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

The thread: Computed, not quoted — page 7

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.
A corner moves the spectrum and the viewing condition at once. A coloured patch in a corner of coloured walls, against how enclosed the corner is. The top curve is what a colorimeter set up at the door reports: light that has bounced carries the surrounding reflectance again, so the patch is lit by something the room is not. The middle curve is what is left once the patch is read against the corner's own white — most of it goes, because a corner is a change of illuminant and that is what chromatic adaptation is for. The bottom curve is the other thing a corner is: a brighter place, 1.76 times the light, which moves the appearance through the Hunt effect with the white point held still and cannot be adapted away at all. What a scene does

A corner moves both terms

The interreflection essays compute what a corner does to a spectrum, which is one of the two things a corner does. It is also a brighter place with a differently coloured background — a viewing condition, not a stimulus — and adaptation removes most of the first and none of the second. At an enclosure of six tenths that is 63 per cent of seven units gone and a further unit arriving from the extra light alone.

 Every claim here that was computed with one model, recomputed with two. Each row is a claim one of these essays makes. The bar is how many times the two-model answer differs from the one-model answer, on a logarithmic scale. 3 of 13 have no bar at all: the first model's answer for them is exactly zero, not because it computed zero but because it has no variable for the quantity. Those are the rows where a second model did not correct an answer — it supplied one. Where the model breaks

What a second model changed

Thirteen claims here, each computed with one model and recomputed with two. Ten of them move by half again or more. Three of them do not move at all in the ordinary sense — the first model's answer is exactly zero, not because it computed zero but because it has no variable for the quantity — and every one of those three is a join that supplied a state or a device rather than a spread.

 Every change of light this site models, and how much of it a gain removes. Each row is a change of illumination. The pale bar is how far it moves an ordinary surface for an observer who does not adapt; the solid bar at its left end is what is left after the observer has applied the one gain adaptation gives them, which is the ratio of the two whites in the CAT16 basis and is not fitted to anything. Sorted by the fraction left rather than by the size of the change, because the two orderings are different: the largest change here is removed almost entirely and the worst row is a change less than a third its size. Where the model breaks

What no adaptation can remove

A change of light is exactly a 3×3 matrix on tristimulus values, and adaptation is a diagonal one. Putting every change of illumination this site models through that distinction sorts them by how much of themselves they leave behind, and the smallest residual in the census belongs to a filter inside the eye.

 Every published adaptation transform, and one computed from daylight, on every change. What each basis leaves an adapted observer with, row by row. Darker is worse. The last column is not a published transform: it is the basis in which a change from D65 to D50 is exactly diagonal, computed in closed form from the two spectra with nothing fitted. It is far the best on the daylight rows and it is beaten on the discharge lamps, which is the trade the published transforms are sitting in — they were fitted to data containing both kinds of light and are therefore optimal for neither. Over the census as a whole the winner is Bradford at ΔE00 1.14. What the brain does

A gain needs a basis

Adaptation scales three signals, and which three is a choice. The basis in which a change from D65 to D50 is exactly diagonal can be computed in closed form from the two spectra, it beats every published transform on daylight by a factor of five, and it loses to all of them on a fluorescent tube.

 The same census, sorted by where the change of light came from. Each row is a change of illumination. The pale bar is how far it moves an ordinary surface for an observer who does not adapt; the solid bar at its left end is what is left after the observer has applied the one gain adaptation gives them, which is the ratio of the two whites in the CAT16 basis and is not fitted to anything. Sorted by where the change came from. The two kinds of light that existed before electricity sit at the top and leave the smallest share of themselves behind; the discharge lamps are worse, and the worst of them is d65 to a triphosphor tube at 33 per cent. What light is

Which lamp changes are free

The changes of light that existed before electricity commute with one another to a couple of parts in a thousand, so one set of axes handles all of them. The lights the lighting industry invented do not, and the worst pair in the census is seventy-six times further from commuting than the best.

 The same wall, applied once and applied twice. A room lit by light that has bounced off its own walls is a change of illumination like any other, and a corner is the same change applied twice. Squaring a reflectance sharpens it, a sharper change of light is further from being a gain, and the residual an adapted observer is left with therefore grows faster than the change does: the second bounce is 1.33 times the change and 1.96 times the residual. This is the adaptation half of what a corner does to a metameric match. What a scene does

The same wall applied twice

A bounce off a painted wall is a change of illumination, and adaptation handles it about as well as it handles a change of colour temperature. A corner applies the same reflectance twice, which sharpens it — and leaves an adapted observer with 1.96 times as much for a change only 1.33 times as large.

 The share of itself each change leaves behind, and the smallest is inside the eye. The residual as a fraction of the change rather than as a colour difference, which sorts the census differently. At the top is the macular pigment — the filter in front of the central few degrees of one's own retina — leaving 2.4 per cent of itself. It is a fixed transmittance multiplying the light and the white together, which is as close to a pure gain as anything here gets, and it is why nobody notices they have one. What the eye does

The filters inside the eye

The macular pigment leaves 2.4 per cent of itself after adaptation — the smallest share of anything in this site's census of light changes, and less than half the next smallest. Fifty years of lens yellowing leaves 7.9 per cent, and the difference between the two says what a gain is actually good at.

 The basis a camera balances in is a different basis for every light. A camera's white balance is a per-channel gain on raw values, which is a von Kries adaptation in whatever basis the filter dyes give it. That basis is not a property of the dyes alone: it is the dyes and the light in the room, and it moves when the light does. Each bar is how far the basis has turned, in degrees, from where it sits under D65. A sensor satisfying the Luther condition would have a bar of exactly zero on every row, because for such a sensor the light cancels — which is the one property nobody buys a sensor for. What a camera does

A camera balances in another basis

White balance is a per-channel gain on raw values, which makes it a von Kries adaptation in whatever axes the filter dyes happen to give. Those axes are not a property of the dyes alone — they move with the light, by up to seventeen degrees across the adaptation census — and the sensor for which they would not move is the one that adapts worst of all.

 Media-relative colorimetry is a von Kries adaptation in the worst basis there is. Changing the paper is a change of the light reaching the reader, and the rule colour management uses for it — divide the tristimulus values by the substrate's — is a gain applied in XYZ. That is the one transform the table here describes as the oldest mistake still shipping. On the three stocks a press actually uses the penalty is real and small, because a sheet of paper-mill white is the smoothest change of light in the census. On blue it is 10.2 times the residual the same rule would leave in a cone basis. What it takes to deliver it

Dividing by the paper

Media-relative colorimetry divides tristimulus values by the substrate's, which is a von Kries adaptation applied in XYZ — the one basis the table here describes as the oldest mistake still shipping. On a paper-mill white it costs a few hundredths of a unit. On a tinted sheet it costs ten times what the same rule costs in a cone basis.

 A tolerance of one unit, re-measured under every light in the census. Every one of the 23 pairs behind this figure is at exactly ΔE00 1.000 under D65 by construction. Each bar is what those same pairs measure under another light, after the observer has adapted to it: the line is the median and the bar spans the pairs. A tolerance is written as a property of a pair and it is not one — the light multiplies both members, and the difference between two products is not the product of the difference. The widest row is a lens at twenty against a lens at seventy, spanning 0.81 to 1.57. Difference and uniformity

One unit in another room

Twenty-three pairs built at exactly ΔE00 1.000 under D65, re-measured under every change of light this site models with the observer adapted to each, come out anywhere between 0.64 and 1.57. A tolerance is written as a property of a pair and it is a property of a pair and a room.

 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. Matching and measuring

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.

 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. Matching and measuring

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.

 A sample with two reflectance curves, and neither below one. The apparent reflectance of an optically brightened sample, measured under D65 and A. It exceeds 1 — the shaded band — which no reflector can do: more light leaves at these wavelengths than arrives at them, because the sample absorbs in the violet and re-emits in the blue. And the two curves differ, so the sample has no single reflectance to store. The effect drawn here is a floor: most of the excitation band lies below 380 nm, outside the range computed here. What a scene does

A surface that is not a multiplication

Every argument here about what light does to a surface begins by multiplying two spectra together. A surface with a brightener in it takes light at one wavelength and returns it at another, so it is a full operator rather than a diagonal one — and it does not have a reflectance at all.

 A stabilised grating fades at a rate that depends on which way its bars run. What is left of a 0.3 cycle-per-degree grating, in multiples of its own threshold, as a function of its orientation, at four moments after the image was stabilised on the retina. The first curve is flat to floating point: at the instant the pattern arrives, orientation does not matter, because the filter that carries it has no orientation preference at this frequency. The anisotropy arrives with the fading, reaching ×2.09 after five minutes, and a pool with no axis predicts none of it. What the eye does

A fading pool has a shape

Giving the local adaptation pool two axes instead of one costs a single parameter and produces a prediction the circular version cannot make — a stabilised grating fades at a rate that depends on which way its bars run. The obvious objection is the oblique effect, and the two act in bands that do not overlap.

 Three ways to dim a lamp, and only one of them is free. What an adapted observer is left with, as the same lamp is taken down to one per cent by each of the three methods. Duty-cycle dimming lies exactly on zero at every depth: it scales the spectrum, a scaling is a gain in every basis, and adaptation removes all of it. Current dimming moves the pump and the phosphor apart and leaves 0.15 at a tenth. A filament follows the Planckian locus, which is the largest chromaticity change of the three and leaves 3.63 — the ordering by chromaticity and the ordering by what a person sees are not the same ordering. What light is

Only one dimmer is invisible

An earlier essay separated the three ways to dim a lamp by the chromaticity each arrives at. Asked instead what an adapted observer is left with, the ordering is different and one method comes out at exactly zero — a duty cycle is a scaling, a scaling is a gain in every basis, and adaptation removes all of it at every depth.

 Four devices, and what each of them can do about a change of light. The mean over the census of what each device is left with. A press has no mechanism, so its number is the whole change — a printed sheet does not adapt to the room it is read in. A display can move its white point, which is a gain in its own primaries. A camera applies a gain in whatever basis its filter dyes happen to give it. And the sensor that satisfies the Luther condition exactly is worse than the silicon one — satisfying the condition means its channels are the matching functions, and a per-channel gain on the matching functions is the transform this site calls the oldest mistake still shipping. Where the model breaks

Only one of these devices adapts

An eye, a camera, a display and a press all meet the same changes of light, and each has at most one thing it can do about them. The press has nothing at all, so its column is the whole change; and this collection's sensor built to satisfy the Luther condition exactly is the one that adapts worst.

 Six functions of wavelength, and the six different places they stop. Every table this collection integrates against, drawn over the range the body that published it defined it on. The scale is logarithmic so that the ultraviolet and the near infrared both fit. The bottom row is the range used here before the infrared band was added, and it is the intersection of the two rows that matter for an eye looking at a reflector — which is the right answer only while everything in the integral is being multiplied together. The daylight basis runs 80 nanometres further down than that intersection, and it was published that way because the ultraviolet in daylight is what makes a brightened sheet of paper glow. The analytic row is drawn to the edge of the plot because it has no edge: Planck's law is a formula and is exact at every wavelength, which is why illuminant A needs no table at all. What light is

The tables do not stop together

This collection integrates from 380 to 780 nanometres, and decided once, in writing, that the range could not honestly be widened. The argument was correct at the long end and wrong at the short one — the CIE publishes the daylight basis from 300 nanometres, and publishes it from there for exactly the reason it matters.

 A fluorescent sample is a matrix, and a reflectance is only its diagonal. The Donaldson matrix of a brightened sheet: how much light leaves at each wavelength for light arriving at each wavelength. A reflecting surface has entries on the diagonal and nowhere else, which is exactly the statement that light leaving at 440 nanometres arrived at 440. The block off the diagonal is the fluorophore — it takes light between about 305 and 420 nanometres and returns it between 400 and 500, wherever in that band it was absorbed, which is why the block is a rectangle rather than a smear along the diagonal. A spectrophotometer that reports a reflectance is reporting the diagonal and folding the block into it at whatever weight its own lamp happened to give. What light is

A reflectance is a diagonal

A reflecting surface returns light at the wavelength it arrived at, so its whole description is one number per wavelength. A fluorescent one returns it somewhere else, so its description is a square matrix — and the curve every instrument reports is that matrix's diagonal with the rest of it folded in at whatever weight the lamp happened to give.

 What reaches the retina, and why the observer's table stops at 360 nanometres. The transmittance of the eye's own optics across the short-wave band, at three ages, with the brightener's absorption shaded underneath. The upper curve is an eye whose lens has been removed — the cornea alone, opaque below about 295 nanometres and transparent above it. The photopigments absorb perfectly well in this band; what stops the light is a piece of optics in front of them, which is why the short-wave limit of colour vision moves with age and can be removed surgically. A twenty-year-old receives 21 times as much of the band a brightener works in as a seventy-year-old does. What the eye does

The eye stops at the lens

Neither standard observer is tabulated below 360 nanometres, and the reason is not that the photopigments stop absorbing there. It is that the light never arrives — the cornea and the crystalline lens take it — so the short-wave limit of human colour vision is a piece of optics, it moves by a factor of twenty across a lifetime, and it can be surgically removed.

 A radiance factor, split into the part that was reflected and the part that was not. The two components of what leaves a heavily brightened sheet under M₁ — D50 including its ultraviolet. The lower band is the reflected component, which is what a reflectance curve means and is everything a reflectance-based model can hold. The band above it is light emitted at wavelengths it did not arrive at, and its total is decided by how much ultraviolet the source had rather than by anything about the sheet's colour. The line at one is the boundary a reflecting surface cannot cross; the sum reaches 1.21 at 430 nanometres. Matching and measuring

The eye weights where the light is not

A brightened sheet returns a quarter more light than arrives at 430 nanometres, and it is three tenths of one per cent brighter for it. The luminous efficiency function is 0.017 there against 1.0 in the middle of the band, so the whole effect lands in the blue-yellow axis — brighter than white is a colour claim wearing a brightness word.

 Two sheets with the same reflectance and two different colours. A brightened sheet and a dyed one built to match it under an instrument with no ultraviolet. Under that instrument the pair agrees to ΔE00 0.00, which is a rounding and is true by construction — the dyed sheet's reflectance is the curve the brightened one measured. Under an instrument that includes the ultraviolet they are 7.1 apart, and under daylight 10.6. This is not ordinary metamerism: the two sheets do not differ in reflectance anywhere the eye can see, so no change of light puts them back together and no adaptation removes the difference. One of them is a curve and the other is an operator. What a scene does

Two sheets that match until the window

Ordinary metamerism is two reflectances that agree under one light and not another, and it can always be undone by putting the first light back. A dyed sheet and a brightened one have the same reflectance everywhere an eye can see, agree exactly under any lamp with no ultraviolet, and separate by ten units under daylight — and no change of light puts them back together.

 What a sheet of glass takes out of the band a brightener eats. The transmittance of four glazings across the short-wave band, with the brightener's own absorption shaded underneath. The overlap between a curve and the shading is what the sheet behind that glass has to work with. Ordinary window glass stops below about 310 nanometres and leaves most of the band; laminated glass has a plastic interlayer that was put there to hold the sheet together in a crash and happens to absorb almost to 380; a filter sold to protect a print removes the band entirely. The curves are logistic edges at stated wavelengths rather than measurements of particular products. What a scene does

The window is part of the light

A viewing condition here has always been a spectrum and a geometry. For anything fluorescent it needs a third thing — the transmittance of whatever the daylight came through — because ordinary window glass, a laminated windscreen and a museum filter remove three quite different parts of the band a brightener eats, and the sheet is a different colour behind each.

 Six sheets, four standard measurement conditions, and every pair of them. How far apart two measurement conditions put the same sample. Darker is further. The top row has no brightener in it and every pair agrees to within a unit except the ones involving M₃, whose difference is cross-polarisation removing the interface reflection and is a change of geometry rather than of spectrum. Every row below it disagrees, and the M₁ against M₂ column reaches ΔE00 7.7 — several times any tolerance a printer would accept, on one sheet measured twice by two instruments that are both working correctly. The numbers under the columns are the means. What it takes to deliver it

An instrument brings its own light

ISO 13655 names four measurement conditions and they are usually read as four degrees of care. They are not. They are four different quantities — on an unbrightened sheet all four agree to a rounding, and on a brightened one they are up to seven and a half units apart, with every instrument in calibration and every answer correct.

 What a proof on an unbrightened sheet cannot reach. The paper white of a heavily brightened stock beside the paper white of an unbrightened one, both under an ultraviolet-included instrument. They are ΔE00 9.8 apart and 10.3 of that is in the blue-yellow axis. A proofing system on the unbrightened sheet can print towards the brightened one only by adding ink, which makes the paper darker rather than bluer; it cannot add light at 435 nanometres because it has no brightener and its own lamp is the one in the room. This is why a soft proof and a hard proof of the same job disagree about the white, and why the disagreement is in one direction. What it takes to deliver it

A proof cannot glow

A proof is a different sheet of paper pretending to be the production one, and the pretence works by adding ink until the two agree. It cannot work for a brightened stock, because the direction the proof has to travel is towards more blue at the same lightness and every ink a proofer owns moves it towards less light instead.

463 essays on this thread, page 7 of 20 · all threads · all essays