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

The thread: The instrument is the reader — page 4

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.
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.

 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 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.

 How much of a whiteness figure is the sheet, and how much is the lamp. Each bar is how many points of CIE whiteness a stock has above an unbrightened sheet of the same base, measured with an ultraviolet-included instrument. The dark part is what survives when the ultraviolet is removed — the part that is a property of the paper. On average 82 per cent of the scale is the pale part, which is a property of the instrument's lamp. A whiteness figure without a measurement condition beside it is therefore not a measurement of a sheet; it is a measurement of a sheet and a lamp, quoted as though it were the first. Difference and uniformity

Whiteness is mostly the lamp

The CIE whiteness formula ranks white samples the way people do, which is what it was built for and is not in question. What is in question is what it is a measurement of — take the ultraviolet out of the instrument and 82 per cent of the scale collapses, because the part that separates a premium sheet from an ordinary one was contributed by the lamp.

 The best possible 3×3, and the patches it makes worse. Each row is one patch printed on a brightened sheet, measured under both conditions. The pale bar is how far apart the two measurements are; the dark bar is what is left after the best least-squares 3×3 over the whole set has been applied. It leaves 23 per cent of the mean, and — the part a mean hides — it makes 4 patches worse than doing nothing. The solids are the ones it damages: the ink blocks the ultraviolet, so a solid barely disagrees between the two conditions and the correction has no business touching it. A matrix has no way to apply itself only where the paper is showing. Difference and uniformity

A tolerance cannot cross a condition

If two measurement conditions disagree by seven units, the obvious repair is a correction matrix fitted between them. The best least-squares 3×3 over seventeen printed patches leaves 23 per cent of the disagreement and makes five patches worse than doing nothing — because the term it is trying to remove is proportional to how much paper is showing, and no linear map on three numbers can express that.

 Two lamps of the same colour, and one sheet that is two colours under them. The same brightened sheet under a xenon flash, the same flash behind its cover glass, and a phosphor-converted white LED of nearly the same chromaticity. Each patch is computed relative to its own lamp's white, which is what a perfect white balance does — so everything a camera can see and correct has already been removed. What is left is ΔE00 11.8 between the first and the last, against 3.2 between the two lamps themselves. The LED has no emission below 380 nanometres at all, because its pump die is at 450, so the sheet simply does not fluoresce under it and nothing in the photograph records why. What a camera does

A camera cannot record the excitation

Two lamps of nearly the same chromaticity, one with ultraviolet and one with none, put a brightened sheet twelve units apart after a perfect white balance. Nothing in the camera measured the difference — the filter stack removed the band before the sensor saw it — so the correction that would fix the picture needs a quantity the file does not contain.

 The lamps the four conditions shine, where they differ. The short-wave half of what each measurement condition puts on the sample, plotted to 560 nanometres because past that the three are indistinguishable in shape. M₁ is D50 with its ultraviolet; M₂ is the same lamp behind a cut filter at 400 nanometres, and at 360 it is 0.0 per cent of what M₁ delivers; M₀ is a tungsten lamp, which has some ultraviolet, has less than daylight, and is not specified at all by the standard — so two M₀ instruments need not agree with each other. M₃ is not plotted because its lamp is M₂'s; what makes it a fourth condition is a polariser. What a camera does

The lamp that stopped emitting ultraviolet

A blue-pumped white LED has a die at 450 nanometres and emits nothing shorter. Between about 2005 and 2020 that lamp replaced almost every other indoor source, which removed the excitation supply from a great many rooms — so brightened materials stopped glowing indoors without a single one of them being reformulated.

 A whiteness measurement has a date on it. A brightener is consumed by the ultraviolet that makes it glow: the molecule that absorbs a photon occasionally does something other than re-emit it, and what it does is break. So the loading falls with accumulated dose and the sheet's whiteness falls with it, from W 123 to 88 — most of the way back to the unbrightened base. The fall is steepest at the start because the absorption saturates, so the first molecules lost are the ones that were doing the least work and the curve is convex from the beginning. The dose axis is in arbitrary units whose half-life is stated; what is not arbitrary is the shape. Where the model breaks

The brightener is being used up

The molecule that absorbs an ultraviolet photon occasionally does something other than re-emit it, and what it does is break. So a sheet's whiteness has a half-life, the fall is steepest at the start, and a specification quoting a whiteness figure without a date is quoting a property of a sheet that no longer exists.

 What share of the diagram the sRGB triangle covers, in twelve published coordinate systems. Each row is a chromaticity diagram somebody has printed, and each bar is the fraction of the enclosed visible area that the sRGB triangle covers in it. Every row describes exactly the same observer and exactly the same gamut. The answer runs from 8.5% to 38.4%, a factor of 4.52, because area is not preserved by the projective maps that carry one of these diagrams to another. The familiar "about a third" is a fact about CIE xy. Matching and measuring

Two thirds is not a property of the eye

It has been said from the beginning here that about two thirds of the chromaticity diagram cannot be shown on a screen. The figure is right, on the diagram it was measured on, and across twelve published diagrams the same triangle covers anything from 8.5 to 38.4 per cent of the same locus. Counting stimuli instead gives an answer that does not move.

 MacAdam's ellipses, drawn on one diagram. The twenty-five measured discrimination ellipses at 10× actual size, on CIE xy (1931). Mean axis ratio 2.95 — one would mean every contour is a circle — and a size spread of 10.42 between the largest and the smallest. Both numbers depend on the plane, which is why the 1976 revision existed; neither can be taken to one, which is why the revision did not finish the job. Difference and uniformity

No diagram makes them circles

Every chromaticity diagram is a projective picture of the same measurement, so how badly MacAdam's ellipses fail to be circles can be minimised over the whole family of them. The best plane there is still leaves the average ellipse twice as long as it is wide — which makes the residual a fact about the eye rather than about anybody's choice of primaries.

 How short of determining the light a photograph is, as the scene grows. Each cell is the number of unknowns left over after every equation the image supplies: three sensors, a three-dimensional illuminant, and reflectances confined to a linear model of the dimension on the left. At one and two dimensions more surfaces close the gap. At three the gap never closes, because each further surface adds three equations and three unknowns; at four it widens. The count is arithmetic and has no algorithm in it. What a scene does

An image does not determine the light

A photograph of a scene under one illuminant gives three numbers per surface and asks for the illuminant plus three numbers per surface. The count closes only if reflectances lie in a two-dimensional model, and no number of surfaces helps — at three dimensions the alternative scenes can be written down, and they reproduce every sensor response exactly.

 What a camera matrix reports on its own chart, and what it delivers off it. The same camera fitted on charts of increasing chromatic range. The left bar of each pair is the mean error on the chart the matrix was fitted to, which is the number a profile comes with; the right bar is the error on a saturated set it never saw. At the thinnest chart the fit reports 0.19 ΔE00 and delivers 1.65, a factor of 8.6. The gap closes as the chart widens, and it closes because the chart improves rather than because the camera does. What a camera does

The chart decides the profile

A camera's colour matrix is nine numbers fitted to a set of patches somebody chose, and the number that comes with it is the error on those patches. On a chart with no chromatic range that number is 0.19 ΔE00 and the matrix delivers 1.65 — and a second matrix, indistinguishable on the chart, delivers 2.03.

 A camera matrix fitted under each light, used under each light. Mean ΔE00 over the same surfaces, with the matrix fitted under the row's light and the scene under the column's. The diagonal is what a profile's data sheet quotes and is between 1.0 and 1.2 everywhere. Off it the numbers rise steeply: the matrix fitted under illuminant A reports 1.17 there and delivers 9.34 under a 9000 K daylight, a factor of 8.0. Nothing about the camera changes between cells. What a camera does

A matrix is fitted under one light

A camera's colour matrix is nine numbers determined by a chart photographed under a particular illuminant, and the error it quotes is the error under that illuminant. Fitted under a tungsten lamp and used under a cold sky it delivers eight times as much — and the two-matrix scheme every real profile uses turns out not to be a compromise at all.

 An instrument, as the only thing it really is. The 3 filters a bank of that size puts across the visible range, each drawn against wavelength. Everything the instrument can report about a spectrum is 3 numbers — the integral of the light against each of these — so the set of spectra it cannot tell apart is everything orthogonal to all 3 of them, which is 78 dimensions of the 81 this site works in. Three of these is a colorimeter in spirit; the eye is three of them too. What light is

Three numbers cannot see a line

An instrument that returns three filtered readings of a spectrum determines a three-dimensional projection of it and is exactly blind to the other seventy-eight. On daylight that costs almost nothing; on a fluorescent tube, three quarters of the lamp lies in the part no reading reaches, and adding filters recovers it slowly.

 The colour is right long before the spectrum is. The colour error of the projection, against the number of readings. At twelve readings the fluorescent tube's colour is right to 0.48 ΔE00 while 66% of its spectrum is still unmeasured. That is the trap in one line: a reconstruction good enough to pass any colorimetric check will predict a match under a second illuminant that does not happen, because the part it got wrong is exactly the part a different lamp weights differently. What light is

The colour is right first

A reconstruction of a lamp from twelve filtered readings gets its colour right to half a unit while two thirds of its spectrum is still unmeasured. That combination is not a partial success — it is the exact condition under which a spectral prediction made from the reconstruction will be confidently wrong.

 What each fitted thing in these essays carries, what its data fix, and what is left. Three columns per row: how many numbers the model has, how many the stated data determine, and the difference — the dimension of the family that fits equally well. The third column is the one nobody publishes. A zero there does not mean the model is right; it means it is determined, which is a much weaker property and is compatible with being determined badly, as the camera row is. Where the model breaks

A fit can be exact and empty

Every fitted object here reports one number, the residual on the data it was fitted to, and every one of them has two more that nobody publishes — how many of its parameters the data actually determine, and how large the family of equally good answers is. The third column is where the failures live.

 Which of this collection's own claims survive a change of basis, and which are about the paper. Nine sentences this site says, sorted by whether they mean the same thing after the observer's three curves are replaced by a nonsingular combination of themselves. 5 of the nine do. The four that do not are not thereby wrong — they are statements about a chosen set of coordinates, and they are true of those coordinates. What they cannot be is statements about the eye, which is how every one of them is usually read. Where the model breaks

Which of these is a convention

Nine ordinary sentences from this collection, put through one test — do they mean the same thing after the observer's three curves are replaced by a nonsingular combination of themselves? Five survive and four do not, and none of the four is wrong, because each is a statement about a set of coordinates being read as a statement about an eye.

 What the next thousand patches buy a printer profile. A profile is a table, exact at its nodes and interpolated everywhere else. Each mark is a grid: the horizontal axis is how many patches somebody had to print and measure, the vertical is the worst error found between the nodes. Going from 135 patches to 3645 — 27.0× the work — buys 8.4× the accuracy. The error falls with the square of the spacing and the count rises with its cube. What it takes to deliver it

A profile is a fit between its nodes

A printer profile is a table, exact at every patch that was printed and interpolated everywhere else — and everywhere else is where every job lives. Going from a hundred and thirty-five patches to three and a half thousand is twenty-seven times the work for eight times the accuracy, and the exponents say that is as good as it gets.

 Every change of light in the census, under three bases. Fourteen changes of illumination, each drawn three times: the residual left by a gain in the basis built from the dichromat confusion points, in CAT16, and in the basis that minimises the average. The ordering between the three is the same on nearly every row, and — the part an average hides — the worst row is the same row for every basis nobody fitted, which is two bounces off the same wall. The difficulty belongs to the change rather than to the choice of axes — except for the fitted winner, whose worst row is D65 to a triphosphor tube instead. What a fit buys is not a uniform improvement; it is the abandonment of the one change everybody else is beaten by. What light is

Everyone is beaten by the same wall

Eight candidate adaptation bases, fourteen changes of light, and seven of the eight have their worst row in the same place — not a lamp, but a green wall reflecting twice. The one that does not is the one that was fitted, and what its fit bought was permission to give up on that row.

258 essays on this thread, page 4 of 11 · all threads · all essays