• 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 / Looking for Mach Bands in chromaticity step wedges

Looking for Mach Bands in chromaticity step wedges

April 25, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

I reworked the luminance step wedge of yesterday’ post so that it consists of 10 Delta-E steps from zero to 80 along the gray (a* = 0, b* = 0) axis:

machbandlabl

The Mach Bands are evident.

Then I created a similar image, with L* = 50, b* = 0, and a* starting at -40 and proceeding upwards in steps of 10 Delta-E:

machbandlaba

The Mach Banding effect is greatly reduced on my calibrated monitor. The literature says that the effect is non-existent for changes in chromaticity with no changes in luminance, so I suspect that what I see is due to a combination of a) imperfect calibration of my monitor, b) imperfections in the CIELab color space, so that there is actually a luminance change between various samples with the same L* value and different a* and b* values, and c) my eyes being somewhat different from the 1931 CIE observer.

For completeness, here is an image with L* = 50, a* = 0, and b* starting at -40 and proceeding upwards in steps of 10 Delta-E:

machbandlabb

Now, let me present all three images at reduced size:

machbandlablsm

machbandlabasm

machbandlabbsm

Back up until you can’t see the steps in the two images with (putatively) no luminance change. Can you see the steps in the image with only luminance change? Yes you can.

Now you know three more things about spatial effects in color vision.

  • There is very little differentiation for chromaticity changes at any scale.
  • At the spatial frequencies get higher, there is a point where chromaticity sensitivity begins to drop.
  • That point occurs at lower spatial frequencies than the similar drop in sensitivity that occurs for luminance.

The Last Word

← Mach banding Contrast sensitivity vs spatial frequency →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

July 2025
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Jun    

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

  • Jonby on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • JimK on Of fidelity, photography, audio, and wine
  • JimK on Of fidelity, photography, audio, and wine
  • AVN on Of fidelity, photography, audio, and wine
  • Markus on In photography, and in life, work and joy can, and should, coexist
  • JimK on Fuji 120/4 GF at 1:1 with tubes — visuals
  • Christopher Roberton on Fuji 120/4 GF at 1:1 with tubes — visuals
  • Pieter Kers on Visualising lens aberrations — one at a time, Siemens Star
  • JimK on Visualizing aberrations — caveats
  • Stepan Kana on Visualizing aberrations — caveats

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.