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

The thread: Three numbers — page 8

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.
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.

 The glossiest finish the solver can report, against what it costs to report it. Six quadratures, each with the roughness at which its answer stops being stable, on logarithmic axes. The line is a fit and its slope is -0.350: the reachable roughness falls as the cost to the power of about a third, so reaching a finish twice as glossy costs about 7 times the work. The solver used here sits at 108 directions and reports down to a roughness of 0.145, which is where its own note put the boundary by inspection. What a scene does

The boundary belongs to the quadrature

The directional solver stops at a roughness of about 0.15, and below that its answers are not imprecise but unphysical. The boundary is where the lobe stops being resolved by the sampling, so it belongs to the discretisation rather than to the room — and moving it is a purchase. Measured across six quadratures the reachable roughness falls as the cost to the power of a third, so a finish twice as glossy costs seven times the work and a polished varnish costs two hundred and thirty-six times.

 A satin finish pulls each room towards the lamp's white — a 3000 K radiator. Six rooms lit by a 3000 K radiator, on the ab plane of an instrument referenced to daylight, whose own white is the cross at the centre. Each open circle is a matt room and the arrow runs to the same room with satin walls. The filled diamond is the lamp's own white on that plane. Every arrow points within 9.2 degrees of the diamond and covers between 8.1 and 11.5 per cent of the distance to it. Whether the daylight instrument then reads more chroma or less depends only on whether the room was nearer the cross than the diamond is. What a scene does

A finish adds colour only to a daylight meter

Measured against daylight's white, a satin finish under six lamps and six wall colours takes anything from −6 to 42 per cent of a room's colour, and one room reads as more colourful glossy than matt. Measured against the white of the lamp each room is actually lit by, the same thirty-six rooms lose between 7.7 and 12.9 per cent and none gains. The whole spread was the lamp's own colour, and the finish does one simple thing to every room: it pulls the room's colour a tenth of the way towards the lamp's white.

 Thirty-six rooms as a viewer adapted to each would see them. Each cell is one room at a satin finish: wall colour down, lamp across. The large number is the share of the faces' chroma a viewer adapted to the room's own light loses, read through CIECAM16; the small number under it is what the room's light loses against the lamp's white. The viewer loses between 12.8 and 30.9 per cent, always more than the light, and the rows differ far more than the columns: a deep red room loses about twice what a green one does under every lamp. What a scene does

What an adapted viewer loses is set by the wall

A satin finish takes about a tenth of a room's colour, measured on the room's light against its lamp's white. Read through an appearance model by a viewer adapted to the room, the same thirty-six rooms lose between 12.8 and 30.9 per cent — 1.4 to 2.4 times as much — and the wall colour decides the multiplier: a deep red room loses twice what a green one does, under every lamp. A test on the bare wall predicts it. Add a little of the lamp's white to the wall's own colour and ask the model what that costs: the answer orders the thirty-six multipliers at 0.95.

 The share a finish takes falls with how much light the wall returns. Seventy-two rooms under daylight, each with a different paint on two opposite walls — six hues, four band widths, three peak reflectances — at a satin finish. Across is the wall's luminance factor, the share of the lamp's light it returns; up is the share of the room's chroma the finish takes. The losses fall with the luminance factor at a rank correlation of −0.89, from 15.5 per cent on the darkest walls to 2.5 on the palest. The two ringed paints make rooms of the same matt chroma and lose 14.7 and 2.5 per cent. What a scene does

A dark wall pays for a finish

A satin finish takes about a tenth of a room's colour, and the tenth varies. The natural explanation is that a weak colour loses a larger share of itself to the white light a glossy surface adds. Over seventy-two paints under one lamp that explanation orders nothing: the loss runs from 2.5 to 15.5 per cent, it follows how much light the wall returns at a rank correlation of −0.89, and it follows how colourful the wall is at −0.04. Two rooms equally colourful matt lose shares nearly six times apart, and the one that loses more is the darker.

 How many directions a slope limit costs, under four lamps. For each transition width and each lamp, the share of the solid's directions that lose more than one per cent of their reach — each lamp's solid against its own ideal. Daylight, a tungsten lamp and a phosphor LED run close together. The three-emitter LED, whose power sits in lines at 455, 530, 625 nanometres, costs 62 directions at forty nanometres where daylight costs 183, and by eighty — about the spacing of its lines — it costs 214 against 218. Where the model breaks

Three lines spare a slow pigment

A pigment that cannot switch faster than forty nanometres loses more than a per cent of its reach in 183 of the object-colour solid's 305 directions under daylight. Under an LED whose light sits in three narrow lines, it loses that much in 62. Between the lines almost nothing is measured, so a slow reflectance can do its changing there — until its transitions are as wide as the lines are far apart, at which point the lamp stops helping and the count jumps to daylight's.

 A 40-nanometre limit written in nanometres and written in energy. The transition width a reflectance is allowed, across the spectrum, for two ways of stating the same sharpness. Written in nanometres it is 40 everywhere. Written as a fixed spread of photon energy, which is how an absorption band's width is set, it is 40 at 550 nanometres and grows as the square of the wavelength: 21 at 400 and 67 at 700. The steps are the quantisation the calculation actually imposes. Where the model breaks

A limit written in energy charges the reds

A slope limit on reflectance is usually written in nanometres and applied the same way across the spectrum. An absorption band's width is closer to a fixed spread of photon energy, which is nearly twice as many nanometres at 700 as at 500. Written that way, a limit that is forty nanometres at 550 is kinder to the object-colour solid overall — 489 of 913 directions lose a per cent rather than 544 — and it charges the reds more. Which directions pay is decided by one thing: whether their optimal edges fall above or below the reference wavelength.

 Two tables, two directions of error: 5-node ramps of four inks. For each ink, the mean signed lightness error between the nodes: of the ordinary forward table, which errs light, and of four ways to fill the inverse table, all of which err dark except the one refitted against its own objective. On cyan the forward table errs by +0.206; an inverse filled from the press by -0.317; one inverted from the ordinary table by -0.554, because it inherits the forward table's error on top of its own; one inverted from the refitted table by -0.367; and one refitted in its own right by -0.002. What it takes to deliver it

The inverse table errs dark

A profile's forward table predicts a print lighter than the press makes, and refitting its nodes removes the bias. The table a colour engine actually uses to separate an image is the other one — the inverse, from colour to ink — and it errs the opposite way: filled exactly from the press it asks for too much ink and prints dark, and built by inverting the ordinary forward table it prints darker still. Inverting the refitted forward table removes the inherited part and leaves the inverse's own. The round trip through both tables improves only when each is refitted against its own error, and then the two are no longer each other's inverse.

 Where an unsharp mask errs, per pixel and as seen: print, 40 cm. The upper-left corner of a patch of skin against its shadow after an unsharp mask, as two maps of the colour difference between the result taken on stored values and taken on light. Left, pixel by pixel: the corner peaks at 16.8 and the middle of the edge at 16.6. Right, after the eye's three spatial channels at a print at 40 cm: the corner is seen at 17.1 and the edge at 7.1, a ratio of 2.40. Darker is larger, on one scale for both maps. What it takes to deliver it

The eye counts a corner's error, not its peak

A Lanczos-magnified patch errs a fifth more at its corner than along its edges, pixel by pixel, and an unsharp mask errs almost exactly as much at its corner as along its edges. Filtered by the eye over the plane rather than along a line, the two swap: the magnified corner is seen exactly as its edge is, and on a printed page the sharpened corner is seen at 2.4 times its edge. What decides it is whether the error changes sign. Ringing averages away and a one-sided halo does not, and a corner is where two edges' halos land on the same patch of retina.

 What the rods cost a match, by where their signal enters and under which lamp. For five lights, the median colour difference over forty-two surfaces between the reference observer and the same observer with a rod signal a tenth of each cone's peak added — into all three cone channels, into the long- and middle-wavelength channels only, or into the short-wavelength channel only. Under daylight the first two are 1.03 and 0.90: whether the rods reach the S pathway hardly matters. Under a phosphor white LED they are 1.24 and 0.45, a factor of 2.75, and the S-only route alone costs 0.96. What the eye does

The rods' route is priced by the lamp

A rod signal in a dim room disturbs a colour match, and how much depends on which of the cone pathways it reaches — a weight the physiology leaves uncertain, especially for the blue–yellow pathway. Under daylight the uncertainty is nearly free: a rod signal that skips the S pathway costs 0.90 at the median surface against 1.03 for one that enters all three. Under a phosphor white LED it is worth a factor of 2.75, 0.45 against 1.24. What decides it is one number per lamp: how large the rod signal is compared with each cone class's own catch of the light.

 How far each model turns a display colour's hue as white is added. The twenty-four most saturated colours an sRGB display makes, one every 15° of HSV hue across, each mixed with the display's white at the same luminance down to a fifth of its purity. Up, how far that mixture's hue angle turns in CIECAM16, CIELAB and Oklab. From red to a fifth of its purity CIECAM16 turns −9.4° and Oklab −10.2°; CIELAB −18.1°. From the display's blue, Oklab turns +16.3°, CIECAM16 +3.6° and CIELAB −8.9°. What the brain does

White turns a hue, and the models part at blue

Mix a saturated light with white and its hue changes as well as its saturation — the Abney effect, and the reason lines of constant perceived hue curve in a chromaticity diagram. Asked what adding white does to the twenty-four most saturated colours a display makes, CIECAM16, CIELAB and Oklab all turn the hue. About reds they agree: CIECAM16 turns within a degree of Oklab, whose hue was fitted to observers' constant-hue judgements. About the display's blue they do not: Oklab turns sixteen degrees, CIECAM16 four, and CIELAB nine the other way.

 Which way a tint turns a pigment's hue, made in paint and made in light. For eight pigments tinted nineteen parts white to one of colour, the Oklab hue turn from the pure pigment: of the tint made in paint (upper bar) and of the additive mixture with white at the same luminance (lower bar). For seven of the eight the two point in opposite directions. The orange turns +13.5° in paint and −13.9° in light. What the brain does

A tint in paint turns the other way

A pale colour can be made two ways: by stirring white pigment into a coloured one, or by adding white light to it — which is what a halftone on white paper and a display both do. At the same luminance the two tints are not the same colour. For seven of eight pigments they turn the hue in opposite directions, an orange by +13.5 degrees in paint and −13.9 in light, and the paint tint is the more colourful of the two every time. The cause is in the reflectance: diluting a pigment moves its absorption edge, and adding light does not.

 Twenty-three pairs at one ΔE₀₀, read in two units that know the light level. Twenty-three pairs of surface colours, each exactly one ΔE₀₀ apart, on a display whose white runs from 1.5 to 10,000 cd/m² across, with a background at a fifth of the white. ΔE₀₀ has no argument for the light and stays at one. The median ΔEITP rises from 1.01 to 2.75 and flattens near the top, and the median CAM16-UCS distance from 0.76 to 1.20. Difference and uniformity

Two units with a light level disagree about lightness

ΔE₀₀ has no argument for how bright a display is. Two colour differences do: CAM16-UCS takes the room's adapting luminance, and ΔEITP — the difference defined for high-dynamic-range television — takes the stimulus's own absolute luminance. Twenty-three pairs at exactly one ΔE₀₀ grow in both as the display brightens, 2.1 times in ΔEITP and 1.5 in CAM16-UCS from a 5 to a 5,000 cd/m² white. But in ΔEITP the lightness part grows fastest, 2.7 times, and in CAM16-UCS it does not grow at all.

 The same chart in two studios and in the room that holds both lamps. Each of the chart's twenty-four surfaces, with the pixels its slide needs at two standard deviations at high gain, on a logarithmic scale. Lit by a 3000 K radiator alone the worst surface needs 16,194; lit by daylight at 6500 K alone, 139,574. Lit by both, 50 and 50 per cent of the light, with a highlight of each lamp read together, the worst needs 10 and the median 6. The studios' hard surfaces sit at different places on the chart, and no surface is hard in both. What a camera does

Two lamps decide what one lamp could not

Under one lamp a handful of surfaces cannot tell a glossy highlight from a matt over-exposure without most of a frame, because there the two differ by a scale a ratio cannot see. In a room lit evenly by a 3000 K lamp and daylight, every surface on the chart is decided from ten pixels. A body can sit at one lamp's white, not at two, and the rescue holds only while the second lamp carries a fifth of the light and its white sits far enough from the first.

 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.

 Three uniform spaces, three answers: red to blue. The gradient from above, in the a and b plane: CIELAB's straight line, and the shortest paths under ΔE₀₀'s local metric, under CAM16-UCS's and under Oklab's, whose shortest path is its own straight line carried back into CIELAB. They bow from CIELAB's line by 14.4, 42.5 and 42.6 units. ΔE₀₀'s and CAM16-UCS's paths run 28.3 apart at their furthest, Oklab's runs 29.0 from ΔE₀₀'s and 5.6 from CAM16-UCS's, and the space furthest from the other two here is ΔE₀₀. Matching and measuring

A third space breaks the tie only once

ΔE₀₀ and CAM16-UCS disagree about which colours lie between two colours. Oklab was the obvious tie-breaker, and it breaks the tie on one gradient of five: on red to blue its path runs within six CIELAB units of CAM16-UCS's and twenty-nine from ΔE₀₀'s. On red to green and cyan to magenta it keeps to CIELAB's straight line while both others bow, and on blue to yellow it bows further than either. Each of the three spaces is the odd one out somewhere. Asking also exposed a CAM16-UCS path that had never converged.

 Six starts for every held gradient, and where each one lands. Each row is one gradient held inside a gamut, relaxed from six starts: the straight line, the free shortest path, and the straight line bent towards and away from the neutral axis and up and down in lightness. Each dot is how much longer than the free shortest path that start's result is, on a logarithmic scale from a hundredth of a per cent to a thousand; the ring marks the best. The first 10 rows are gradients between colours on a coated CMYK press's boundary whose straight line leaves the press: their best routes cost a median of 0.12% and at most 1.1%, and on 5 of them some start lands at more than twice the free length. The next 3 are the display gradients held inside sRGB, whose best cost at most 1.3% and whose starts spread by at most 4.2%. The last 6 are press gradients that never leave, where no start is trapped. Matching and measuring

A press makes the cheap route a search

Holding a gradient inside a display's gamut cost nothing measurable, and the essay that found it credited the gamut's convexity. A press's gamut is not convex: 216 of 630 straight lines between colours on its own hue ring leave it. Holding gradients inside the press still costs little at best, a median of a tenth of a per cent. But the best route depends on where the relaxation starts, the free path is the best start on one gradient of ten, and on half of them some start is trapped at more than twice the free length. On the display no start is trapped.

 What a fourth emitter costs, by where it is put. A three-emitter LED with one more emitter added at each position from 470 to 610 nanometres, and for each lamp the number of the object-colour solid's directions that lose more than a per cent of their reach to a 40-nanometre transition limit. The three-emitter lamp itself costs 62 of 312. A fourth emitter in the middle of the blue-to-green gap, at 490 nanometres, costs 172; one at 540, beside the green emitter, costs 65. The two dips sit on the existing lines and the two peaks sit between them. Where the model breaks

A fourth emitter spends the gap it fills

A three-emitter LED lets a pigment that takes forty nanometres to switch reach most of its ideal solid, because the lamp is dark where the pigment is slow. Adding a fourth emitter to render better takes that darkness back — but only if it is put in the middle of a gap. At 490 nanometres it costs 172 of the solid's 312 directions against the three-emitter lamp's 62, and renders two points worse. At 540 it costs three directions and renders two and a half points better.

 The rescue is spent on light between the lines, not on width. The three emitters of a narrow-band LED broadened together, from their nominal widths up to six times them, plotted against the light left in the darkest of the lamp's two gaps as a share of its peak. Up is the share of the object-colour solid's directions that lose more than a per cent of their reach, at three transition limits, with each limit's cost under daylight marked at the right. At forty nanometres half of the rescue is gone by a floor of 7.4 per cent — emitters only 1.30 times their nominal width — and all of it by about a fifth. At twenty nanometres and at eighty there is little to lose either way. Where the model breaks

The gap has to be dark, not the line narrow

A lamp whose light sits in three narrow emitters lets a blunt pigment reach most of its ideal solid, and the reason was given as the spacing of the lines. Broadening those emitters without moving them says otherwise. At 1.3 times their nominal width the lamp still looks like a line spectrum, its closest spacing has not changed at all, and half the rescue is gone — because the darkest point of the narrow gap has risen from one per cent of the lamp's peak to seven.

 How steep an edge a band draws, and what it costs. A Gaussian absorption band of stated width produces a reflectance edge whose own width depends on how deep the band is, because the exponential saturates: where the absorbance is large the reflectance is already nought and the edge is over. A forty-nanometre band at an absorbance of 3 draws an edge 32 nanometres wide; at 12 it draws one 21 nanometres wide. Below an absorbance of 2.3 the band never reaches a reflectance of a tenth at all and has no edge in this sense. The dashed lines are each band's own width, which is the number a slope limit would have been given. Where the model breaks

A sharp edge is bought with depth

A slope limit on reflectance was introduced as the weakest honest statement of a pigment's bluntness, with a band-shape limit named as the stronger version to be written later. Written, it is not stronger. Three absorption bands none narrower than forty nanometres reach further than a forty-nanometre slope limit in 94 of 154 directions of the object-colour solid, because a band's width and the width of the reflectance edge it draws are different quantities — and what converts one into the other is how much colorant is in the film.

 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.

 Which two lamps to stand a mesopic match between. Every pair of the five lights, by how far a match made under one and set under the other moves as the rod signal's weight into the S channel goes from nothing to equal — the median over forty-two surfaces, which is the signal an experiment has to resolve. The best pair is daylight against phosphor LED at 0.58 ΔE₀₀; the worst is tungsten against fluorescent tube at 0.09, a factor of 6. The count at the right is how many settings it takes to resolve the weight to a tenth at half a colour difference of scatter per setting. What the eye does

The reference lamp must not move

To measure an uncertain weight, use the condition in which the answer depends on it most. That is right about half of an asymmetric colour match and exactly wrong about the other half: a match measures a difference of two displacements, and a reference field that also moves with the weight cancels the signal the test field carries. Daylight is the least sensitive of five lamps and belongs in every one of the three best pairs — 75 settings against a phosphor LED, 2,804 against the pair of lamps the principle as stated would have chosen.

207 essays on this thread, page 8 of 9 · all threads · all essays