• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

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

You are here: Home / The Last Word / 8 bit color space conversion errors: sRGB to/from Lab

8 bit color space conversion errors: sRGB to/from Lab

October 6, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

In the old 8-bit world, Lab had a bad reputation for causing posterization when photographers invoked even moderate editing moves. I thought I’d check out conversion errors from sRGB to Lab and back, with double-precision color space calculations, and quantizing to 8 bits per color plane after every conversion.

I used this target image, which has all the colors possible in 8-bit sRGB:

RGB16Million

It doesn’t take many iterations for things to settle down. One iteration is defined as from sRGB to Lab and back. Here are the CIELab mean errors as a function of number of iterations:

s2l2s8bitmean

Well, that’s pretty boring. Is nothing changing? Not so. Here are the standard deviations at each iteration:

s2l2s8bitsigma

And the worst case pixel:s2l2s8bitwc

Using Lab to measure errors of conversions involving Lab is a bit like asking the fox to watch the chicken coop. What if we measure the errors in CIELuv?

s2l2s8bitmeanluv

s2l2s8bitsigmaluv

s2l2s8bitwcluv

The mean is error measured in Luv is almost twice as bad as it is measured in Lab, but the worst-case error is actually better measured in Luv.

The worst-case Lab DeltaE is better than for sRGB?aRGB>sRGB, but the mean is a lot worse. This shows that 8-bit-per-color-plane images shouldn’t be freely moved in and out of Lab.

Is anyone surprised?

CIELab error image pictures follow, if anyone is interested.

The whole error image, normalized to worst case and gamma corrected:

8bitrtLabdiff

As above, but with a one-stop exposure boost:

8bitrtLabdiffx2

Upper left corner:

8bitrtLabdiffulx2

Lower right corner:

 

8bitrtLabdifflrx2

 

The Last Word

← 15 bit color space conversion errors New show at Sunset Center →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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 35-70 MF 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

  • John Griffin on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.