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

The thread: Matching is not appearance

CIE XYZ predicts when two lights will match 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.
Three colour-difference formulae, disagreeing. ΔE76, ΔE94 and ΔE2000 for the same 9 pairs of colours. The largest disagreement between ΔE76 and ΔE2000 here is 26.6 units — larger than the threshold usually quoted for a just-noticeable difference, so the choice of formula can decide whether two colours count as matching. Difference and uniformity

How far apart are two colours

ΔE is meant to be a distance with the property that the same number means the same perceived difference everywhere. Three successive formulae have tried, they disagree with each other by more than a just-noticeable difference, and the disagreement decides real matching questions.

 The CIE 1931 colour-matching functions. The three functions that turn a spectrum into three numbers. They are all positive, which is why XYZ exists — the RGB functions they were derived from are not. ȳ is by construction the luminous efficiency function, which is why luminance comes out of Y. Where the model breaks

Seventeen observers in 1931

The standard observer that governs every colour specification in industrial use is an average over seventeen young British men, measured with equipment from the 1920s. It is known to be wrong in the blue, the correction has existed since 1951, and it has never been adopted.

 Two identical grey patches on different surrounds. Both inner squares are #818181. 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. What the brain does

These two patches are identical

It is the most repeated and least checkable sentence in visual perception, because the whole point is that it does not look true. Every instance here is computed, and checked before the figure is drawn.

 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 and measuring

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.

 One palette under normal vision and three dichromacies. The same 7 colours simulated by the Brettel–Viénot–Mollon construction at severity 1.0. protanopia and deuteranopia collapse the red-green distinctions, and tritanopia leaves them and collapses blue against yellow instead. This shows which discriminations survive, not what anybody sees. Where the model breaks

Simulating what cannot be simulated

A colour-blindness simulation cannot show what anybody sees. What it can show is which discriminations survive, and that is a narrower claim, a checkable one, and the only one worth making.

 One reflectance, two illuminants, two colours. A reflectance peaking near 580 nm, and the colours it produces under D65 and A. The object has not changed. The light has, and colour is a property of the pair. What the brain does

Constancy is the default

A sheet of paper looks white in daylight and white under a tungsten lamp, although the light reaching the eye differs enormously. The visual system is solving one equation with two unknowns, and it solves it by assumption.

 One reflectance, two illuminants, two colours. A reflectance peaking near 610 nm, and the colours it produces under D65 and A. The object has not changed. The light has, and colour is a property of the pair. What light is

The illuminant is half the answer

An object has a reflectance, not a colour. The colour appears when a specified light falls on it, which is why two surfaces can match in a shop and clash outside, and why every serious matching standard names the light.

 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. Matching and measuring

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.

 One stimulus, three rooms, three appearances. The same XYZ in a dark, a dim and an average surround. The stimulus does not change and is drawn identically in all three panels; what changes is what CIECAM16 says it looks like. Predicted lightness runs from 65.6 to 57.5 — a spread of 8.1 — with chroma and colourfulness moving too. Colorimetry returns one answer here because it has nowhere to put the room. What the brain does

A viewing condition is an argument

An appearance model takes a stimulus and a situation. The second argument is not a refinement of the first — it is the content of the claim, and a model that returns an appearance from a colour alone has assumed a room without saying which.

 Colourfulness rises with light level; apparent contrast does not. Predicted colourfulness M for one stimulus across four decades of adapting luminance, and the exponent of the lightness curve over the same range. M rises by a factor of 2.24 — the Hunt effect, which the model does predict. The lightness exponent changes by -2.2%, and in the wrong direction — the Stevens effect, which it does not. What the brain does

Brighter looks more colourful

Colourfulness rises with light level and the model predicts it. Apparent contrast is supposed to rise too, and the model does not — which turns out to be right, because the thing that actually carries contrast is the surround.

 The four unique hues, and the axes they are said to define. A constant-lightness, constant-chroma ring in CIECAM16, with the four unique hue anchors marked and CIELAB's a and b axes drawn through the same circle. If a* really were the red-green axis the anchors would fall on the crosshairs. Unique red sits 25° off, and the four are not 90° apart in any case. Hatched sectors are hues this display cannot reach at this chroma. What the brain does

Why there are four unique hues

Observers agree that four hues are elementary and that no colour is reddish green. Nothing in the three receptors predicts either fact, and the axes of every standard colour space miss the four by tens of degrees.

 Three retinas of different composition, making identical colour matches. Seeded mosaics at L:M ratios of 1, 4, 16 to one — the range found between people, and a 16-fold difference in what the retina is made of. A colour match is the claim that two spectra produce equal excitation in all three cone classes, and changing how many of a class there are multiplies that class's excitation by a constant, which cannot disturb an equality. The relation between the two test spectra is identical to twelve decimal places across the whole sweep. Luminance, which is a weighted sum rather than an equality, moves by 1.33× over the same range. That asymmetry is why a standard observer exists and why V(λ) has a much larger between-observer variance than the colour-matching functions do. What the eye does

The mosaic is not the observer

The ratio of long-wavelength to medium-wavelength cones varies between ordinary people by a factor of sixteen. Those people make the same colour matches, to twelve decimal places, and that single fact is the reason a standard observer can exist at all.

 One stimulus, three rooms, three appearances. The same XYZ in a dark, a dim and an average surround. The stimulus does not change and is drawn identically in all three panels; what changes is what CIECAM16 says it looks like. Predicted lightness runs from 65.6 to 57.5 — a spread of 8.1 — with chroma and colourfulness moving too. Colorimetry returns one answer here because it has nowhere to put the room. What the brain does

A patch is not a scene

A paint chip is the wrong size, on the wrong background, at the wrong luminance, in the wrong surround. Every one of those is a term in an appearance model, and the model says how much each of them moves the answer — which is the difference between a caution and a prediction.

 A metameric match that a corner breaks. Two reflectances with identical XYZ under D65 — metamers, matching to ΔE00 = 5.4e-14, which is the numerical floor rather than an approximation. On a flat wall the light meets one of them once and the two patches are the same colour. In a corner, a fraction 0.200 of what leaves the surface returns to it, so part of what reaches the eye carries ρ twice — and the match fails by ΔE00 = 1.53. A metameric match is an identity between three integrals that are linear in ρ, and there is nothing linear left after a second bounce. The geometry, not the light and not the paint, is what breaks it. What a scene does

Two paints that stop matching

A metameric match is an identity between three integrals that are linear in reflectance. A second bounce carries reflectance squared, and no linear identity survives being squared — so two paints certified identical on a flat chart come apart in a corner, by an amount the geometry decides and the colorimetry cannot express.

 A glossy surface returns two spectra, and only one of them is the paint. The dichromatic reflection model, computed rather than assumed. Light that enters a dielectric binder, scatters off pigment and comes back carries the reflectance — the body component, ΔE00 = 33.7 from the lamp. Light reflected at the interface never entered, so it carries the lamp's spectrum with only Fresnel's slight dispersion on it: ΔE00 = 1.14. The interface term is computed from Fresnel's equations on a Cauchy index at 45°, so its near-neutrality is a result here rather than an assumption. This is why a highlight is the one region of a photograph that tells a white balancer what the light was, and why removing highlights removes the evidence. What a scene does

Gloss changes the measurement

The same sample measured with the specular component included and excluded returns two different numbers, and both are correct answers to different questions. Colour is one of four appearance attributes and the only one most instruments report — so a specification that names a colour has silently named a geometry too, and usually does not say which.

 One reflectance, four different infrared tails, and what the camera makes of each. The same visible reflectance continued past 780 nm to four different near-infrared values. A spectrophotometer reports only the left-hand part; an unfiltered sensor integrates all of it. The channel spread falls from 0.14 at a tail of 0.05 to 0.02 at 0.85, with nothing about the visible half changed. What a camera does

Most things are pale in the infrared

A spectrophotometer stops at 780 nanometres and a black cotton shirt reflecting five per cent of visible light reflects more than half the near infrared. The measurement everybody has and the quantity a camera integrates are different quantities, and nothing in the first says so.

 A silicon sensor's best possible impersonation of the standard observer. The 1931 matching functions in outline, and the closest linear combination of the sensor's three sensitivities laid over them; underneath, what is left over at each wavelength. The residual is 31.7 per cent of the matching functions' own magnitude, worst at 440 nm. Colour reproduction is exact if and only if this is zero. What a camera does

Luther said when it would work

There is an exact condition under which a fixed three-by-three matrix converts camera raw to XYZ correctly for every spectrum in existence. It was stated in 1927, it is a theorem rather than a guideline, and no camera ever built satisfies it.

 Two reflectances the camera records as identical. Constructed by projecting onto the null space of the sensor's own sensitivities, so the two raw triples agree to 0.0000 per cent. To the eye they are ΔE00 15.33 apart, which the swatches show. What a camera does

The camera has its own metamers

Two surfaces a camera records as identical can be plainly different to a person, and two a person cannot tell apart can be recorded as different. Both pairs are constructed rather than found, from one projection, used for both.

 Recovering the lamp from a highlight rather than from an assumption. A green scene under illuminant A. The faint curve is the true lamp; the solid one is what the interface component of the glossy surfaces recovers, which is 0.30° from it. Grey-world on the same scene is 42.1° and max-RGB 17.5°, because both are assumptions about the surfaces and a Fresnel reflection is not. What a camera does

The highlight is the white balance

Every estimator a camera uses is an assumption about the scene wearing the costume of a measurement. The specular component of a glossy surface is not — it carries the illuminant to within a third of a degree on a scene where averaging is fifty times worse, and it does so without knowing what colour the paint underneath is.

 A camera's spectral sensitivities, with the filter removed. Silicon quantum efficiency times the colour-filter dye times nothing else, per channel, on a grid running to 1100 nm rather than to 780. With the filter removed, 68 per cent of the area under the three curves lies beyond the visible band, and all three curves are the same curve out there. What a camera does

The grid outside every figure

Every figure here is computed on 380 to 780 nanometres, which is exactly right for an eye and insufficient for a sensor. This field met the first subject the grid cannot hold, and the decision was not to widen it — because widening it honestly is impossible.

 Everything between the photons and the picture, and what each stage decides. The 8 stages of a camera pipeline. Only the second is physics; every one after it is a decision somebody made, and the reason two cameras pointed at the same scene disagree is that they made different ones. What a camera does

A photograph is not a measurement

A photograph is a measurement made by an instrument whose kernel nobody published, under an illuminant nobody recorded, corrected by a matrix fitted to somebody else's surfaces, with two thirds of every pixel invented. It supports relative claims well and absolute ones badly, and it is used for the second.

 The process inks as reflectance. Each ink is a sum of Gaussian absorbance bands with stated centres, widths and peak densities, and the reflectance shown is the substrate's times the square of the ink's transmittance, because light crosses the film going down and coming back. The first band of each ink is what it is for; the rest are what is wrong with it. Magenta's unwanted absorption in the blue-violet reaches an optical density of 0.46 against 0.95 for the band it exists to have — 48 per cent of its own strength, absorbing exactly where a saturated blue needs light to survive. What it takes to deliver it

The paper is the white point

A printed colour is reported against the sheet it sits on rather than against the light in the room, and the choice is a switch in every colour engine. Flipped one way, the same separation on coated stock and on newsprint is a 3.04 colour difference; flipped the other, it is 0.13 — and the two answers are about different questions.

 What separates the separations, and under which light. 11 separations of a single colour, differing only in how much of it is carried by black rather than by the three chromatic inks. Under D50 they agree to ΔE00 = 0.00 — the solver was asked for that and delivered it. Under illuminant A they spread to 6.75. They are metamers of one another, and the whole family is invisible to any instrument reading a single illuminant. What it takes to deliver it

The separation is not unique

A four-ink press has one more control than a colour has numbers, so most colours can be printed several ways. The alternatives agree to a hundredth of a colour difference under the light the match was made in — and they are metamers of one another, so under a tungsten lamp the same eleven separations of one colour spread by nearly seven.

 A gradient of one hue, mapped into a press's gamut 2 ways. Chroma asked for along the bottom, chroma delivered up the side, for a ramp at lightness 55 and hue angle 25°. A colorimetric intent follows the diagonal until the press runs out and is flat afterwards — the flat part is a gradient arriving as a single colour. The perceptual intent is under the diagonal from the start, which is the price of never going flat. What it takes to deliver it

No mapping preserves everything

More than half the sRGB solid is outside a press's gamut, so something has to be done with it, and there are two things that can be done. One leaves every reproducible colour exactly where it was and delivers a gradient as a flat area. The other keeps the gradient and moves every colour that needed no help by about three.

136 essays on this thread, page 1 of 6 · all threads · all essays