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

The thread: Matching is not appearance — page 5

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.
Which of the collection's published quantities a departure can be pushed through. The six quantities the previous round recomputed under six different colour-difference units, and whether the same treatment works for a departure. Two do: the adaptation census and the metameric pair both take reflectances and a light, which is what a departure acts on. Four do not, and the reasons are different in each case rather than a single obstacle. A unit is a function applied to the answers, so it can be swapped at the end of any computation; a departure changes the object at the start, so it has to be accepted by every stage in between. That is the practical difference between auditing a convention and auditing a structure. Where the model breaks

A departure is not a unit

The previous round audited six published quantities by swapping the unit they were quoted in — a function applied at the end of each computation. Nothing of that shape works here. A departure changes the object at the start, so every stage in between has to accept it, and only two of the same six quantities can take one at all. The fourth cannot even be expressed in the interface.

 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 audit that changed the object

Three rounds audited this collection's numbers, its sets and its conventions, and each one ended by naming the same thing it could not reach — that a surface is a reflectance. This round reached it, found that four departures share one algebraic form, had two of its predictions refused, and discovered that its own hemisphere quadrature had been passing a convergence check by luck.

 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.

 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.

 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 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. 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.

 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.

 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 a camera does

The chart was measured by an observer too

A camera profile is fitted so that the camera's numbers reproduce the chart's measured tristimulus values. Those values were computed through the 1931 observer, so the fit inherits every departure in this round — and the fit's own residual, at 0.19 ΔE₀₀ on the chart, is fifteen times smaller than the term it cannot see.

 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 brain does

The census under another observer

This collection's largest computed result is an adaptation census — fourteen changes of light judged over a hundred and twenty-five constructed surfaces. Every number in it was computed through one observer, and the observer's own departures are between one and two and a half units on the same surfaces, which is the size of the effects the census reports.

 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 it takes to deliver it

A brand colour for a population

A brand colour is chosen once, specified in a number, and seen by everybody. The observer audit says two candidate colours with identical specifications can carry observer spreads differing by an order of magnitude, and that the spread is computable from an ink's spectrum at the moment the ink is chosen.

 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 brain does

The appearance model takes XYZ

CIECAM16 predicts how a colour looks, and its input is three tristimulus values computed through a standard observer. Everything this round measures happens before the model is called, so an appearance prediction inherits six observer departures and a choice of cone space before it begins.

 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

Two observers and one metamer

An observer departure is invisible on a single sample compared with nothing. It becomes a disagreement the moment two spectra are being asked to match, because a match is an identity between three integrals and a different observer takes different integrals. Everything in this round is a statement about pairs wearing a single sample's clothes.

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

The mixture line bows

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

 A hue circle through a per-channel curve. 28 colours on a circle of constant lightness 55 and chroma 38, each put through the tone curve one channel at a time and read back. The curve is a function of a single number and has no idea what hue is, and it rotates the circle by up to 4.4 degrees — largest at hue 260 — while raising chroma by a factor of 1.27 and lightness by about 1 units. What a camera does

A contrast control is three controls

A tone curve is a function of one number at a time and knows nothing about hue. Applied to each channel separately it rotates a hue circle by up to seventeen degrees, raises chroma by a factor of 1.27 at ordinary strength, and lifts lightness — so a photographer who moves a contrast slider has moved three things and the interface names one of them. All three scale with the curve's strength, monotonically, and the hue rotation depends on which hue it is.

 Where a stated appearance has no stimulus under it. The chroma the inverse can still return a light for, at lightness 50, all the way round the hue circle. Below the curve a stated appearance corresponds to a stimulus; above it the formula still returns three numbers and one of them is negative. Over a lattice of 10488 appearances spanning the whole space a specification is written in, 10.8 per cent are of that kind, and only 44 per cent are colours a display could show. What the brain does

An appearance is not always a stimulus

CIECAM16's inverse is a closed form that returns three numbers for every lightness, chroma and hue it is handed. Whether those three numbers are a light it does not ask, and over a lattice spanning the space a specification is written in, 10.8 per cent of them are not — one tristimulus value negative, or a relative luminance above the white's. Only 43.8 per cent are colours a display could show at all.

 The model's hue scale, and the four numbers it is built from. Hue quadrature against hue angle. The four anchors are the unique hues, each with its own weight, and between them the scale is a hyperbolic interpolation rather than a straight line. The quadrant from blue back to red spans 143 degrees of hue angle for its hundred units of quadrature, against 70 for red to yellow. What the brain does

The hue scale has four corners

CIECAM16 reports hue twice — as an angle in its own opponent plane, and as a quadrature interpolated through four unique hues with four fitted weights. The second is the one hue tolerances and hue-preserving mappings are written in, and it is piecewise — its slope jumps at each of the four anchors, by a factor of 1.74 at green and by 0.41 at blue, and it runs 4.1 times faster near yellow than near blue.

 Where averaging the model's answers is and is not averaging its argument. Each row takes a spread of situations, averages the model's predictions across them, and compares that against the model's prediction for the average situation. The bar is the gap as a share of the spread itself. Over the differences between observers it is 1.4 per cent — the model is very nearly linear there. Over the range of adapting luminance one room covers in a day it is 59 per cent, and from indoors to outdoors 74. What the brain does

Where the model's curve does not matter

This round has been about what a nonlinearity does to an average, and CIECAM16 is the most nonlinear thing in the collection. Over the spread a population of observers produces, the average of its predictions is its prediction for the average to within 1.4 per cent — the nonlinearity is there and the excursion is too small to reach it. Over the range of adapting luminance one room covers in a day, the same gap is 59 per cent of the spread, and from indoors to outdoors 74.

 The audit's six departures, read twice. Each departure priced in the matching unit it was published in and in the appearance unit an appearance prediction would be judged by. The model does not scale them by one factor: it amplifies the smallest by 1.58 and the largest by 1.03, so the range between them narrows from 3.34 to 2.17. The mean ranking is unchanged and 14 of the 42 surfaces reorder. What the brain does

The audit, read as appearances

The previous round priced six observer departures in a matching unit and left them there. Read in the appearance unit an appearance prediction would actually be judged by, they are not the same six numbers scaled by a constant — the model amplifies the smallest by 1.58 and the largest by 1.03, so the range between the largest and smallest term narrows from 3.34 to 2.17. The published ranking survives in the mean and changes on fourteen of the forty-two surfaces it was averaged over.

 What a stated lightness pins down, and where. A lightness quoted to 0.05 of a unit, inverted, and the luminance it fixes. Read as a fraction of the colour's own luminance the requirement is 0.90 per cent at J 10 and 0.097 at J 95, a factor of 9.3. Read in absolute luminance it is the other way round, by a factor of 6.5. Both readings are true and they answer different questions. What the brain does

A stated lightness is two requirements

A specification quotes an appearance to a stated precision — a lightness to a tenth of a unit, say — and the same precision everywhere. Inverted, a twentieth of a unit of lightness fixes the luminance to nine tenths of one per cent at the bottom of the scale and to a tenth of one per cent at the top, a factor of 9.3. Read in absolute luminance it is the other way round by a factor of 6.5, and both readings are true.

 The budget's three numbers, and the units they are in. The published three-stage budget's own figures, with each one's unit named, beside the same stage re-measured in a single unit over the same colours. Two of the three are colour differences between stimuli and the third is a distance between appearances, and the budget adds them. The fourth row is a stage the budget has no entry for: the colours the separation cannot reach even after the mapping has moved them, which comes to 1.45. What it takes to deliver it

The budget adds two units

This collection publishes a three-stage error budget for a colour-management chain and prints its sum. Two of the three stages are colour differences between stimuli and the third is a distance between appearances, and the conversion between those is not a constant. Re-measured in one unit over the same colours the chain has four stages rather than three, its end-to-end error is 5.05 against a sum of 7.66, and the profile's contribution where a job actually lands is 3.2 times its published average.

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

The appearance model has no straight piece

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

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

Which mixture bows most depends on the ruler

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

136 essays on this thread, page 5 of 6 · all threads · all essays