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 / 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

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

  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.