• 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 / Presenting capture accuracy results: aggregate chroma

Presenting capture accuracy results: aggregate chroma

January 8, 2016 JimK Leave a Comment

This is the fifteenth in a series of posts on color reproduction. The series starts here.

It’s fine to be able to describe of the color errors of each of the 24 patches in the Macbeth color checker, but is also useful to be able to say something about the overall color accuracy. One of the areas in which cameras and profiles differ significantly is whether the actual chroma of the patches are on average reproduced accurately, or if there is a significant increase or decrease in average chroma.

Imatest has a module for analyzing photographs of Macbeth color checkers. This module has an overall “saturation” metric that is expressed as a percentage value. Imatest’s explanation of this measure doesn’t mention the word saturation (although that’s the word used on the graph): “The mean camera chroma (the average of all camera chroma values) relative to the mean ideal chroma is displayed on the upper right.” That’s plain enough, but I don’t think that’s a particularly good measure.

First off, taking a ratio like that means that small errors in not-very-chromatic samples will not affect the result much; the measure weights the samples with large chromas highly. Second, chroma errors from the 6 gray patches are lumped in with the other 18 patches. I think they should be treated differently.

Therefore, I’ve devised an aggregate chroma error measure:

The first applies to the 18 non-gray patches. It is the mean chroma error of all 18 patches (each patch’s chroma error added together and the total divided by 18). Positive numbers mean that on average, the camera/profile/raw developer combination produces results that are oversaturated. Negative numbers mean that on average, the camera/profile/raw developer combination produces results that are undersaturated. Quite imaginatively, I call this measure the mean chroma error. The standard deviation of the 18 chroma errors I call the mean chroma sigma.

Calculating a similar measure for the 6 gray patches wouldn’t be any more useful than calculating the Euclidean chromaticity error distance, since the target’s chroma for the 6 gray squares is close to zero.

 

The Last Word

← Presenting capture accuracy results: the basics Macbeth white point adjustment errors →

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

  • 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?
  • 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.