the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / Color Science / Gamut of a basis-function derived metamer set

Gamut of a basis-function derived metamer set

May 11, 2022 JimK Leave a Comment

 

I’ve previously reported on a project about observer metameric errors in digital cameras. I built a program that, given a target color and a set of sample reflectance spectra, will:

  1. Using principal component analysis, find a set of basis functions for the sample set
  2. Assuming the set is lit with a particular illuminant (I used D50 for the data I’m presenting here), find as many spectra as you specify by combining the basis functions.
  3. All of the spectra will resolve to the same color for a CIE 1931 2-degre observer. They are therefore metamers.
  4. I set the boundary conditions to exclude spectra with over 100% or less than 0%  reflectance

I’ve showed you some of the results, and I’ll be showing you more, but I decided before going too much further, I wanted to learn something about the metamer sets themselves. I was particularly concerned about their gamut.

I beavered away at some Matlab programming, including parallelizing the code so that it would produce results this year (OK, that’s an exaggeration). Here’s what I got this morning:

This is a contour plot, looking at the CIEL*a*b* chromaticity plane. Nine L* values are calculated, for L* = 10 through L* = 90 in steps of 10. The luminance of the lines is approximately that of the L* to which they correspond. The hue angle changes 40 degrees clockwise with each L* step, starting at 45 degrees and ending at 85 degrees. The source for the basis functions was the Macbeth CC24 chart. I used the 7 most significant basis functions.

Here’s the same data in CIEL*u*v*:

In case you’re asking  yourself, “How can he get away with converting the Lab data to Luv if the testing was done in Lab?”, let me offer this: both Lab and Luv are based upon CIE XYZ. There are several color matching functions for XYZ, from the 1931 one to one in the early 2000s. So pick any one for the comparison, and use it for both Lab and Luv. Then, spectra that are metamers in Lab must perforce be metamers in Luv, even though they may resolve to wildly different triplets (well, doublets, since the L* will be the same) in each space.

Whether looks at in Lab or Luv, I was surprised that the gamut was so large.

 

Color Science

← Observer metameric error in simulated cameras, part 3 Why no love for Luv? →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • JimK on Who am I?
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • Stefan on Swebo TC-1 OOBE

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.