Comparing Appearance Models Using Pictorial Images Taek Gyu Kim, Roy S. Berns, and Mark D. Fairchild Munsell Color Science Laboratory, Center for Imaging Science Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York Eight different color appearance models were tested using Appearance-Model Overview pictorial images. A psychophysical paired comparison ex- von Kries periment was performed where 30 color-normal observers ′ = ⋅ judged reference and test images via successive-Ganzfeld L kL L haploscopic viewing such that each eye maintained con- M′ = k ⋅ M stant chromatic adaptation and inter-ocular interactions M (1) ′ = ⋅ were minimized. It was found that models based on von S kS S Kries had best performance, specifically CIELAB, HUNT, RLAB, and von Kries. where L, M , and S represent the excitations of the long-, middle-, and short-wavelength sensitive cones, L′, M′, and ′ Introduction S represent the post-adaptation cone signals, and kL , kM , and kS are the multiplicative factors, generally taken to be Color appearance models are necessary to incorporate the inverse of the respective maximum cone excitations for into the color WYSIWYG chain when images are viewed the illuminating condition.3,4 The calculation of the cone under dissimilar conditions such as illumination spectral fundamentals is a linear transformation of CIE tristimulus power distribution and luminance, surround relative lu- values. In this case the Stiles-Estevez-Hunt-Pointer funda- minance, and media type where cognition is affected. mentals were used.2,9,17 (These are also used in the Hunt, These differing conditions often occur when compar- Nayatani, and RLAB models.) ing CRT and printed images, CRT and projected slides, or rear-illuminated transparencies and CRT or printed CIELAB images. The CIELAB space was recommended by the CIE in A psychophysical experiment was performed to test a 1976 for use as a color-difference metric.1 While CIELAB variety of color-appearance models described in the litera- was developed to describe color differences, it also incorpo- ture. Some of these models were developed for only object rates fundamental metrics of color appearance through the ∗ ∗ colors while some were developed for use in many modali- cylindrical specification of lightness ( L ), chroma ( Cab ), and ties. In practice, different devices have different spatial hue angle ( hab ) and the inclusion of a modified form of the von (resolution and image microstructure) and colorimetric Kries model of chromatic adaptation (X/Xn, Y/Yn, Z/Zn). (gamut) properties. It was appropriate, therefore, to first test these appearance models such that these differences were CIELUV eliminated. This was accomplished by using a single de- The CIELUV space was recommended by the CIE in vice, a continuous-tone dye-diffusion thermal-transfer 1976 at the same time as CIELAB.1 Although it has similar printer. Future experiments will add the complexity of perceptual metrics to CIELAB, it differs significantly in its comparing different imaging modalities. chromatic adaptation model (u’-u’n, v’-v’n). Testing color-appearance models involves generat- ing corresponding colors (in this case corresponding LABHNU 23 images) under a test and reference set of conditions. An The LABHNU space was developed by Richter. It is appearance model will predict the tristimulus values for similar to CIELUV in that it has an embedded chromaticity a pair of stimuli such that when each is viewed in its diagram and translational chromatic adaptation model: respective illuminating and viewing conditions, the 1/3 ∗ Y stimuli will match in appearance for a CIE standard L = 116 −16 (2) observer. By colorimetrically characterizing the printer Yn for both conditions, the requisite samples can be gener- 1 ∗ = ()′ − ′ 3 ated. The following models were tested: von Kries, A 500 A An Y (3) CIELAB, CIELUV, LABHNU (Richter), Reilly- 1 ∗ = ()′ − ′ 3 Tannenbaum (DuPont), Hunt, Nayatani, and RLAB B 500 B Bn Y (4) (Fairchild-Berns). where Chapter I—Color Appearance—49 1 G B 1 x 1 3 b′ = 200[( )1/3 − ( )1/3] (11) A′ = + 100 100 4 y 6 RG-chroma (5) 100 R = R′( ) (12) 1 Gn −1 z 1 3 B′ = + JB-chroma (6) 100 12 y 6 G = G′( ) (13) Gn Reilly-Tannenbaum 100 B = B′( ) (14) The Reilly-Tannenbaum model was created at Du-Pont Gn during the 1970’s as a color difference metric. It has been used as a part of their color matching system for automotive R′ = 0.7584X + 0.2980Y − 0.1564Z (15) colorant formulation and control. It has features of both ′ =− + + CIELAB (opponency and cube root) and CIELUV (transla- G 0.4632X 1.3677Y 0.0955Z (16) tional chromatic adaptation model) and has a transforma- B′ =−0.1220X + 0.3605Y + 0.7615Z (17) tion from CIE tristimulus values to cone fundamentals optimized from color-difference data. It’s worth noting that Hunt Reilly was one of the key developers of CIELAB; these Hunt’s model10-12 is diagrammed in Fig. 1. It incorpo- equations reflect his influence. rates many parameters necessary for cross-media color reproduction. However, it is not invertible and in order to Hunt Appearance Model use it for color WYSIWYG, a successive-approximation iterative technique is required. Sample Illuminant Background x, y, Y x, y E x, y, Y Nayatani Nayatani’s color appearance model13-22,25 is dia- X, Y, Z XW, YW, ZW Yb grammed in Fig. 2. Although there are many similarities to Hunt’s model, the non-linear compression stages are 0.2E Y /Y Y /Y LA = π W b b W quite different and Nayatani’s model is defined only for ρ, γ, β ρ , γ , β object colors possibly limiting its use in color WYSIWYG. W W W T An advantage of this model over Hunt’s model is its ρ/ρ , γ/γ , β/β no relative ease in inversion. W W W ❂ hρ, hγ, hβ yes L / 2.26 AS Nayatani Appearance Model ❂ Fρ, Fγ, Fβ FL Ft discounting FLS Sample the color of Illuminant Ref. Illuminant the illuminant ρ γ β Scotopic D, D, D adapting Y/YW luminance x, y, Y x, y E0 E0r ρ γ β a, a, a ξ, η, ζ Bs X, Y, Z Ncb Nbb Aa, C1,C2,C3 As R, G, B R0, G0, B0 L0r Brightness hs surround es Nc A AW Nb Induction factor Chromatic Ref. White e(R), e(G) surround H Hue Induction factor N1 N2 MYB , MRG β β β β R, G, B 1(R0), 1(G0), 2(B0) 1(L0r) Hc A+M Value for M Reference White t, p Colorfulness Q Q W Brightness s Saturation θ mYB , mRG J Chroma C Lightness θ∗ e Hue s Figure 1. Flow diagram of Hunt appearance model. T, P Q 1/3 = − B B B (D65, E ) For Ref. L 25G 16 (7) Chroma C r rw rw 0r Illum. Y For White a = a′ − ( )1/3 a (8) 100 n s * Y Colorfulness M Saturation L Lightness b = b′ − ( )1/3 b (9) 100 n α where R G a′ = 500[( )1/3 − ( )1/3] (10) Bc Brightness 100 100 Figure 2. Flow diagram of Nayatani appearance model. 50—Recent Progress in Color Processing RLAB Illumination The RLAB model developed by Fairchild and Berns5 The right side of the booth (reference field) had tung- can be thought of as a simplification of the Hunt model; it sten bulbs closely simulating CIE illuminant A at 214 cd/ incorporates viewing condition parameters and is math- m2. The left side (test field) had high color rendering ematically efficient and invertible, all necessary require- fluorescent tubes with chromaticities near D65. The day- ments for color WYSIWYG. It is based on Fairchild’s light test field had three luminance level settings which model of chromatic adaptation, uses CIELAB for percep- were equivalent, 1/3 and 3 times the luminance level of the tual metrics, and takes in account differences in surround reference illuminant A field (71, 214 and 642 cd/m2). The relative luminance. each test field setting was named as D65-M, D65-L and D65-H for convenience. The spectral power distribu- Experiment tions are shown in Fig. 4. Viewing Booth A bipartite viewing booth for haploscopic-type view- ing was constructed. The interior was painted with an approximately spectrally non-selective gray paint with a luminance factor of 0.2. Diffusing panels were inserted underneath each set of light sources to improve the uni- formity of the illumination. Figure 3. Viewing Booth. The right viewing field is illuminated Figure 4. Spectral Distribution of the reference and test field with simulated illuminated. A and the right field, simulated D65. sources. Switches allow control of each bulb in order to vary luminance. Figure 5. The successive-Ganzfeld haploscopic device will open one of the viewing fields and block the other view with frosted Mylar™. This device will toggle between eyes with a foot switch operation. Chapter I—Color Appearance—51 Successive-Ganzfeld Haploscopic Device eight appearance models corresponding to 28 pairs. This To achieve successive viewing, a shutter mechanism was repeated for each test field condition. with diffusers made from frosted Mylar™ was devised as shown in Fig. 5.6 The observer could control via a foot Psychophysics pedal whether the Ganzfeld blocked the test or reference Thirty color-normal observers with varying imaging field. The purpose of this alternating viewing was to experience took part in the experiment. Observers were maintain an eye’s state of chromatic adaptation while instructed to select one of the images from the test pair preventing the simultaneous viewing of images. that most closely matched the reference image. Three Sample Preparation separate observering sessions were used corresponding Four images were acquired from preliminary IT8 to the three test field conditions (D65-M, D65-L and standard image sets: “fruit basket,” “orchid,” “musi- D65-H).