a red pigment under a 6500 K radiator. Six are measurements: a field size, an age, a macular density, a cone optical density, three peak wavelengths and a rod contribution. The seventh is not — a change of basis is a change of curves and not a change of observer, and its entry is exactly zero because the space an experiment measures is what an observer is. Printing that zero beside the others is the clearest statement of what the other six are measurements of.

What the eye does

Three curves for one space

Rotate a set of colour-matching functions by an arbitrary invertible matrix, undo the rotation at the end, and the computed colour is identical to eight parts in a thousand million million. An observer is a three-dimensional subspace, not a set of curves, and the literature keeps reopening a question that is a theorem.

What choosing a space to divide the white out in is worth. Three pairs of routes to the same colour, over forty-two surfaces: dividing the white out in tristimulus values, in a published cone space, and in the observer's own cones. The first two agree to 0.59 ΔE₀₀ at the median. Either of them differs from the observer's own cones by more than fifteen. That is why the two exact conditions in this round are exact only in the eye's own coordinates: the identity belongs to the receptors, and every published arithmetic works in a basis somebody else chose.

What the eye does

The identity is in the eye's own coordinates

Two conditions in this round are exact — a gain on each cone is not a different observer, and three curves for one space are one observer. Imposed in a published cone space rather than the eye's own they leave 13.0 and 8.11 ΔE₀₀ standing. The identities belong to the physiology and every arithmetic in use works somewhere else.

Every departure under every light. Six departures across six lights, each cell the difference between two observers in ΔE₀₀, drawn as a bar whose length is the number. The rows are not multiples of one another: the lens is worst under tungsten and the pigment peaks are worst under a three-emitter LED, because a departure is a pairing and which light is being paired with decides it. The laser projector's row is empty, and that is not a fact about lasers — on this collection's five-nanometre grid a three-line spectrum is a one-line spectrum, and a single wavelength is a stimulus every observer agrees about exactly.

What the eye does

The lens is worst under tungsten

An ageing lens costs 4.38 ΔE₀₀ under a tungsten lamp and 2.20 under a fluorescent tube. The pigment peaks cost 2.84 under a three-emitter LED and 1.87 under the same tube. Six departures across six lights do not form a single ordering, which is what a pairing looks like and what a dominant term would not.

A departure against how far the sample sits from the light. The sample is mixed with a flat reflectance, from the flat one at the left to its own at the right, and two observers differing in the macular pigment look at each mixture. The straight line is the distance between their relative cone excitations, and it is straight to 0.0 per cent: the departure is a pairing, and scaling one factor scales the product. The curved line is the same sequence in ΔE₀₀, which is not a linear function of the excitations and cannot be — it has cube roots in it and a chroma weighting underneath. The identity is about the eye; the curvature belongs to the unit.

Difference and uniformity

A departure is straight in the excitations

Walk a sample a quarter of the way from the light towards its own reflectance and exactly a quarter of the observer disagreement remains — in cone excitations, to two parts in a hundred. In ΔE₀₀ the same quarter leaves 0.347 where proportionality wants 0.428, and the discrepancy belongs entirely to the unit.

Each departure over forty-two surfaces rather than one. The same six departures measured over a family of forty-two analytic reflectances — an absorption band of stated centre, width and depth — with the smallest, the median, the ninety-fifth percentile and the largest marked. Every one of them spans more than a factor of three, and the ranking between them is not stable across the family: what decides a departure's size is which sample it is asked about, because a departure is a pairing and the sample is one of the two factors. Quoting any single number for what an observer's age is worth is quoting a choice of example.

What the eye does

The ranking is not stable

On a red pigment under daylight the six observer departures run from 2.38 down to 1.20 ΔE₀₀. Over forty-two surfaces two of them change places, the top two separate, and every one spans between a factor of ten and a factor of thirty-five. A chart of six bars is a chart of one example.

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 2.34 — 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.

Where the model breaks

The grid hid the observer

On this collection's five-nanometre grid a three-laser projector's observer disagreement is exactly zero. On a quarter-nanometre grid it is 2.34 ΔE₀₀ and the largest in the table. The two audits of this round meet here, and the first one does not compound with the second — it removes it.

Matching and measuring

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.

The three cone absorptances at two settings of the field size. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of the CIE's own second observer. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 16.0 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

What the eye does

A field size is two changes

The CIE publishes two standard observers and the difference between them is usually described as a field size. What actually differs is a macular pigment the light no longer passes through and a cone outer segment the light no longer travels the length of — two changes, in two places, with different signs and different sample dependence.

The three cone absorptances at two settings of the age of the lens. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of twenty years old against seventy. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 25.5 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

What the eye does

The observer has no age

Five of the six arguments in this round are spreads — a population differs about them and the mean is a reasonable summary. The lens is not. Everybody's lens yellows in the same direction at about the same rate, so a standard observer with no age is not an average over a population; it is a snapshot of one moment in every reader's life.

The three cone absorptances at two settings of the rods. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of a tenth of the cone response, which is a dim room. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 9.1 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

What the eye does

The rods are a fourth curve

Colorimetry has three numbers and a rod signal is a fourth. It cannot be absorbed by a gain, it cannot be removed by a white point, and adding a tenth of one to a three-curve observer costs 1.60 ΔE₀₀ — the narrowest distribution of the six departures, because an addition behaves quite differently from a filter.

The three cone absorptances at two settings of the macular pigment. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of two standard deviations of the reported spread. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 31.5 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

What the eye does

The macular is a band, not a filter

The lens absorbs everything below 500 nanometres with a long tail; the macular pigment absorbs forty nanometres either side of 460 and nothing else. The two have similar sizes and completely different distributions, and the reason is that one is broad and one is narrow — which is what decides whether a sample is affected at all.

The three cone absorptances at two settings of the pigment peaks. Solid and dashed are the same construction at the two ends of two standard deviations, and the L/M polymorphism on top. The curves are built from one pigment template through its ocular media, which is the same model its population of two hundred eyes is drawn from. The largest difference between the two sets is 8.9 per cent of the peak, and where it sits along the wavelength axis is what decides which stimuli the two observers disagree about — a departure concentrated in the blue is invisible on a sample with no blue in it.

What the eye does

The peaks move the flanks

Shifting a cone's peak wavelength by three nanometres changes its sensitivity at its own maximum by almost nothing and on its flanks by several per cent, because a maximum is flat and a flank is steep. Every display primary sits on a flank, which is why a pigment polymorphism is worth 3.60 ΔE₀₀ under a laser projector.

Where the model breaks

An observer is a contract

Six departures, all above a delivery tolerance, none dominant, and no reader matching the standard on any of them. That would be a demolition if the standard observer were a description of an eye. It is not — it is an agreement about what a number means, and an agreement is not falsified by being unlike anybody.

$What the Lambertian assumption costs a room, against how rough its walls are. The horizontal axis is the roughness of the two coloured walls; the right-hand end is nearly matt, which is what a radiosity calculation assumes. One line is the distance in ΔE₀₀ between the floor's colour and what radiosity gives for the same room — 4.89 at an eggshell finish, falling to 0.97 at the matt end. The other is the chroma of the bounce, which falls as the walls get glossier: what an interface returns is a Fresnel reflection and carries no pigment, so the fraction of the return that goes into the lobe is a fraction that arrives at the floor white. The lobe is taken out of the body term rather than added beside it, which is what a real finish does.$ What a scene does

The solver had no slot for gloss

Every scene result in this collection is computed by radiosity, and radiosity is not an approximation that could be made more accurate. Its unknown is one number per surface, and a surface that returns light differently in different directions does not have one. A missing slot cannot be wrong by a small amount.

The directional solver reduces to the radiosity solver exactly. A solver with a new unknown in it is worth nothing until it reproduces the one it replaces. Setting every wall's bidirectional distribution to ρ/π collapses all thirty ordered-pair radiances onto their patch's radiosity divided by π, and the answer agrees with this collection's existing radiosity solution to 9.8e-16 relative — the floating-point floor. That is the check that makes every other number in this family a statement about lobes rather than about a new piece of arithmetic, and it is the reason the reduction is drawn rather than mentioned.

What a scene does

Thirty unknowns instead of six

A directional transport solver is worth nothing until it reproduces the one it replaces. Setting every wall's bidirectional distribution to ρ over π collapses thirty ordered-pair radiances onto six radiosities and reproduces this collection's existing answer to 9.8 × 10⁻¹⁶ relative — which is the only reason anything else it says can be believed.

What the floor receives, matt walls against walls of roughness 0.2. The spectral radiance leaving the floor towards the front of the room, computed twice. The matt curve peaks at 530 nanometres, where the walls' pigment is. The glossy curve is higher everywhere and higher by relatively more away from that peak, because the extra light is a Fresnel return and a Fresnel return has the lamp's spectrum rather than the paint's. That difference in shape is the desaturation, drawn before it is reduced to a number, and it is the reason the two lines cannot be brought together by any exposure change.

What a scene does

A lobe takes colour out of a bounce

A gloss wall sends more light to the floor and less colour. The extra light is a Fresnel reflection at the interface, it carries the lamp's spectrum rather than the paint's, and it arrives at the next surface white — so a green room in satin paint is less green than the same room in flat paint by nearly a colour difference of chroma.

Where the viewer stands, at a wall roughness of 0.2. The chroma of the light the floor sends towards each of the five other faces of the room, at one roughness. The spread is 2.00 ΔE₀₀ between the extremes. A radiosity solution assigns one radiosity to the floor and therefore cannot have a spread at all — the whole width of this chart is a quantity the method has no slot for, rather than one it approximates badly. The two side walls see the most because they are where the coloured light comes from, and the direction the lobe favours is the direction it came from.

What a scene does

The floor is a different colour from the door

With a lobe on the walls the floor sends chroma 18.76 towards the front of the room and 20.94 towards the side walls, a spread of two colour differences. A radiosity solution assigns the floor one number, so the whole of that spread is a quantity the method has no slot for rather than one it estimates badly.

Two ways of putting a lobe on a wall, and the sign they disagree about. The chroma of the floor's return against the wall's roughness, computed twice. In one the interface's return is taken out of the body term — light reflected at the boundary never reaches the pigment, which is what a real finish does. In the other it is added beside the body term, which is what a microfacet model does if nobody couples the two. The first says a gloss wall makes the room less coloured and the second says more, and the gap at the glossiest end is 2.87 units of chroma. Neither is a numerical error; the difference is a modelling decision that is usually made by omission.

What a scene does

Two ways to put a lobe on a wall

Take the interface's return out of the body term and a gloss wall makes the room less colourful. Add it beside the body term and the same wall makes the room more colourful. Same solver, same room, one line of energy accounting, and the two answers differ by nearly three units of chroma at the glossy end.

Where a point-sampled patch stops resolving a lobe. The horizontal axis is the wall's roughness, logarithmic; the vertical is how far the answer moves when the cone quadrature is refined from eight directions to sixteen, also logarithmic. A patch in a cube subtends a cone of angular radius 25.8° at the face opposite, and a microfacet lobe of roughness a is about a radians wide, so a lobe below about 0.15 is narrower than the quadrature that samples it. The movement at 0.05 is 21.2 ΔE₀₀ and at 0.3 it is 0.033. This is where the method stops, not where the paint does: matt, eggshell and satin finishes are inside it and a high-gloss varnish is not.

Where the model breaks

Where a patch stops being a point

A patch in a cube subtends a cone of 25.8° at the face opposite. A microfacet lobe of roughness 0.05 is about three degrees wide. Point-sampling the second inside the first returned a chroma of thirty-four thousand and a negative lightness, and the boundary between working and not working is measured rather than declared.

$The lobe's share of what leaves a surface of body reflectance 0.5. For light arriving at 45°, the fraction of what leaves the surface that is the interface's Fresnel return rather than the pigment's. It runs from about 9.1 per cent at an eggshell finish down to 4.2 at a matt one. That is a small share, and it is the whole of the effect: a tenth of the return arriving white is enough to move the room's colour by units of ΔE₀₀, because the bounce is what a room's colour is made of and every bounce is multiplied by the next.$ What a scene does

A tenth of the return arriving white

Nine per cent of what leaves a satin wall is a Fresnel reflection carrying no pigment. That nine per cent moves the room's colour by 4.89 ΔE₀₀ and its chroma by five per cent, because an interreflection multiplies and a small contribution with a different spectrum compounds into a large one.

Every scene in this collection was matt

The green wall, the corner, the bounce series and the metamer separation are all computed on Lambertian surfaces, because the solver that produced them requires it. Each would move by between one and five colour differences on an ordinary satin finish, and none of those essays says what finish it means.

Difference and uniformity

A tolerance with an observer in it

A delivery tolerance is written in ΔE₀₀ against the 1931 observer, and six departures of that observer combine to about three of the same units on an ordinary saturated sample. A one-unit tolerance is being asked to contain a three-unit uncertainty that nothing in its budget mentions.

463 essays on this thread, page 14 of 20 · all threads · all essays