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

The thread: The instrument is the reader — page 7

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 correction an observer could have been born with, fitted on half the census and tested on the other. The same six models, each scored twice: on the seven census rows the fixed matrices were fitted to, and on the seven they were not. The split alternates by position so both halves contain daylight changes and discharge lamps. The upper bar is in sample and the lower is out, on a logarithmic axis. For the four models with nothing fitted the two bars differ only because the halves are different questions. For the two fitted ones the gap is the finding, and it is largest where it matters least: bolting a fixed correction onto the von Kries gain takes it from 1.2724 to 1.2592 on the rows it was fitted to, and from 1.3511 to 1.3679 — worse — on the rows it was not. There is no correction to the diagonal that an observer could arrive with. What a scene does

A model is a claim about what can be known

The exact answer to chromatic adaptation is nine numbers, and the nine numbers are the change of light itself. A model whose parameters are quantities the observer cannot obtain is not a worse model of the same thing — it is a model of something else, and counting parameters without asking where they come from hides the difference.

 How far this site's median observer sits from the 1931 standard, by template. Twenty-four natural reflectances under D65, each given a tristimulus value twice: once by the 1931 colour-matching functions and once by this site's median member, with each judged against its own white. The bar is the mean difference, which is the residual this collection bounds and calls inescapable. It is inescapable, and it is smallest for the simpler template: Lamb's 1995 nomogram gives 0.9006 against Govardovskii's 0.9522, and removing Govardovskii's secondary band brings it down again to 0.9354. Neither is an argument for changing template — a nomogram is fitted to measurements of individual receptors, not to colour matches, so agreement with the standard observer is not what either was trying to achieve. What it says is that the residual is a mismatch between two kinds of observer rather than a shortfall a better pigment model would close. The number after each bar is the template's tail ratio: how far the L cone's half-maximum reaches below its peak against how far it reaches above. What the eye does

The population rests on a template

Two hundred observers here are built from one formula fitted to microspectrophotometry in 2000. The obvious alternative — the tabulated cone fundamentals — is not available, and the reason is the finding. A tabulated fundamental has no peak wavelength to move, so the moment it is used the population collapses to a single observer.

 A template's asymmetry against what its observer costs. The horizontal axis is the tail ratio of the L cone's pigment absorbance — how far the curve reaches below its peak at half maximum against how far it reaches above — and the vertical is how far the observer built from that template sits from the 1931 standard. A real visual pigment has a long short-wavelength tail, so the three curves derived from a published nomogram sit above 1.1 and the two Gaussians sit below. The four are matched in width, so nothing here is about size. The ordering is the point: the two caricatures cost between two and four times what either nomogram does, and the axis they are separated on is the one feature the caricatures do not have. What the eye does

A template is mostly its tail

Four pigment templates matched to the same width at the same peak, differing only in which side of the peak their half-maximum reaches further. Ordered by that one number, the observers they build are ordered by how far they sit from the standard one — and the two with the tail on the wrong side cost two and four times what either real nomogram costs.

 Every figure a surround dial would apply to, weighed. The eleven generators in the appearance family, by the size of the drawing each emits — which is what a dial multiplies, because every frame carries the figure's whole body. The dashed rules are the thresholds the dial policy here is written in: under 3 KB gets thirteen stops, under 6 gets nine, under 10 gets seven, and above about 12 KB nothing gets a dial at all. The median body here is 2.25 KB and 4 of the eleven are inside the most generous tier, against a policy written when the distribution had a median of 4.0 KB. Two phases deferred a surround dial on the grounds that appearance swatches are not small. The exception is unique-hues at 14.1 KB, which is over the ceiling that says it should have no dial — and it has one, on chroma, declared in the same file as the ceiling. What it takes to deliver it

A dial has a price

Two rounds declined to give the appearance model's surround a continuous control, both times because the frames would be too heavy, and neither time was the weight taken. It is 2.25 kilobytes at the median — the light end of these figures rather than the heavy end — and one figure is already breaking the rule the deferral was made under.

 What six of this collection's published numbers do when the unit changes. Six quantities, from six calculations that share nothing: a change of light after an observer has adapted, a camera profile's error, the gap between the two standard observers, a metameric pair under the lamp that breaks it, the same image on two papers, and an observer two seconds into a new room. Each is recomputed under all six units and every unit is calibrated onto ΔE2000's scale first, so the bar is not a change of units in the ordinary sense. The bar is the ratio of the largest reading to the smallest, and it runs from 1.71 to 2.30. Five of the six are printed in ΔE2000 by the essays that report them; the sixth is printed in CAM16-UCS, because the model it comes out of defines that unit. Where the model breaks

Three choices reached

Two rounds ago this collection named three things it rested on and could not audit — a unit, a diagonal and a template. All three are now reached, and the interesting part is not the three answers but that four of the round's own predictions were refused by the arithmetic and one of its measurements was wrong in a way only a cross-check caught.

 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 model has six arguments

Every colour computed here is an integral of a reflectance against a light against three curves, and a reflectance is one number per wavelength. A real surface's response is a function of six arguments — the wavelength, direction and place light arrives with, and the three it leaves with — so the model keeps one of them, takes a diagonal, integrates two away and assumes two more equal.

 Eight conditions under which the model equation is exact, and how exact each one is. Each of the four departures vanishes if either of its two factors is empty, which is eight conditions. The axis is logarithmic in the residual that is left when the condition is imposed. Three of the eight are identities: the fluorophore's loading is zero so the emitted term is an empty sum, and a Lambertian surface or a uniform field makes the pairing's second argument identically zero. The other five are limits — a Gaussian excitation band has no edge, an opaque sample still has a kernel a few microns wide, a four-metre aperture is still finite, and the observer is small rather than absent at 380 nanometres. Each limit is drawn with the sequence its residual falls along as the condition is pushed, because a small number is not evidence of a limit and a falling sequence is. Where the model breaks

Either factor being zero

Four different departures from the colour integral turn out to have one algebraic form — each is an inner product of something the sample does that the model has no slot for with something the light does that the model assumed away. Either factor being zero makes the departure exactly zero, and the sizes of the two factors decide neither how large it is nor which way it goes.

 How much light comes back at each distance from where it went in. The diffuse reflectance kernel of 3 materials at 550 nanometres, computed from the dipole approximation to the diffusion equation. Both axes are logarithmic. The horizontal axis is the distance from the point the light entered, in millimetres; the vertical is how much comes back out per unit area there. Each curve's own diffusion length is marked with a tick. Coated paper returns almost everything within a fifth of a millimetre; marble is still returning light at ten. The reflectance the model wants is the whole of each curve, integrated over the plane, and what an instrument reads is only the part inside its aperture. What a scene does

A surface has a kernel

Light that enters a translucent material does not come back where it went in. It scatters some thousands of times and leaves a few millimetres away, so what the surface has is not a reflectance but a function of distance — and the reflectance the model wants is that function's integral over the whole plane, which no instrument ever collects.

 The share of a sample's reflectance an aperture recovers, by how wide it is. Six materials, and the fraction of each one's true reflectance that a measurement recovers through an aperture of the stated radius. The horizontal axis is logarithmic in millimetres; the vertical is a share, so 1.0 is the whole of it. The dashed line is a 4-millimetre radius, which is about what a hand-held spectrophotometer has. At that aperture coated paper reads 98 per cent of its own reflectance and candle wax reads 48. Every curve approaches one from below and none of them reaches it: the kernel's tail is what is being cut, and it falls as one over the aperture rather than exponentially. What it takes to deliver it

An aperture is a filter

A measuring aperture throws away the light that came back outside it, and the light that comes back furthest is the light at the wavelengths the sample absorbs least. So an aperture does not attenuate a translucent sample evenly — it attenuates its peaks more than its troughs, which is a filter whose transmission curve the sample itself decides.

 Where a sample's colour goes as the aperture closes. The a and b of three translucent materials as the measuring aperture narrows from forty millimetres to one. Each track starts at the open circle, which is the colour the model says the sample has, and ends at the filled one. The axes cross at the neutral point. pale marble passes through neutral at a radius of 5.32 millimetres and comes out on the other side; candle wax passes through neutral at a radius of 7.07 millimetres and comes out on the other side; skin passes through neutral at a radius of 0.76 millimetres and comes out on the other side. Nothing about the sample changed: the aperture is a filter with a colour of its own, and the colour is decided by how the sample scatters rather than by what it absorbs. What a scene does

The hue the hole decides

A piece of pale marble measured through a wide aperture is faintly yellow. Measured through a narrow one it is faintly blue, and between the two there is an aperture at which it is exactly neutral. Nothing about the stone changes; the aperture is a filter with a colour, and what decides that colour is the size of the particles rather than the pigment between them.

 Five fields, by how much light arrives from each elevation. The radiance arriving at a surface from each direction in one vertical plane, for five ways of lighting it. The vertical axis is logarithmic, spanning the three decades between a sun and the sky around it. The number beside each name is the share of the light that would have to be moved to make the field uniform: zero for the overcast sky, 0.93 for a lamp on a stand. A uniform field is the condition under which a reading is the sample's own reflectance, and the only place it exists is inside an instrument. What a scene does

A room is not a sphere

An integrating sphere reads a surface's own reflectance exactly, and the exactness is a theorem rather than good engineering — under a hemisphere of constant radiance, reciprocity makes the reading the sample's directional-hemispherical reflectance whatever the surface is. Every room fails that condition, and a viewing booth and a window get the sign of the error wrong in opposite directions.

 The share of a sample's reflectance an aperture recovers, by how wide it is. Six materials, and the fraction of each one's true reflectance that a measurement recovers through an aperture of the stated radius. The horizontal axis is logarithmic in millimetres; the vertical is a share, so 1.0 is the whole of it. The dashed line is a 8-millimetre radius, which is about what a hand-held spectrophotometer has. At that aperture coated paper reads 99 per cent of its own reflectance and candle wax reads 66. Every curve approaches one from below and none of them reaches it: the kernel's tail is what is being cut, and it falls as one over the aperture rather than exponentially. What it takes to deliver it

Either disc can be the wide one

Every standard on translucent samples says to illuminate a larger area than is measured, and explains it by saying that light leaks out of the lit spot. That is true and it is not the reason, because the instruction works equally well the other way round — measuring a larger area than is lit gives a reading just as exact. The error is a product of two apertures and either one being wide kills it.

 What the interface does to a reflectance, and the straight line it is taken for. The Saunderson relation between the reflectance inside a pigment layer and the reflectance an instrument reads off it, for a boundary of refractive index 1.50. The curve is the real map; the dashed line joins its two endpoints, which is the straight relation an additive pedestal assumes. They are 0.216 of a reflectance unit apart at their widest, which is 5 times the pedestal itself. The curvature comes from the k₂ term — light reflected back down into the layer from underneath the boundary — which is 0.60 where the outward reflection is 0.04. What a scene does

A mixture in the variable nobody named

Kubelka–Munk works because absorption and scattering add over a mixture and reflectance does not. What adds is the absorption of the pigment layer, and what an instrument reports is that layer seen through an interface — related by a Möbius function rather than by a constant. Mixing in the reported variable instead of the internal one costs between three and eight ΔE₀₀, and no source this collection quotes says which variable its curves are in.

 Four departures from the model equation, each at an ordinary strength. What each of the four assumptions inside a colour integral costs, in ΔE₀₀, on a stated sample under a stated light. The wavelength index is a coated printing paper measured with and without the ultraviolet of D50; the range is the same paper integrated from 300 nanometres and from 380; the place index is a pigmented plastic through a four-millimetre radius; the direction index is an eggshell paint beside a window. The spread is a factor of 7.0. This is a ranking of four examples rather than of four departures — each of them can be made larger by choosing a more extreme sample, and the marble in the same collection of materials reaches 12.7 on the index that comes third here. What it takes to deliver it

Which index to buy an instrument for

Four departures from the colour integral, ranked by what they cost and by what it would take to remove each one. The ranking by cost and the ranking by price are almost exactly reversed — the two largest are removed by specifying a lamp and by widening a table, and the two that need new hardware are the two smallest.

 A radiance factor, split into the part that was reflected and the part that was not. The two components of what leaves a coated press stock under M₁ — D50 including its ultraviolet. The lower band is the reflected component, which is what a reflectance curve means and is everything a reflectance-based model can hold. The band above it is light emitted at wavelengths it did not arrive at, and its total is decided by how much ultraviolet the source had rather than by anything about the sheet's colour. The line at one is the boundary a reflecting surface cannot cross; the sum reaches 1.15 at 430 nanometres. What light is

The ultraviolet is half the product

A fluorescent sample's departure from the reflectance model is exactly proportional to the ultraviolet the lamp carries — to twelve figures, over a range that includes zero. It is the only one of the round's four departures that really is a product of two magnitudes, and the reason is a rule about how molecules relax rather than anything about arithmetic.

 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 grid is a range, not an index

Three of the four departures in this round restore an argument the model dropped. The fourth does not — the 380-to-780-nanometre grid is the range of the one argument the model kept, chosen in the first weeks and never revisited. It costs 6.70 ΔE₀₀ on a coated printing paper, it is the cheapest of the four to fix, and it is the one still unfixed.

 What is read at each distance from the edge of a lit region. Three materials under a half-plane of light, with the boundary at the centre of the horizontal axis and the lit side on the right. The vertical axis is the radiance leaving the surface as a share of what it leaves far inside the lit region. On the unlit side the sample is emitting light while receiving none, so the ratio the model calls a reflectance has a zero denominator there. The distance over which the curve runs from a tenth to nine tenths is 0.21 millimetres on coated paper and 5.1 on pale marble — which is the width of the neighbourhood a point's colour is decided by. What a camera does

A pixel has an aperture too

A camera photographing a translucent object has the same two discs a spectrophotometer has — one lit, one looked at — and gets them the other way round. Its illumination covers the whole scene, so the flat colour of a translucent surface comes out exactly right at any magnification, and the error moves entirely into the edges.

 An aperture and a gloss lobe, apart and together. Six materials, each measured through a four-millimetre radius and each given a gloss lobe, alone and at the same time. The pale bar is what the two cost added together as if they were independent; the dark one is what they cost when both are present. Every material comes out below the sum, by between 0.8 and 3.6 ΔE₀₀. The two departures partly cancel: the aperture removes light that went into the material and came back out too far away, and the interface returns light that never went in at all. Measuring either one alone therefore overstates what both together do, which is the opposite of the way interacting errors are usually assumed to behave. Difference and uniformity

Two departures that partly cancel

A glossy translucent sample has two of this round's four departures at once, and the expectation was that they would compound. They do the opposite. An aperture takes light away that went into the material and came back too far out; an interface returns light that never went in at all — so measuring either alone overstates what both together do, on every material tested.

 Two slabs with one reflectance, and two colours through an aperture. Two constructed media whose bulk reflectance agrees at every wavelength to fifteen figures, and whose diffusion lengths differ by a factor of four. The upper curve is that shared reflectance — both slabs lie on it exactly. The two patches on the right are what a 4 millimetre radius returns from each, and they are 6.3 ΔE₀₀ apart. This is a metamerism with no observer in it: the two samples are the same colour to anybody under any light, and the instrument separates them because it is measuring a kernel through a hole rather than measuring a reflectance. Matching and measuring

A pair the aperture separates

Two constructed slabs with the same reflectance at every wavelength, to fifteen figures — the same colour to any observer under any light — and 6.25 ΔE₀₀ apart when measured through a four-millimetre aperture. It is a metamerism with no observer in it, no illuminant in it, and no spectral difference to construct it from.

 What is read at each distance from the edge of a lit region. Three materials under a half-plane of light, with the boundary at the centre of the horizontal axis and the lit side on the right. The vertical axis is the radiance leaving the surface as a share of what it leaves far inside the lit region. On the unlit side the sample is emitting light while receiving none, so the ratio the model calls a reflectance has a zero denominator there. The distance over which the curve runs from a tenth to nine tenths is 0.21 millimetres on coated paper and 5.1 on pale marble — which is the width of the neighbourhood a point's colour is decided by. What the eye does

Two blurs before the eye's own

A translucent object arrives at the eye already blurred, by a kernel that is a property of the material rather than of the optics. On every material in this collection's table that blur is coarser at ordinary reading distance than the finest detail the eye can resolve — so the softness of marble or skin or wax is not a failure of vision, it is the object.

 Two slabs with one reflectance, and two colours through an aperture. Two constructed media whose bulk reflectance agrees at every wavelength to fifteen figures, and whose diffusion lengths differ by a factor of four. The upper curve is that shared reflectance — both slabs lie on it exactly. The two patches on the right are what a 4 millimetre radius returns from each, and they are 6.3 ΔE₀₀ apart. This is a metamerism with no observer in it: the two samples are the same colour to anybody under any light, and the instrument separates them because it is measuring a kernel through a hole rather than measuring a reflectance. What the brain does

The appearance model has no slot for it

Two slabs with identical reflectance and different kernels come out of CIECAM16 with identical lightness, chroma and hue — to six decimal places, because the model's input is a stimulus and their stimuli are the same. Translucency is a recognised appearance attribute with no correlate in any appearance model, and the reason is structural rather than an oversight.

 The collection's adaptation census, with its surfaces departed. Each row is one of the fourteen changes of light in this site's adaptation census, and the bar is what a von Kries gain leaves behind. The open marks are the published numbers; the filled ones are the same computation with every one of the hundred and twenty-five test surfaces replaced by what an instrument with an aperture, or a room with a direction in it, actually reports. Nothing moves by more than 9 per cent. A departure that does not depend on the light is very largely absorbed by the observer's own gain, because it changes the reflectance and the gain is applied afterwards. The fourth departure is not on this chart and cannot be: a fluorescent sample has a different curve under every light, so there is no set of reflectances to hand the census at all. What a camera does

The chart was measured, not photographed

A camera profile is fitted so that the camera's response maps onto the chart's tristimulus values, and those values came out of a spectrophotometer. So the profile's target carries the instrument's departures and the camera does not — a mildly translucent chart read through a four-millimetre aperture supplies targets 2.55 ΔE₀₀ from the truth, which is twice the profile's own fitting error.

 Four departures from the model equation, each at an ordinary strength. What each of the four assumptions inside a colour integral costs, in ΔE₀₀, on a stated sample under a stated light. The wavelength index is a coated printing paper measured with and without the ultraviolet of D50; the range is the same paper integrated from 300 nanometres and from 380; the place index is a pigmented plastic through a four-millimetre radius; the direction index is an eggshell paint beside a window. The spread is a factor of 7.0. This is a ranking of four examples rather than of four departures — each of them can be made larger by choosing a more extreme sample, and the marble in the same collection of materials reaches 12.7 on the index that comes third here. Difference and uniformity

The departures are larger than the tolerance

A delivery tolerance is written around one ΔE₀₀ and every one of this round's four departures is above it on ordinary material. A specification that names an illuminant, an observer and a tolerance, and does not name a measurement condition, an aperture and a field, has written a number that two honest laboratories can miss each other on by more than the number itself.

 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.

258 essays on this thread, page 7 of 11 · all threads · all essays