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

The thread: Three numbers — page 7

An infinite-dimensional spectrum is projected onto three cone responses, and everything colour science can do — and every way it fails — follows from that single collapse.
A 12-nanometre notch at 546.1 nm under a fluorescent tube, tabulated five ways. The cost against a tenth-nanometre reference, on a five-nanometre grid, of a notched sample under a fluorescent tube, mercury lines on a phosphor bed, when the two factors of the colour are tabulated as points, when the lamp alone is measured through a five-nanometre slit, when the sample alone is, when each is measured through its own slit, and when the light the sample reflects is measured through one slit. The costs are 2.535 for both sampled at points, 0.379 for the lamp through a slit, 2.724 for the sample through a slit, 0.727 for both through their own slits, 0.019 for the product through one slit. The tick on the two-slit bar is the same two tables summed at a tenth of a nanometre, 0.749: what the separate slits leave is not the grid's. What light is

Two slits are not one slit

A spectrometer's slit is what makes a coarse table honest, for a lamp and for a notched sample alike. But a colour is a sum over the product of the two, and a notch measured through one slit and a lamp measured through another are not the product measured through a slit. Under a smooth light the difference is nothing. Under a fluorescent tube a notch on the mercury line comes out 0.73 colour differences off from two slits — worse than no slit at all for some notches — and 0.02 off from one slit on the reflected light.

 The corner of a patch of skin against its own shadow, magnified four times by Lanczos, three lobes. A map of the neighbourhood of one corner of a square patch — the patch fills the lower right, the field the rest — once it has been magnified four times by Lanczos, three lobes. Each cell is shaded by how much lighter (warm) or darker (cool) the stored-value result is than the light's, the deepest shade 18.2 units of lightness. Within three source pixels of the corner the stored-value result is up to 14.5 colour differences lighter, 14.5 outside the patch against 3.1 inside it, and up to 7.3 darker. What it takes to deliver it

The corner of a resized patch is lighter than its edges

A resize taken on stored values is darker than the resize of the light wherever its weights are positive, and lighter beside an edge where a kernel's negative lobes fall. In two dimensions the kernel is a product, and just outside a patch's corner a Lanczos magnification of skin against its shadow comes out 14.5 colour differences lighter — more than along either edge. A reduction to a quarter is mostly an average and errs lighter by at most two. And an unsharp mask, whose negative weights are its whole purpose, is lighter on the stored values at every amount on every pair, and never darker.

 Where a press's variation lies, and where the tolerance charges for it. Each printed patch's sheet-to-sheet variation under four stated mixes of press variation, split along the three axes of a one-unit ΔE₀₀ tolerance at that patch, tightest first. The upper bar of each pair is the share of the variation along each axis and the lower the share of the price, averaged over 29 patches. For an even mix the tightest axis holds 1.5% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 83% and pays 36%. For inking alone the tightest axis holds 2.0% of the variation and pays 34% of the price, and the loosest holds 79% and pays 28%. For a gain-led press the tightest axis holds 1.8% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 83% and pays 39%. For a trap-led press the tightest axis holds 1.6% of the variation and pays 29% of the price, and the loosest holds 82% and pays 35%. Matching and measuring

A press is charged for the direction it barely moves

A press run varies almost entirely along the direction a colour tolerance forgives. Split along the tolerance's own axes under four stated mixes of press variation, its tightest axis holds about one per cent of the sheet-to-sheet variation and pays a quarter to a third of the price — and on a blue overprint four fifths, for the balance between two inking units rather than the level of either.

 The angle between the two filters against how completely the eye has adapted. The angle, in the local metric, between what an older lens does to a reading and what a denser macular pigment does, on 120 smooth reflectances, as the degree of adaptation runs from nought to one. The median angle is 8 degrees unadapted and 156 at complete adaptation, and almost all of the turn happens in the last tenth: it passes a right angle at a degree of 0.928. The marks are the degrees CIECAM16 gives five rooms — an overcast sky 1.00, an office 0.94, a lit living room 0.86, a dim room 0.75, a cinema 0.66 — so only the outdoor one is at the end of the dial. Difference and uniformity

Two filters cancel only in a bright enough room

An older lens and a denser macular pigment cancel each other once an eye has adapted — and that result belongs to the end of a dial nobody stands at. Read at the degree of adaptation CIECAM16 gives an ordinary room, the two barely cancel; in a living room they add, and in a cinema they cost six times what they cost under the sky. The room has to be about as bright as an office before the cancelling begins at all.

 The same pairs, held at one colour difference, read in a unit that knows the room. 23 pairs of reflectances built to sit at exactly ΔE₀₀ 1.000 under D65, read in CAM16-UCS as the adapting luminance runs from a third of a candela a square metre to ten thousand, in an average surround. ΔE₀₀ has no argument for the room, so in that formula every pair stays at 1.000 all the way across — the flat line. In the model's unit the same pairs rise from a median of 0.76 to 1.30, and they do not rise together: at the bright end they run from 1.11 to 1.65. Difference and uniformity

A tolerance has no light level

Twenty-three pairs built at exactly one colour difference stay at exactly one in every room, because the formula has no argument for the room. Read in the unit that does have one, the same pairs are 0.72 in a cinema, 1.04 in an office and 1.30 in direct sun — and inside any one room they spread by half again, so no single conversion between the two units exists at all.

 What is left of one colour difference when the two colours alternate. 23 pairs built at exactly ΔE₀₀ 1.000, alternated at a rate, with each part of the difference scaled by its own temporal channel and the formula then applied unchanged. At rest every pair is the flat line at one. By 7 hertz the median is 1.11 and the pairs run from 0.57 to 3.04 — a factor of 5.3 between pairs the formula calls identical. By sixty hertz the largest of them is 0.15. Difference and uniformity

A difference has no rate

A colour difference formula answers for two patches that are both there and stay. Alternate the same two colours and the difference is not scaled but taken apart: the colour half is gone by fifteen hertz and the lightness half is four times louder at eight, so twenty-three pairs the formula calls identical run over a factor of six at the rate the eye is best at, and are worth nothing at all above sixty.

 The straight line between two colours, and the formula's own shortest path. Five gradients seen from above, in the a and b plane of CIELAB: the straight line between the two colours in grey, and the shortest path under ΔE₀₀'s own local metric in colour. The lightness coordinate bows too and is not drawn. red to green saves 3.6 per cent and leaves the straight line by 13; blue to yellow saves 7.5 per cent and leaves the straight line by 21; cyan to magenta saves 3.9 per cent and leaves the straight line by 10; black to white saves 0.0 per cent and leaves the straight line by 0; red to blue saves 0.3 per cent and leaves the straight line by 4 CIELAB units at the widest. Black to white is the flat case: its shortest path is the straight one. Matching and measuring

The straight line is not the shortest gradient

A colour difference formula says what a small step costs at every colour, and that is enough to ask which path between two colours is shortest. It is not the straight line: between red and green the shortest path bows thirteen CIELAB units away, saves four per cent — and stays inside sRGB on every step where the straight line leaves it. The formula's own answer for the two endpoints, meanwhile, is neither length.

 What a slope limit costs the object-colour solid, direction by direction. For each transition width, how much of its ideal reach the solid keeps: the median direction, the tenth percentile, and the worst. At twenty nanometres the median keeps 0.997 and the tenth percentile 0.985; at eighty they keep 0.946 and 0.766, and at 160 0.826 and 0.417. The worst direction falls from 1.00 at five nanometres to 0.20 at 160, with directions reaching under five units beyond black set aside. The cost is in a corner only at widths sharper than an ordinary pigment's. Where the model breaks

The limits assume a pigment that switches instantly

The hardest boundary in colorimetry is reached by reflectances that jump between nought and one at a wavelength, and no material does that. Constrain the jump to take twenty nanometres — a sharp dye — and the median direction of the object-colour solid loses under half a per cent of its reach. Constrain it to eighty, an ordinary pigment, and the median loses five per cent, the tenth percentile nearly a quarter, and seven directions in ten lose more than one. The cost is in a corner only for chemistry sharper than paint.

 How far CIECAM16 moves a monochromatic hue when the light is brightened thirtyfold. A monochromatic stimulus at a relative luminance of 2 and of 60, read through CIECAM16 in one room, and the difference between its two hue angles. The model was never fitted to this effect and has it anyway: the shift is positive at the short end, negative through the greens, positive again in the yellows and reds, and crosses zero at 459, 495, 502, 570 nanometres. The marks are the invariant wavelengths the literature reports — 474, 506, 571. What the brain does

The model has a hue shift it was never given

A monochromatic light changes hue as it is brightened, except at three wavelengths that do not move — an effect measured since the nineteenth century and not among the things CIECAM16 was fitted to. The model has it anyway: brightening a stimulus thirtyfold moves its hue angle, and the places where the movement crosses zero land at 459, 495, 502 and 570 nanometres against the reported 474, 506 and 571. The sizes are another matter.

 One grey scale, three backgrounds. CIECAM16's lightness against the luminance factor of a neutral sample, with only the background changed. A grey reflecting 19% reads 46.7 on a near-black background and 32.8 on a near-white one. The three curves are not three shapes: each is the same curve raised to a different power, because the background reaches lightness only through the exponent z, which runs 1.621 to 2.374 across the three. What the brain does

A dark background moves every difference and no match

CIECAM16's background is one number, and it reaches lightness as one exponent. That is enough to change what a grey looks like and not enough to change which of two greys is lighter — so a match survives the background exactly, a corresponding colour is invariant to it, and a tolerance is not. The effect the background is usually invoked to explain is absent from the model entirely.

 A crispening term puts the peak where the background is. How much lightness the model returns for a small change in the sample's level, against the sample's level measured as a log ratio to the background's — so that all three backgrounds share one axis and a peak at the background is a peak at zero. The pale curves are CIECAM16 as it stands, which has no peak anywhere: they rise slowly and monotonically because a background that enters as four constants fixed before the sample arrives cannot know where the sample sits relative to it. The solid curves are the same model with a term of amplitude 6 and width 0.5 added to lightness. Each peaks at zero to within 0.000 of a log unit, and the peak's height is 12.00 lightness units per log unit of level — the amplitude divided by the width, exactly. What the brain does

The cancellation is exact and cheap to lose

CIECAM16 has no crispening, and adding one was expected to be expensive: the background's exactness in a corresponding colour comes from its being a common exponent, and a function of the sample's own level is not one. It is expensive in kind and not in size. A term that raises a straddling pair's lightness difference by half moves a corresponding colour by five thousandths of a tristimulus unit — a thousandth of what stating the background differently at the two ends already costs.

 The pairs that change places in chroma are a wedge with two straight edges. Every pair of samples, plotted by the log ratio of the two samples' background-free responses across and the log ratio of their chroma at a background of 2 up. A pair changes places between that background and one of 80 exactly when its chroma ratio and its response ratio point in opposite directions and the chroma ratio is the smaller — which is the wedge between the horizontal axis and a line of slope -0.2598, half the change in the lightness exponent. 754 of 14028 pairs are inside it, and the condition names every one of them and nothing else: 0 disagreements between the line and the model. The pale dots are one pair in eleven of those outside; the filled ones are every pair inside. What the brain does

The reversals have a straight edge

Twenty-one of 276 pairs change places in chroma between a dark background and a light one, and the reason given was that chroma is a product of a term carrying the exponent and a term that does not. That is true and it is not a description of which pairs. Chroma at one background is a single common factor times a power of lightness at another, so a pair reverses exactly when its chroma ratio and its lightness ratio point opposite ways and the first is the smaller — a wedge with two straight edges, which names every reversal and nothing else.

 One lightness scale, drawn as a contour across the rooms. Three surrounds up the page and the background's luminance factor across it, on a square-root scale so that the model's own exponent base is linear in the axis. Each curve joins the rooms whose lightness exponent is the same, and every room on one curve returns the same lightness for every sample. The marked curve is the one through a television in a lit living room against a mid grey: it also passes through a print on a desk against a background of 2.8 and a projection in a dark room against 47.0. A curve that leaves the plot has no member in that surround, because each surround multiplies a base that runs only from 1.48 to 2.48. What the brain does

Two rooms with one lightness scale

CIECAM16's surround and its background both reach lightness, and they reach it through one product. So the rooms fall into classes: a television in a lit living room against a mid grey returns exactly the lightness a print on a desk against a background of 2.8 does, for every sample, to the last bit of a double. It returns 0.76 of its chroma and 0.81 of its brightness. Two of the model's four viewing-condition parameters are one parameter, and only colour tells them apart.

 Every pair of departures, before adaptation and after it. The fifteen pairs of the six audited observer departures. Each row runs from the angle between that pair's two deviations with no adaptation to the angle with complete adaptation; an angle past ninety degrees is a pair pointing apart, which is where a pair can cost less together than the larger of the two costs alone. 3 pairs gain that behaviour as the eye adapts, 3 keep it, 5 lose it and 4 never have it. The pair followed here — the lens against the macular pigment — is in the smallest group that is not empty, and every result quoted from it generalises in the wrong direction. Difference and uniformity

Adaptation turns more pairs off than on

One pair of observer departures was followed across the degree of adaptation and found to cancel only in a bright enough room. The same calculation takes any two, and run over all fifteen pairs it says something the single pair does not: adaptation is a rotation rather than a mechanism for making departures oppose each other. Five pairs lose their cancellation as the eye adapts, three gain it, three keep it and four never have it — and the pair everybody quotes is one of the three it turns on.

 Six departures, and three ways of adding them up. The six audited observer departures on 120 smooth reflectances, across the dial. Summing them assumes they all point the same way and is an overestimate everywhere; taking the largest alone assumes only one matters and is an underestimate everywhere. Quadrature — the usual way of combining contributions taken to be independent — assumes they are mutually perpendicular, and the measured combination crosses it at a degree of 0.8618. Below that the departures are on balance pointing together and quadrature is too small; above it they are on balance pointing apart and quadrature is too large. It is exactly right in one room. Difference and uniformity

Quadrature is exact in one room

An observer allowance is built by adding the departures in quadrature, which assumes they are mutually perpendicular. Over fifteen pairs their angles run from 18 degrees to 179 and hardly any are perpendicular. Measured against the real combination, quadrature is too small in a cinema by eight per cent and too large under the sky by fourteen, crossing at an adapting luminance of 22 candelas a square metre — and on individual surfaces it is out by a third in both directions in every room.

 The error between a profile's nodes is a bias, not a scatter. Two quantities against the lattice size: the mean colour difference between the nodes, and the mean signed lightness error. If the interpolation erred in both directions the second would be near zero while the first was not. They lie on each other — 0.136 against 0.133 at a nine-step lattice — so the whole of what a profile does between its patches is to lighten. It errs light because a press's response is convex in ink coverage: the first drop of ink removes more light than the last, and a straight line between two points on a convex curve lies above it. At three steps 400 of 400 samples err light. What it takes to deliver it

A profile interpolates light

A profile is exact at its patches and wrong between them, and how wrong has been measured twice. Which way it is wrong has not. At a nine-step lattice the mean signed lightness error between the nodes is +0.136 against a mean colour difference of 0.133 — the error is not a scatter but a bias, and it lightens. The repair costs nothing measured and is forbidden by how a profile is checked: let the table be wrong at its own patches.

 One instrument, one uncertainty, six places on the scale. What an absolute uncertainty of 0.001 in measured reflectance is worth in lightness, at six levels from a four-colour solid to the paper. Nothing about the instrument changes between the rows: what changes is the slope of the lightness function, which is a straight line of 903 units per unit of luminance factor below a luminance of 0.0089 and a cube root above it. At the solid the uncertainty is 0.903 lightness units and at the paper 0.043 — 21 times as much, for the same measurement. What it takes to deliver it

The scale hangs from one measurement

Black point compensation is a straight line between two blacks, and the destination's is a measurement of one patch at the darkest place a spectrophotometer is ever asked to read. The lightness scale's slope is 903 units per unit of luminance factor there and 43 at the paper, so a thousandth of a reflectance is worth nine tenths of a lightness unit at the black and four hundredths at the white. That one number moves a mid grey by nearly a quarter of a delivery tolerance, and no specification names it.

 The confusion matrix, and which corner the common lamps are in. Twelve fixtures sorted two ways. Down the page is what their spectra are; across is what flicker says. The two corners on the diagonal are 7 fixtures the classifier gets right. The 3 missed are structured lamps that do not flicker — a white LED and a warm LED on constant drivers, and a three-emitter fixture — and those are the lamps most modern interiors are lit by. The 2 false alarms are smooth lamps that do flicker: a halogen lamp on mains and a tinted radiator, both of which a photograph of a room is quite likely to contain. What a camera does

Flicker sorts lamps the wrong way

A camera cannot see a spectral line in its own white, so the essay on the two-matrix profile named the classifiers a device might have instead, and the first of them was flicker. Flicker is measurable, and it measures the wrong thing. It sorts lamps by how their power is delivered while the matrix needs them sorted by how their spectrum is shaped, and the two are independent: a white LED on a constant driver is perfectly steady and strongly structured, and it is what most indoor photographs are lit by.

 The statistic a converter would read, under each model. The log ratio of the two channels that are still open, against how bright the surface is, under the two models of what a highlight is. A matt surface over-exposed keeps its own ratio exactly — the line is flat, and it must be, because scaling every channel by the same amount leaves a ratio alone. A glossy surface carries a reflection of the lamp on top of its body colour, so its ratio slides towards the lamp's as the reflection strengthens: -0.086 of a log unit between a quarter of full scale and nine tenths. That slide is the whole of the evidence a converter has for choosing between them. What a camera does

The converter can choose except where it matters

A converter rebuilding a clipped highlight has to say whether the surface was matt and over-exposed or glossy and carrying a reflection, and the evidence is whether its raw chromaticity slides towards the lamp's on the way up. Read through the sensor's own noise, the slide is clear on most of the chart from the few tens of pixels a specular highlight holds — and on the surfaces where it takes half a frame, confusing the two models costs more than the median. A ratio cannot see a common scale, and an exposure supplies one.

 The four places a clamp could sit are two pipelines. Every pair of clamp positions, with the largest difference their delivered values reach over a grid of raw inputs that includes negative ones. Two of the six are exactly zero: a clamp at zero commutes with the white balance, which is a positive scale applied channel by channel, and with the tone curve, which is monotone and fixes zero. It does not commute with the colour matrix, which is the only step that mixes the channels — so the four positions collapse to two, before the matrix and after it, and no measurement of any scene can say more than which side a converter is on. What a camera does

Four places to clamp are two pipelines

The essay on clipped noise ended on a procedure: a black frame and a dim grey card at a high amplification would place each raw converter's clamp. A procedure is a claim that a measurement identifies something, and this one identifies less than it looks. A clamp at zero commutes with the white balance and with the tone curve and not with the colour matrix, so the four positions are two pipelines — and the measurement separates them, on a card at half a per cent of white rather than on the black frame.

 Six ways of tabulating one notch on one mercury line. A 12-nanometre notch centred on a fluorescent tube's 546.1 nm line, its colour computed on a five-nanometre grid six ways, on a logarithmic scale. Point sampling costs 2.54 colour differences and two separate slits 0.727. Sharpening both blurred tables with the published three-term correction takes it to 0.188 — a real improvement, four times better — and one slit on the light the sample actually reflects gives 0.019. The correction recovers the part of the damage that is a blur, and the part that is left is not a blur. What light is

A linear repair for a bilinear loss

The Stearns correction sharpens a table blurred by a triangular slit, and the obvious question was whether applying it to a lamp's table and a sample's restores the product the two of them are wrong about. It restores four fifths of the damage and cannot touch the rest: a three-term filter is linear, the covariance two separately blurred tables discard is bilinear in the two factors, and no linear operator applied to each factor separately produces a bilinear term. What is left is ten times the one-slit answer, at every position of the notch.

 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.

 Two uniform spaces, two answers: cyan to magenta. The gradient from above, in the a and b plane. The grey line is the straight path in CIELAB; the two coloured curves are the shortest paths under ΔE₀₀'s own local metric and under CAM16-UCS's. They are 15.7 CIELAB units apart at their furthest, against bows from the straight line of 9.9 and 12.2. Both spaces are published as uniform and both are used to decide what lies between two colours; they do not agree. Matching and measuring

Two uniform spaces disagree about between

ΔE₀₀'s own local behaviour says which colours lie between two colours, and so does CAM16-UCS's. They do not agree. On cyan to magenta the two shortest paths run fifteen CIELAB units apart — more than either runs from the straight line — and on that gradient ΔE₀₀ would rather have the straight line than CAM16-UCS's answer. Getting the comparison at all takes noticing that one of the two has no local metric: its published difference is a Euclidean distance raised to the power 0.63, and a power below one has an infinite derivative at zero.

207 essays on this thread, page 7 of 9 · all threads · all essays