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

The thread: The instrument is the reader — page 11

This is the one subject where the page is displayed on the apparatus under discussion, and the reader's own eye is the measuring device. Several figures here are experiments rather than illustrations.
One instrument, one slit, two requirements. The slit's width swept, with three measurements on a logarithmic scale: a smooth sample under the line lamp, where only the lamp's structure is at stake; the notched sample under a smooth lamp, where only the notch is; and the real case, both at once. The lamp wants a slit of 5 nanometres and the sample wants 1, and each wants what it wants for the same reason: a slit should spread a feature the grid cannot resolve and leave one it can. The real case is best at 3 nanometres — which is neither requirement's answer — and costs 0.247 there, an order of magnitude more than either requirement alone. What light is

One slit, two requirements

A line lamp wants a wide slit, because a wide slit spreads a line where a coarse grid can see it. A notched sample wants a narrow one, because a wide slit fills the notch the grid could have resolved. An instrument has one slit. Measured on the two requirements separately the best widths are five nanometres and one; measured on the two together the best is three, which is neither — and it costs twelve times what the lamp alone would cost and thirty-four times what the sample alone would.

 An interference notch filter, and where a five-nanometre grid lands on it. The transmittance of a Fabry-Pérot etalon of order 24 and finesse 20, drawn at a fifth of a nanometre, with the standard grid's points marked. Its features are 2.29 nanometres wide and spaced 22.9 apart, so the grid steps over them: between two adjacent grid points the transmittance rises and falls completely, and neither point records it. That is what a real coating looks like, and a Gaussian notch — which is what this collection's earlier work used — is a much gentler object. What light is

A finer table is a worse table

A real interference filter is not a Gaussian notch. It is an etalon, with pass bands a nanometre or two wide spaced twenty-three apart, and a five-nanometre grid steps over them. Resampled from the maker's one-nanometre table its colour is out by five colour differences under every fill-in rule — the three rules agree to three decimals, because none of them is ever handed a sample inside a feature. The same filter measured through a five-nanometre slit is out by 0.03.

 How often the choice of correction changes a pair's grade. Eighteen metameric pairs walked to each of eleven reference mismatches, with the share whose index falls in a different band under the two corrections the standard allows. At an exact match the share is zero and must be: there is nothing for either correction to correct. It rises to 44 per cent at a reference mismatch of 2, which is the quality a dyehouse reaches rather than the quality a laboratory constructs. The banding is a five-step convention at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3, stated here rather than quoted, and how much the count depends on it is drawn separately. Matching and measuring

The ambiguity is largest where the index is used

The metamerism index is defined for a pair that matches exactly under the reference light, no real pair does, and the two corrections the standard allows for the residual give different answers. Over eighteen pairs at eleven match qualities the gap is nearly a function of the mismatch alone — its middle half spans a factor of 1.4 at the mismatches a dyehouse reaches — so it could be tabulated. And it is largest exactly there: zero at a laboratory's match, and re-grading eight pairs in eighteen at a trade's.

 How far each lamp's sensor reading is from what the camera predicts, with RGB + clear. Fourteen lamps, six smooth and eight structured, each scored by how far an ambient-light sensor with red, green, blue and clear channels reads from what the camera's white predicts through a map fitted on smooth radiators and daylights. The smooth lamps score at most 0.057 and the structured at least 0.133; the dashed line is the threshold at the gap's geometric middle, 0.087. The lights the map was fitted on score at most 0.0113. Every lamp falls on its own side of the line. What a camera does

Two sensors disagree about deep red, not lines

A phone's ambient-light sensor and its camera read the same lamp differently, and the difference sorts fourteen lamps into smooth and structured without a single mistake — where flicker made five. It is not reading their lines. Almost all of it comes from the sensor's clear channel collecting deep red the camera's infrared cut throws away, so daylight with its far red trimmed is called structured and a white LED with a far-red emitter is called smooth.

 Every pair of slits, over 68 notches. The colour error, in ΔE₀₀ from the truth, for every pair of slit widths — the lamp's table blurred through the width down the side, the sample's through the width across — on 68 notches, the mean over all of them under a fluorescent tube. Circle area follows the error. The best pair is 5 nm on the lamp and 1 nm on the sample, at 0.26; the best single slit, on the diagonal, is 5 nm at 0.36. One slit on the reflected light, at 5 nm, averages 0.016. What light is

A second slit buys a quarter

A line lamp wants a five-nanometre slit and a notched sample a one-nanometre slit, so an instrument with a slit for each should do much better than one with a single compromise. Over sixty-eight notches under a fluorescent tube, it does better by 28 per cent. One slit on the reflected light does fifteen times better than the best pair, and an oracle choosing the best pair for every notch is still six times worse. The error was never that the factors were flattened; it was that they were flattened separately.

 Three bounds against the error they bound, over 68 notches under a fluorescent tube. Each notch placed across by its actual colour error from blurring the lamp and the sample separately, and up by a bound on that error, both on logarithmic scales; the dashed diagonal is where a bound equals the error, and a valid bound sits above it. Cauchy–Schwarz with the true window variances is above the diagonal on every notch, a median 14.7 times the error. Estimated from the blurred tables it falls below on 6 of 68, as low as 0.45 of the error. The Bhatia–Davis bound from the tables and declared ranges is above on every notch and a median 196 times the error. What light is

The tables cannot bound what they discarded

A colour computed from a lamp's blurred table and a sample's blurred table is wrong by the covariance the two blurs threw away, and Cauchy–Schwarz bounds a covariance by two variances. With the true variances the bound always holds and sits fifteen times above the error. With variances read from the tables it fails on six of sixty-eight notches under a fluorescent tube and twenty-two under a laser projector — on the line, where the error is largest. A blurred table does not carry the width of a line, and the covariance depends on it.

 What declaring a narrowest feature buys, and where it stops being true. The median looseness of a Cauchy–Schwarz bound whose lamp variance is bounded by a declared narrowest feature, against the width declared, for a fluorescent tube and a three-laser projector. Each lamp's own Bhatia–Davis bound — the peak declared and nothing else — is the upper dashed line, and the bound with the true variances is the lower one. The marks are the width each lamp's lines actually have. Declaring it truly takes the tube from ×196 to ×86 and the projector from ×30 to ×14. The open circles are declarations the lamp does not meet, where the bound falls below the error. What light is

A declared width buys a factor of two

A colour engine given two separately blurred spectral tables cannot bound its own error from them, and the bound that always holds — the peak declared and nothing else — sits a median 196 times above the error under a fluorescent tube. Adding one number, the width of the lamp's narrowest feature, brings that to 86. It never fails on any declaration the lamp truly meets, it fails on 47 of 68 notches on one it does not, and its rank correlation with the error it bounds is 0.27.

 Two ways to ask how much rod signal an older eye has. The rod signal's catch of each lamp divided by the S cones' own catch, against the observer's age, for five lamps — drawn twice. The upper curves take the rod signal at a fixed absolute size, and every one of them roughly doubles from twenty to seventy-five: an older lens cuts the blue before the S cones see it and the rods, peaking further into the green, lose much less. The lower curves take the rod signal at a tenth of each cone's own peak absorptance, which is the model's own definition, and they barely move at all. Nothing about the retina differs between the two; only the normalisation does. What the eye does

A rod signal has no natural size

An older lens absorbs where the S cones are sensitive, so it should make the uncertain rod-to-S-cone weight cheaper. Measured, the rod signal's catch of a phosphor LED as a share of the S cones' own catch more than doubles from twenty to seventy-five — and the share the model actually uses falls by a fifth. The two differ by the S cone's peak absorptance, which the lens takes 60 per cent of, and which entered the model as a normalisation rather than as a claim.

 What a lit room takes, and where it takes it. On a display whose white is 1,000 cd/m², how much of the ΔEITP a one-unit lightness step is given survives a veiling luminance reflected off the screen, against where on the lightness scale the step sits. At L 2 — a deep shadow — one candela of reflected light removes 22 per cent of the difference and three candelas remove 46. At L 90 the same veils remove nothing measurable. The shadows the unit counts most are the ones a room removes first. Difference and uniformity

The shadows a unit counts are the ones a room removes

ΔEITP's growth with display brightness is largest in the dark greys, and dark greys are where a lit room's light reflected off the screen sits. One candela a square metre of veiling luminance removes 22 per cent of the difference the unit gives a step at the bottom of the scale on a 1,000-candela display and nothing measurable at the top. The same veil raises the growth the unit reports across display levels from a factor of six to a factor of seventeen, because it destroys a dim display's shadows first.

 The same gradients, priced by a penalty and by a projection. Each row is one gradient held inside a coated press from six starts. The pale dots are the penalised relaxation — a free step, with a price for leaving the press — and the dark ones are the projected relaxation, which takes the free step and then moves each point to the nearest printable colour. Across is how much longer than the free path each result is, logarithmic. On the 10 gradients whose straight line leaves the press, the penalty leaves 9 starts at more than twice the free length and the projection leaves none. The projection's best route costs a median 0.02% against the penalty's 0.13%, and its spread across starts is 0.95% against 132.5%. Matching and measuring

A projection has no reason to detour

Holding a gradient inside a press by penalising the excursion turned the gamut's price from a number into a search: on five of ten crossing gradients some starting point leaves the relaxation trapped at more than twice the free length, and the spread across six starts runs to 271 per cent of the free path. Replacing the penalty with a projection — take the free step, then move each point to the nearest printable colour — leaves no trap on any gradient and a spread of 0.06 to 2.4 per cent.

 Where a sharpened E errs, per pixel and as seen: black type on paper, 10 point. The letter E at 10 point on a 300-dot-an-inch page, black type on paper, sharpened by an unsharp mask on stored values and on light; the two maps show the colour difference between the results, pixel by pixel on the left and after the eye's three spatial channels at 40 centimetres on the right, on one scale. The thin line is the letter's outline and the dashed circles mark two pixels round each corner — 8 outer corners and stroke ends, 4 inside angles. The circled zones are 31% of the outline and hold 28% of the per-pixel error and 25% of the seen error. What it takes to deliver it

Sharpened type errs on its dark side

A sharpened square hides its halo along its edges and shows it at its corners, so a sharpened page of type was predicted to show its error at the corners of its letters, several times out of proportion to their length. Black type does the opposite: its outer corners and stroke ends hold between two thirds and nine tenths of their share. As the eye leaves it, the error lies on the dark side of every edge, and a corner holds as much of it as it has dark ground around it — a quarter of a disc where a black corner points out into paper, three quarters where black wraps round a pale one.

 The calibration error a narrow fourth channel survives, by where it is placed. For a red, green and blue ambient sensor with one more channel 10 nm wide, centred from 450 to 640 nm: the first calibration error at which some lamp of fourteen is misclassified. Dashed: the channel pooled into the whole residual, as the ambient sensor's disagreement was read; its best is ±1.50 per cent. Solid: the channel read on its own, as its departure from what the camera's white predicts for it; its best is ±4.0 per cent, at 450 nm. Crosses mark centres where the channel read alone does not separate the lamps at all. The two horizontal lines are the red, green and blue design (±1 per cent) and the design with a clear channel (±4 per cent). What a camera does

A narrow channel has to be read on its own

An ambient sensor with a clear channel tells structured lamps from smooth ones by reading deep red, and one without it reads structure but breaks at one per cent of calibration error. A narrow fourth channel between the camera's peaks was proposed to have both. Pooled into the sensor's disagreement with the camera, it reads structure and breaks at one and a quarter per cent — no better than the design it was meant to rescue. Read on its own, as its departure from what the camera predicts for it, a channel at 450 nm holds to four per cent, the clear channel's figure, and far red does not move it.

 Four ways to correct the corner, under each of four lamps, at 25°. The mean colour error left on the chart's coloured patches at the corner of the frame, under each lamp, after: the red row fitted under that lamp; one red row fitted on the chart under all four lamps with the grey held under daylight; a grey-card gain map calibrated under daylight; and the worst of the other lamps' rows used by mistake. daylight: 0.93, 1.33, 1.86, 4.91; tungsten: 0.99, 1.45, 1.87, 3.26; white LED: 0.36, 1.39, 3.28, 1.77; fluorescent: 0.37, 1.56, 3.09, 2.45. The pooled row holds every lamp between 1.33 and 1.56. What a camera does

One row for every lamp costs the lamps that lose least

A corner correction fitted under one lamp is right under that lamp and can be badly wrong under another, so a converter unsure of its lamp was offered a single row fitted under several at once. Pooled over four lamps, one row holds every lamp's corner between 1.33 and 1.56 colour differences — no lamp worse than a grey-card map, and none near the 4.91 a wrong row can leave. The price falls on the white LED and the fluorescent tube, which it leaves four times worse than their own rows, because they lose the least red at the corner and the pooled row is built to repair the lamps that lose the most. Two rows, one per class of lamp, keep almost all of both.

 The lamp's white, six walls and the light arriving at each. On the 1976 chromaticity diagram, in the closed cube under daylight: the lamp's white (centre), six saturated walls with bands centred from 450 to 650 nm (open circles), and the light arriving at each wall from the rest of the room, lamp included (filled). Each ambient lies on the line from the white to its wall, a fraction of the way along it: 450 nm 10 per cent, 490 nm 12 per cent, 530 nm 19 per cent, 570 nm 19 per cent, 610 nm 13 per cent, 650 nm 5 per cent. What a scene does

A probe at the wall prices the finish

The light arriving at a painted wall from the rest of its room is what a gloss finish hands back, and a small probe held against the wall reads it. It lies on the line from the lamp's white to the wall's own colour, a fraction of the way along, and the fraction is set by how much light the wall returns, not by how colourful it is — as predicted. It is not the fixed fraction the prediction said: it runs from 2 to 46 per cent across seventy-two paints in one room. That variation is what makes it useful. Read in the matt room, it orders what a satin finish would cost more tightly than the paint's own lightness does, in every room tried.

 The appearance model's lightness-to-chroma balance, as the room takes a share of the adaptation. The median lightness pair's reading over the median chroma pair's, for twelve base colours, against the display's white, in a room of 20 cd/m². Solid: CAM16-UCS, with the viewer taking all, three quarters, half, a quarter and none of the adaptation from the display — darker lines take more from the display. Dashed: ΔEITP, which no room enters. With the display alone the model's balance falls 23 per cent; with half from the room, 13; with none from the display it does not move. Difference and uniformity

A lit room brings the units' medians together

As a display brightens, CAM16-UCS says chroma differences gain a quarter on lightness differences and ΔEITP says a tenth. All of the appearance model's movement comes from what the viewer is adapted to, and every calculation had the viewer adapted to the display alone. Give the room its share of the adaptation and the model's movement shrinks at every step: with a 20 cd/m² room supplying two thirds of it, the two units' medians fall by the same amount. What does not shrink is their disagreement about direction. The model still moves every colour the same way, ΔEITP still moves violets, reds and cyan-blues the other way, and in a lit room that becomes the whole of what separates them.

 How wrong a declared veil makes the unit, for four true veils. On a 100 cd/m² display, the worst error over grey steps from L 2 to L 90 — the size of the natural logarithm of the declared reading over the true one — against the veil declared, for rooms putting 0.1, 0.3, 1 and 3 cd/m² on the screen. Each curve reaches nought at its own true veil and rises on both sides. The flat stretch at the left is declaring almost nothing, which is declaring none: 0.22 for a true veil of 0.1, 0.54 for a true veil of 0.3, 1.14 for a true veil of 1, 1.89 for a true veil of 3. Difference and uniformity

A guessed veil halves the error

A colour difference that takes a display's absolute luminance leaves out the light a room reflects off the screen, and on an ordinary display in an ordinary room that makes it wrong about the darkest greys by a factor of three. Giving the unit the veil as a declared argument fixes that when the veil is known. The worry was that it never would be — that a guessed argument is no better than none. It is better: any declared veil up to about twice the true one beats declaring none, and one middling guess for every room halves the worst error. What a guess cannot do is reach ten per cent; that needs the veil known within a sixth, which is what a luminance meter aimed at a black screen gives.

 How far a mesopic match moves as the S weight opens: two rooms against one field. For every pair of the five lamps, the median over forty-two surfaces of how far a match moves as the rod signal's weight into the S channel goes from nothing to equal: pale for the two-room match, each half adapted to its own lamp; dark for a bipartite field whose two halves share one adaptation. The field's signal is larger for every pair, by ×1.5 to ×7.7. What the eye does

One field keeps what two rooms divide out

An asymmetric match can measure how strongly the rods feed the blue-yellow pathway, but set with the observer adapted to each lamp in turn it needs seventy-five settings on the best pair of lamps and hours of waiting between them. Putting the two lamps on the two halves of one field was proposed as the quick version, at the cost of a weaker signal. The signal is not weaker. Under one shared adaptation it is three times stronger for daylight against a white LED, and the best pair needs six settings. The adaptation that makes the slow version slow is also what was dividing the rods' contribution out of each half.

 How much of a coated press is left at each margin inside its boundary. The share of a coated press's printable volume in CIELAB that lies at least a given distance inside its boundary, for margins from half a unit to 32. A margin of one unit keeps 88%, two keep 80%, four 66% and eight 45%. At every margin up to 30 what is left is a single connected piece; at 31 units, with 0.14% of the volume left, it first splits, into a core of 623 cells and 2 fragments of one or two cells — the deepest point is 32.7 units inside, so what splits is the last crumb of the core, not a waist. Matching and measuring

A margin costs a press its corners

A gradient held inside a coated press by projection was predicted to tear if the press were first shrunk by a safety margin, at any pinch narrow enough for the shrinking to cut. The press has no such pinch: shrunk by any margin up to thirty CIELAB units it stays in one piece, and projected routes on it are neither trapped nor torn. What a margin costs is concentrated at the corners — the solid yellow moves nearly four times the margin to get inside, like the tip of a 31-degree spike.

 Narrowing the slit makes the declared-width bound looser, not tighter. The median ratio of the declared-width bound to the error it bounds, over sixty-eight notches under each lamp, with the slit and the grid narrowed together from five nanometres to one and each lamp declaring its true line width; the dotted lines are the bound with both variances known. Under the tube the declared bound goes from ×86 at five nanometres to ×253 at one, while the true-variance bound stays between ×12 and ×15. Under the projector the declared bound lies on its true-variance bound at every slit. What light is

A narrow slit shrinks the error, not the bound

A colour engine given two separately blurred spectral tables can bound its own error if the lamp declares its narrowest feature, and under a fluorescent tube that bound sits 86 times above the error at a five-nanometre slit. Narrowing the slit was supposed to close the gap, because a comb of narrow features stops fitting in a narrow window. It does the opposite. At one nanometre the error falls 27-fold and the bound only sevenfold, so the bound is 253 times loose and certifies no notch within a colour difference. The looseness was never the comb. It is the lamp's one declared peak, charged to every window.

 The ceiling a table reads for each window, against the lamp it came from. The fluorescent tube between 525 and 590 nanometres, with the green and yellow mercury lines, and for each window of a one- and a five-nanometre slit the highest the lamp could be there according to the table's own entries. The dashed line is the tube's peak, which the global declaration charges to every window. At one nanometre the ceiling follows the lamp, a median 2.05 times each window's true peak; at five it sits on the global peak for twenty nanometres either side of each line. What light is

A narrow table can vouch for its own peaks

The bound a colour engine can put on its bandpass error is loose because a lamp declares one peak for its whole spectrum and the bound charges it to every window. A table measured through a slit about as narrow as the lamp's lines can do better: no feature of the declared width can be blurred below a computable fraction of its height, so the table's own entries cap how tall the lamp can be in each window. At one nanometre that ceiling is never below the truth and sits twice above it, where the global peak sat twenty times above. The bound halves, and for the first time it certifies notches within a colour difference. At five nanometres it buys nothing at all.

 A finer grid shrinks both arrangements, and the gap between them stays. The mean error over sixty-eight notches of the best fixed pair of separate slits and of one slit on the reflected light at the grid's own step, on grids of one, two and five nanometres, under the tube and the projector. The tube's best pair falls from 0.256 to 0.019 and reaches the product's five-nanometre error of 0.016 without passing it; the product on the same fine grid is 0.0007. Under the projector the pair at one nanometre is 0.135. What light is

A finer grid keeps the price of separating

A sample's reflectance and a lamp's spectrum measured through separate slits can be reused under any other lamp; measured together through one slit on the reflected light, they are fifteen times more accurate and belong to that one lamp. A finer grid was expected to close the gap, because a one-nanometre table barely blurs anything. It closes most of the distance to the old answer and none of the distance to the new one. On a one-nanometre grid the best separate pair under a fluorescent tube is as good as one slit on the product used to be at five, and one slit on the product on the same fine grid is twenty-nine times better again.

 The hue disagreement with the quantiser, and without it. For twelve base colours of CIELAB lightness 50 and chroma 40, the factor by which ΔEITP's reading of a lightness pair over its reading of a chroma pair changes from a 1.5 to a 10,000 candela white. With the perceptual quantiser, it runs from ×0.75 at the yellow-greens to ×1.23 at the violets. With the quantiser replaced by a pure power law and nothing else changed, it is ×1 at every hue. Difference and uniformity

The hue disagreement is the quantiser's

As a display brightens, the appearance model shifts every colour's balance between lightness and chroma by one factor, and ΔEITP shifts violets towards lightness and yellow-greens towards chroma. The proposed source was the perceptual quantiser acting on three cone-like signals at unequal levels. Replacing the quantiser with a pure power law and changing nothing else removes the disagreement exactly: every colour moves by a factor of one. With the quantiser, how far a colour moves follows the spread of its three signals, and which way follows where its S signal sits — above the other two, towards lightness; below, towards chroma.

 Three panels in three rooms: the veil alone, and the best single floor. On a 1,000 cd/m² display, for each panel and room, the worst error over five-per-cent grey steps from 0.005 cd/m² upwards of declaring only the room's veil (upper bar) and of the best single declared floor (lower bar). For an LCD without dimming and for an OLED the best floor is the display's black plus the veil, and it is exact. For the LCD it is also necessary: the veil alone misreads by 2.8 in a dark room. For a local-dimming LCD no single floor is exact, and in a dark room the best errs by 0.96. Difference and uniformity

A dimming panel has no single black

ΔEITP reads a display's shadows correctly only when it is told the floor under every pixel, and that floor has two parts: the room's light reflected off the screen and the display's own black. They fold into one declared number exactly, and on a bright LCD the display's part is the one that matters — leaving it out misreads the deepest shadows seventeenfold. A local-dimming panel breaks the folding, because its black changes with the picture: in a dark room its floors vary twenty-six times across one scene, and no single declaration comes within a factor of two and a half. A lit room squeezes them back into one number.

 What a weight fitted under the wrong reading does across ages. If the retina's rod signal has a fixed absolute size and the weight is fitted with the model's scaled reading, the fitted weight is the true one times the ratio of the two readings' signals: ×0.80 at twenty, ×1 at thirty-two, ×1.62 at seventy-five. The other way about, the reciprocal. A cohort of observers sharing one weight would show it as a trend with age. What the eye does

Age can size the rod signal, if the lens is known

A rod signal leaking into the colour pathways has no natural size in the model: read as a fraction of each cone's own peak it shrinks as the lens yellows, read as a fixed amount it grows relative to the cones, and the two readings differ by a factor of two over a lifetime. An asymmetric match on observers of different ages can tell them apart, because they predict opposite trends: one says a weight fitted at seventy-five will look sixty per cent larger than at thirty-two, the other says it will not move. A handful of observers per age would show it. But a lens mistaken by ten years looks like forty per cent of the weight, and a tenth of an optical density of macular pigment as much again, so the experiment is only as good as what it knows of each eye's lens and macula.

381 essays on this thread, page 11 of 16 · all threads · all essays