Uniform Color Spaces Based On CIECAM02 and IPT Color Difference e

Rochester Institute of Technology
RIT Scholar Works

Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections
11-1-2008
Uniform color spaces based on CIECAM02 and

IPT color difference equations
Yang Xue
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses
Recommended Citation
Xue, Yang, "Uniform color spaces based on CIECAM02 and IPT color difference equations" (2008). Thesis. Rochester Institute of
Technology. Accessed from
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact ritscholarworks@rit.edu.
Uniform Color Spaces Based on CIECAM02
and IPT Color Difference Equations
by
Yang Xue
A thesis submitted for partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master in the Chester F.
Carlson Center for Imaging Science of the College of Science
November 2008
Signature of the Author_____________________________________________________
Accepted By_____________________________________________________________
Coordinator, M.S. Degree Program Date
i
CHESTER F. CARLSON
CENTER FOR IMAGING SCIENCE
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
M.S. DEGREE THESIS
The M.S. Degree Thesis of Yang Xue has been examined and
approved by the thesis committee as satisfactory for the thesis
requirement for the Master of Science degree in Imaging Science.
________________________________
Prof. Roy S.Berns, Thesis Advisor
________________________________
Prof. Mark D. Fairchild, Committee Member
________________________________
Prof. Mitchell R. Rosen, Committee Member
ii
THESIS RELEASE PERMISSION
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE CHESTER F.
CARLSONCENTER FOR IMAGING SCIENCE
Title of Thesis: Uniform Color Spaces Based on IPT and

CIECAM02 Color Difference Equations
I, Yang Xue, hereby grant permission to the Wallace Memorial Library

of R.I.T. to reproduce my thesis in whole or in part. Any reproduction
will not be for commercial use or profit.
Signature:_____________________________________
Date:_________________________________________
iii
Uniform Color Spaces Based on CIECAM02 and
IPT Color Difference Equations
Yang Xue
Submitted for partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master in the Chester F.
Carlson Center for Imaging Science of the College of Science
November, 2008
ABSTRACT
Color difference equations based on the CIECAM02 color appearance model and IPT color
space have been developed to fit experimental data. There is no color space in which these
color difference equations are Euclidean, e.g. describe distances along a straight line. In this
thesis, Euclidean color spaces have been derived for the CIECAM02 and IPT color difference
equations, respectively, so that the color difference can be calculated as a simple color
distance. Firstly, the Euclidean line element was established, from which terms were derived
for the new coordinates of lightness, chroma, and hue angle. Then the spaces were analyzed
using performance factors and statistics to test how well they fit various data. The results
show that the CIECAM02 Euclidean color space has performance factors similar to the
optimized CIECAM02 color difference equation. To statistical significance, the CIECAM02
Euclidean color space had superior fit to the data when compared to the CIECAM02 color
difference equation. Conversely, the IPT Euclidean color space performed poorer than the
optimized IPT color difference equation. The main reason is that the line element for the
lightness vector dimension could not be directly calculated so an approximation was used. To
resolve this problem, a new IPT color difference equation should be designed such that line
elements can be established directly.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Prof. Roy.S Berns, for his very helpful and
invaluable support and guidance to my research. Without his constructive advice and
encouragement, I would not finish my thesis.
I also want to thank my committee member: Prof. Mark Fairchild and Prof. Mitch Rosen.
Thanks for their helps in my study in RIT and taking time to review my thesis.
This research was supported by the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Graduate
Fellowship in Color Science. Their support is greatly appreciated.
I am very honored to have opportunity to study in Munsell Color Science Laboratory. Being a
member in this big family is an unforgettable memory in my life. My special thanks to
everyone in MCSL: the faculty, staff, and my officemates.
Lastly, and most importantly, my deepest thanks are given to my parents and my husband.
Thanks for their understanding, support, and endless love. I love you all and you are the most
important part in my life.
v
Table of Contents
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1
2. Background ............................................................................................................................4
2.1 IPT Color Space ...........................................................................................................................7
2.2 CIECAM02 Color Space .............................................................................................................8
2.2.1 Forward Model...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Inverse Model ..................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Color-Difference Equations with Improved Performance .....................................................16
2.3.1 CIE94 .................................................................................................................................................. 16
2.3.2 CIEDE2000......................................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 DIN99 ................................................................................................................................................. 21
2.3.4 Modification of CIECAM02 ............................................................................................................... 22
2.4 Euclidean Spaces ........................................................................................................................23
2.4.1 A Euclidean Color Space by Thomsen ............................................................................................... 23
2.4.2 Euclidean Color Space based on DIN99 ............................................................................................. 24
3. RIT-Dupont Dataset.............................................................................................................28
3.1 Background.................................................................................................................................28
3.2 Color-Difference Ellipsoids .......................................................................................................33
3.3 CIECAM02 .................................................................................................................................36
3.4 IPT ...............................................................................................................................................39
4. Qiao and Berns Dataset .......................................................................................................44
4.1 Background.................................................................................................................................44
4.2 Plots of Qiao Experimental Results in Color Spaces ..............................................................46
5. Hung and Berns Dataset......................................................................................................50
5.1 Background.................................................................................................................................50
5.2 Hung Data Plots in CIELAB, CIECAM02, and IPT Color Spaces .......................................51
5.3 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................53
6. Optimizing Color-Difference Formula ...............................................................................54
6.1 Background.................................................................................................................................54
6.2 CIECAM02 .................................................................................................................................55
6.3 IPT ...............................................................................................................................................61
7. Euclideanization...................................................................................................................65
7.1 Theory .........................................................................................................................................65
7.2 Derivation of CIECAM02 Euclidean .......................................................................................68
7.3 Derivation of IPT Euclidean .....................................................................................................72
8. Performance Evaluation......................................................................................................76
vi
8.1 Computation Experiment..........................................................................................................76
8.2 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................81
9. Performance of Visual Dataset............................................................................................85
9.1 Visualization of RIT-DuPont Dataset.......................................................................................85
9.2 Visualization of Qiao Dataset..................................................................................................100
9.3 Visualization of Hung and Berns Dataset ..............................................................................106
10. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................108
11. References ........................................................................................................................110
vii
1 Introduction
A color appearance1 model is used to model how the human visual system perceives
the color of an object under different viewing conditions and with different
backgrounds. TC1-34 gave the following definition:2 “to be considered a color
appearance model, a model must account for at least chromatic adaptation and have
correlates of at least lightness, chroma, and hue.” As a simple color appearance model,
the CIE 1976 (L* a* b*) color space (CIELAB)3 was designed to fit the Munsell color
order system. It includes simple chromatic adaptation transforms and predictors of
lightness, chroma, and hue. However, CIELAB cannot predict luminance dependent
effects such as the Hunt effect and the Stevens effect. Moreover, CIELAB does not
provide correlates for the absolute appearance attributes of brightness and colorfulness.
In 1997, the CIE recommended an interim color appearance model, CIECAM97s,
which can predict corresponding colors for imaging application. In 2002, a revision of
CIECAM97s,4 CIECAM02,5,6 was developed to improve the performance accuracy
and simplify the model.
Hue constancy is an important property of a color space. Compared with lightness and
chroma, hue angle is more difficult to mathematically manipulate. In 1998, Ebner and
Fairchild derived the IPT color space,7 which models constant perceived hue. This
model was designed to accurately predict hue without affecting other color appearance
attributes.
1
In a uniform color space, the Euclidean distance between the coordinates of any two
colors corresponds to a perceptual color difference. In other words, the calculated
distance should predict visual color difference between the colors. For example, if
there are two colors P1(x1,y1,z1) and P2(x2,y2,z2) in a uniform color space, the
perceived difference magnitude, ΔE, between the two colors P1,P2 is the Euclidean
distance:
ΔE = k (x1 − x 2 ) 2 + (y1 − y 2 ) 2 + (z1 − z 2 ) 2 ,
where k is a constant.
In CIELAB color space, the Euclidean distance between two colors is:
* *
ΔE ab
*
= (ΔL* ) 2 + (Δa* ) 2 + (Δb* ) 2 = (ΔL* ) 2 + (ΔCab ) 2 + (ΔH ab ) 2 ,
where ΔL*, Δa*, and Δb* is the difference in lightness, redness-greenness, and
yellowness-blueness, respectively. ΔCab* and ΔHab* is the difference in chroma and
hue.
But, this Euclidean distance poorly relates to visual color difference8. Thus, several
color difference formulas such as CMC,9 CIE94,9 and CIEDE200010 have been
developed using the CIELAB color space. These formulas were optimized to fit visual
experimental data sets. However, none of these associate with a uniform color space.
Color difference formulas based on the CIECAM02 color appearance model and IPT
color space have been developed to fit experimental data from RIT.11 These color
equations have the same forms as CIE94 and CIEDE2000. Thus, they are not
2
Euclidean. In this thesis, Euclidean color spaces based on the CIECAM02 and IPT
color difference formulas were derived, so that color difference can be calculated as a
simple color distance. In addition, two general approaches were given to evaluate the
performance of their new spaces. One approach was to statistically evaluate how well
the new Euclidean color spaces fit the experimental data. The other was to visualize
experimental data in new Euclidean color spaces.
3
2. Background
Color appearance models are used to extend traditional colorimetry (such as CIE XYZ
and CIELAB9) and to predict observed appearance of objects under a wide variety of
viewing conditions.
The CIE XYZ color space is based on measurements of the human visual perception.
CIE used positive integers to formulate tristimulus values X,Y, and Z. These values do
not correspond to red, green, and blue. Y represents the human eye’s response to the
total power of a light source. The CIE XYZ color space is not a uniform color space.
After the introduction of CIE XYZ in 1931, much work went into searching for a
transformation to a uniform color space.9,12 CIE developed CIELAB color space in
1970s. The CIELAB color space takes the XYZ tristimulus values of a stimulus and the
reference white as input and outputs correlates to lightness, chroma, and hue. Although
the CIELAB color space is more uniform than CIE XYZ color space, it is not a uniform
color-difference space.8 Furthermore, it cannot predict luminance-dependent effects such
as the Hunt effect and the Stevens effect.1
In order to predict the observed appearance of objects, color appearance models must
take into account the tristimulus values of the object, its background, its surround, the
adapting stimulus and the luminance level.1 The output of color appearance models
should include perceptual attributes such as brightness, lightness, colorfulness, chroma,
saturation, and hue.
4
In 1996, Hunt presented twelve principles13 for consideration in establishing a single color
appearance model at a CIE expert symposium ‘96, Colour Standards for Image
Technology. These principles are as follows:
1. The model should be as comprehensive as possible, so that it can be used in a variety
of applications; but at this stage, only static states of adaptation should be included,
because of the great complexity of dynamic effects.
2. The model should cover a wide range of stimulus intensities, from very dark object
colors to very bright self-luminous color. This means that the dynamic response function
must have a maximum, and cannot be a simple logarithmic or power function.
3. The model should cover a wide range of adapting intensities, from very low scotopic
levels, such as occur in starlight, to very high photopic levels, such as occur in sunlight.
This means that rod vision should be included in the model; but because many
applications will be such that rod vision is negligible, the model should be usable in a
mode that does not include rod vision.
4. The model should cover a wide range of viewing conditions, including backgrounds of
different luminance factors, and dark, dim, and average surrounds. It is necessary to
cover the different surrounds because of their widespread use in projected and self-
luminous displays.
5. For ease of use, the spectral sensitivities of the cones should be a linear
transformation of the CIE x,y,z or x10, y10, z10 functions, and the V(λ) function should be
used for the spectral sensitivity of the rods. Because scotopic photometric data is often
unknown, methods of providing approximate scotopic values should be provided.
6. The model should be able to provide for any degree of adaptation between complete
5
and none, for cognitive factors, and for the Helson-Judd effect, as options.
7. The model should give predictions of hue (both as hue-angle, and as hue-quadrature),
brightness, lightness, saturation, chroma, and colorfulness.
8. The model should be capable of being operated in a reverse mode.
9. The model should be no more complicated than is necessary to meet the above
requirements.
10. Any simplified version of the model, intended for particular applications, should give
the same predictions as the complete model for some specified set of conditions.
11. The model should give predictions of color appearance that are not appreciably
worse than those given by the model that is best in each application.
12. A version of the model should be available for application to unrelated colors (those
seen in dark surrounds in isolation from other colors).
After the symposium, Hunt and Luo provided two revised models. Fairchild provided a
third alternative and Richter provided a fourth.1 These four alternatives were considered
at the TC1-34 meeting in 1997. One of the Hunt and Luo alternatives was modified as
the simple form of the CIE 1997 Interim Color Appearance Model, tentatively
designated CIECAM97s. After that, a comprehensive version of the model,
CIECAM97c, was developed. In 2002, the CIE provided CIECAM02, which was
revision to CIECAM97s. CIECAM02 can be used for comparison of device gamuts
based on a set of perceptual attribute correlates. It is also used as the color space for
gamut mapping. Besides, CIECAM02 can be useful for color management applications.
6
Prior to the development of CIECAM02, in 1997, Ebner and Fairchild derived the IPT
color space to model constant perceived hue. The model accurately predicts hue without
affecting other color appearance attributes.7
2.1 IPT Color Space
In the IPT color space,7 I, P, and T coordinates represent the lightness dimension, the
red-green dimension and the yellow-blue dimension, respectively. IPT is also short for
Image Processing Transform since it is useful for transformations such as gamut
mapping.
The model consists of a (3×3) matrix, followed by a nonlinearity and another (3×3)
matrix. The model assumes input data is in CIEXYZ for the 1931 2-deg observer with an
illuminant of D65. The parameters are shown in matrix form in equation 2-1.
⎡L ⎤ ⎡0.4002 0.7075 −0.0807⎤⎡ X D 65 ⎤

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢M ⎥ = ⎢−0.228 1.1500 0.0612 ⎥⎢ YD 65 ⎥
⎢⎣S ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0.0 0.0 0.9184 ⎥⎦⎢⎣ Z D 65 ⎥⎦
L'= L0.43 ; L≥0
L'= −(−L) 0.43 ; L<0
M'= M 0.43 ; M ≥0
Eq.2-1
M'= −(−M) 0.43 ; M <0
S'= S 0.43 ; S≥0
S'= −(−S) 0.43 ; S < 0
⎡I ⎤ ⎡0.4000 0.4000 0.2000 ⎤⎡ L' ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢P⎥ = ⎢4.4550 −4.8510 0.3960 ⎥⎢ M'⎥
⎢⎣T ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣0.8056 0.3572 −1.1628⎥⎦⎢⎣ S' ⎥⎦
7
The first (3×3) matrix, L,M, and S is very near the Hunt-Pointer-Estevez cone primaries
normalized to D65.14 The compression factor (0.43) is nearly identical to that of the
RLAB color space for average surround conditions.14
This model is readily invertible. The range of lightness axis, I, is 0 to 1 and the range of
the other two axes is -1 to 1 in the IPT color space.
2.2 CIECAM02 Color Space
In CIECAM02,5,6 due to different viewing conditions, the CIE considered the differences
in color perception by transforming to and from a single reference white. The forward
model transforms tristimulus values viewed under a wide range of viewing conditions to
the corresponding perceptual attribute correlates as viewed under a reference white, in
this case the equal-energy illuminant (illuminant E) with the perfect reflecting diffuser as
the reference white. The inverse model transforms from this reference white to some
other viewing condition.
2.2.1 Forward Model
Since the surround setting impacts the calculations significantly, two parameters, the
constants c and F, are given to relate to the impact of the surround and the degree of
adaptation.
8
Firstly, the recommended values for F, c, and Nc can be read from Table 2-I after the
surround is selected. For intermediate surrounds these values can be linearly
interpolated.
Table 2-I Viewing condition parameters for different surrounds.
Viewing Condition c Nc F
Average Surround 0.69 1.0 1.0
Dim Surround 0.59 0.9 0.9
Dark Surround 0.525 0.8 0.8
Then the CAT0215 forward matrix converts the sample CIE 1931 tristimulus values to a
long, medium and short wavelength sensitive space.
⎡R ⎤ ⎡X ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢G⎥ = MCAT 02 ⎢Y ⎥ Eq.2-2
⎢⎣B ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣Z ⎥⎦
⎡ 0.7328 0.4296 −0.1624⎤

⎢ ⎥
MCAT 02 = ⎢−0.7036 1.6975 0.0061 ⎥ Eq.2-3
⎢⎣ 0.0030 0.0136 0.9834 ⎥⎦
The degree of adaptation to the white point, the D factor, is computed. The range of D
value will be from 1 for complete adaptation to 0 for no adaptation. In practice, the
minimum D value will not be less than 0.65 for a dark surround and will exponentially
converge to 1 for average surrounds with increasingly large values of LA.15
⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛⎜ −(L A +42) ⎞⎟⎤

D = F ⎢1− ⎜ ⎟e⎝ 92 ⎠⎥ Eq.2-4
⎢⎣ ⎝ 3.6 ⎠ ⎥⎦
After D factor is calculated, it is applied to weight chromatic adaptation:
9
⎡⎛ D ⎞ ⎤
Rc = ⎢⎜Yw ⎟ + (1− D)⎥R
⎣⎝ Rw ⎠ ⎦
⎡⎛ D ⎞ ⎤
Gc = ⎢⎜Yw ⎟ + (1− D)⎥G Eq.2-5
⎣⎝ Gw ⎠ ⎦
⎡⎛ D ⎞ ⎤
Bc = ⎢⎜Yw ⎟ + (1− D)⎥B
⎣⎝ Bw ⎠ ⎦
where Rw, Gw, and Bw are the RGB values computed for the white point using equations
2-2 and 2-3.
Next, the viewing-condition-dependent constants are computed as:
1
k= Eq.2-6
5LA + 1
FL = 0.2k 4 (5LA ) + 0.1(1− k 4 ) 2 (5LA )1/ 3 Eq.2-7
Yb
n= Eq.2-8
Yw
The value n is a function of the luminance factor of the background. Its range is from 0
for a background luminance factor of zero to 1 for a background luminance factor equal
to the luminance factor of the adapted white point. The n value can then be used to
compute Nbb, Ncb and z, which are then used during the computation of several of the
perceptual attribute correlates.
1
N bb = N cb = 0.725( ) 0.2 Eq.2-9
n
z = 1.48 + n Eq.2-10
The Rc,Gc and Bc values are converted to the Hunt-Pointer-Estevez space before the
post-adaptation non-linear response compression is applied.
10
⎡R'⎤ ⎡Rc ⎤
⎢ ⎥ −1 ⎢ ⎥
⎢G'⎥ = M HPE MCAT 02 ⎢Gc ⎥ Eq.2-11
⎢⎣B'⎥⎦ ⎢⎣Bc ⎥⎦
⎡ 0.3897 0.6889 −0.0787⎤

⎢ ⎥
M HPT = ⎢−0.2298 1.1834 0.0464 ⎥ Eq.2-12
⎢⎣ 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 ⎥⎦
⎡ 1.0961 −0.2789 0.1827⎤

−1 ⎢ ⎥
M CAT 02 = ⎢ 0.4544 0.4735 0.0721⎥ Eq.2-13
⎢⎣−0.0096 −0.0057 1.0153⎥⎦
The Hunt-Pointer-Estevez provides better predictions of perceptual attribute correlates.
Blue constancy, a significant shortcoming for CIELAB, is improved by using a space
closer to a cone fundamental space.
The post-adaptation non-linear response compression is then applied to the output.
400(FL R' /100) 0.42

Ra' = + 0.1
27.13 + (FL R' /100) 0.42
400(FL G' /100) 0.42
Ga' = + 0.1 Eq.2-14
27.13 + (FL G' /100) 0.42
400(FL B' /100) 0.42
Ba' = + 0.1
27.13 + (FL B' /100) 0.42
If any of the values of R’, G’ or B’ are negative, their absolute values must be used, and
the quotient term in Equation 2-14 must be multiplied by a negative 1 before adding the
value 0.1.
11
Temporary Cartesian representation and hue are calculated before computing
eccentricity factor and perceptual attributes. These values are used to compute a
preliminary magnitude t.
a = Ra' −12Ga' /11+ Ba' /11

a = (1/9)(Ra' + Ga' − 2Ba' ) Eq.2-15
h = tan−1 (b /a)
cos(hπ /180 + 2) + 3.8

et = Eq.2-16
4
Hue quadrature or H can be computed from linear interpolation of the data shown in
Table 2-II.
Table 2-II. Unique hue data for the calculation of Hue Quadrature
Red Yellow Green Blue Red

i 1 2 3 4 5
hi 20.14 90.00 164.25 237.53 380.14
ei 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.8
Hi 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0
If h<h1, the h’=h+360, otherwise h’=h. Choose a value of i so that hi≤ h’<hi+1.
100(h'−hi ) /ei
H = Hi + Eq.2-17
(h'−hi ) /ei + (hi +1 − h') /ei
Compute the achromatic response A:
A = (2Ra' + Ga' + (1/20)Ba' − 0.305)N bb Eq.2-18
Lightness, J, is calculated from the achromatic signals of the stimulus, A, and white, Aw:
J = 100(A / Aw )CZ Eq.2-19
Compute Q or brightness:
4 J
Q = (Aw + 4)FL0.25 Eq.2-20
c 100
12
Compute temporary magnitude quantity, T. This quantity is used for computing C.
(50000 /13)N c N cb et a 2 + b 2
t= Eq.2-21
Ra' + Ga' + (21/20)Ba'
Calculate chroma C:
J
C = (1.64 − 0.29 n ) 0.73 t 0.9 Eq.2-22
100
Calculate colorfulness M:
M = CFL0.25 Eq.2-23
Calculate saturation s:
M
s = 100 Eq.2-24
Q
Calculate corresponding Cartesian coordinates as necessary:
ac = C cos(h)
Eq.2-25
bc = C sin(h)
aM = M cos(h)
Eq.2-26
bM = M sin(h)
as = scos(h)
Eq.2-27
bs = ssin(h)
2.2.2 Inverse Model
The viewing condition constants shown in Table 2-I and the viewing condition
dependent parameters shown in equations 2-6 through 2-10 are used in the inverse
model. The value of Aw is computed for the adapted white point using equations 2-2
through 2-23.
Then, if starting from Q, J can be calculated:
13
2
⎛ cQ ⎞
J = 6.25⎜ 0.25 ⎟
Eq.2-28
⎝ (Aw + 4)FL ⎠
If starting from M, C can be calculated:
M
C= Eq.2-29
FL0.25
If starting from s, C can be calculated:
4 J
Q = (Aw + 4)FL0.25 Eq.2-30
c 100
⎛ s ⎞2 Q
C =⎜ ⎟ Eq.2-31
⎝100 ⎠ FL0.25
From Table 2-II,
(H − H i )(ei +1hi − ei hi +1 ) −100hiei +1

h'= Eq.2-32
(H − H i )(ei +1 − ei ) −100ei +1
Then, t,e,p1, p2, and p3 are calculated:

1
⎛ C ⎞ 0.9
t =⎜ n 0.73 ⎟
Eq.2-33
⎝ J /100(1.64 − 0.29 ) ⎠
cos(hπ /180 + 2) + 3.8

et = Eq.2-34
4
1
⎛ J ⎞ CZ
A = Aw ⎜ ⎟ Eq.2-35
⎝ 100 ⎠
(50000 /13)N c N cb et
p1 =
t
A
p2 = + 0.305 Eq.2-36
N bb
p3 = 21/20
Calculate a and b:
14
π
hr = h Eq.2-37
180
if |sin(hr)|≥ |cos(hr)|
p1
p4 =
sin(hr )
p2 (2 + p3 )(460 /1403)
b=
p4 + (2 + p3 )(220 /1403) × [cos(hr ) /sin(hr )] − (27 /1403) + p3 (6300 /1403)
a = b[cos(hr ) /sin(hr )]
if |sin(hr)|< |cos(hr)|
p1
p5 =
cos(hr )
p2 (2 + p3 )(460 /1403)
a=
p5 + (2 + p3 )(220 /1403) − [(27 /1403) + p3 (6300 /1403)] × [cos(hr ) /sin(hr )]
b = a[sin(hr ) /cos(hr )]
Compute R’a, G’a, and B’a:
460 451 288

Ra' = p2 + a+ b
1403 1403 1403
460 891 261
Ga' = p2 − a+ b Eq.2-38
1403 1403 1403
460 220 6300
Ba' = p2 − a− b
1403 1403 1403
Compute R’,G’ and B’:

1
⎛ ⎞ 0.42
100 ⎜ 27.13 Ra − 0.1 ⎟
'
R =
'
FL ⎜⎝ 400 − Ra' − 0.1 ⎟⎠

1
⎛ ⎞ 0.42
100 ⎜ 27.13Ga − 0.1 ⎟
'
G =
'
Eq.2-39
FL ⎜⎝ 400 − Ga' − 0.1 ⎟⎠
1
⎛ ⎞ 0.42
100 ⎜ 27.13 Ba − 0.1 ⎟
'
B =
'
FL ⎜⎝ 400 − Ba' − 0.1 ⎟⎠
15
If any of the values of (R’a-0.1), (G’a-0.1), and (B’a-0.1) are negative, then the
corresponding value R’, G’ or B’ must be made negative.
Compute Rc, Gc, and Bc:
⎡Rc ⎤ ⎡R'⎤
⎢ ⎥ −1 ⎢ ⎥
⎢Gc ⎥ = MCAT 02 M HPE ⎢G'⎥ Eq.2-40
⎢⎣Bc ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣B' ⎥⎦
⎡1.9101 −1.1121 0.2019⎤

⎢ ⎥
M −HPT
1
= ⎢0.3709 0.6291 0.0000⎥ Eq.2-41
⎢⎣0.0000 0.0000 1.0000⎥⎦
Compute R, G, and B and X,Y and Z:
Rc
R=
(Yw D /Rw + 1− D)
Gc
G= Eq.2-42
(Yw D /Gw + 1− D)
Bc
B=
(Yw D /Bw + 1− D)
⎡X ⎤ ⎡R ⎤
⎢ ⎥ −1 ⎢ ⎥
⎢Y ⎥ = MCAT 02 ⎢G⎥ Eq.2-43
⎢⎣Z ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣B ⎥⎦
2.3 Color-Difference Equations with Improved Performance

2.3.1 CIE94
When the CIE94 color-difference formula was recommended, CIE defined a general
form for a weighted CIELAB color-difference equation:16
⎡ 2 2 2 1/ 2
⎤
1 ⎛ ΔL* ⎞ ⎛ ΔCab * ⎞ * ⎞
⎛ ΔH ab
ΔE = ⎢⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ ⎥ Eq.2-44
k E ⎢⎣⎝ k L SL ⎠ ⎝ kC SC ⎠ ⎝ k H S H ⎠ ⎥⎦
16
where,
*
Cab = (a* ) 2 + (b* ) 2
ΔL* = L*1 − L*2
ΔC * = C1* − C2*
⎛ Δh ⎞
ΔH * = 2 C1*C2* sin⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2⎠
Δh = h1 − h2
In this equation, the lightness, chroma, and hue differences are computed from CIELAB.
This color-difference equation requires the definition of a set of reference conditions.
Coefficients KE, KL, KC , and KH represent parametric factors.17 If the color difference
stimuli correspond to the set of reference conditions, parametric factors are unnecessary.
The positional functions SL, SC, and SH correct CIELAB’s lack of visual uniformity for
the same set of reference conditions.
CIE used RIT-DuPont and Luo-Rigg dataset to develop SL, SC, and SH. RIT-DuPont18,19
and Luo-Rigg20 dataset were more consistent in their chroma position dependencies.
Chroma difference and hue difference were dependent consistently on chroma position.
It was suggested that the lightness function would be a constant of unity and the chroma
and hue functions would both be linear functions dependent only on chroma position.
The RIT-DuPont and Luo-Rigg datasets were used to derive the other parameters for the
CIE94 color-difference equation.
17
1/ 2
⎡⎛ * ⎞ 2 ⎛ * ⎞ 2 ⎛ * ⎞2⎤
ΔL ΔC ΔH
ΔE 94 = ⎢⎜
*
⎟ +⎜ ab
⎟ +⎜ ab
⎟⎥
⎢⎣⎝ k L SL ⎠ ⎝ kC SC ⎠ ⎝ k H S H ⎠ ⎥⎦
SL = 1
SC = 1+ 0.045Cab
* Eq.2-45
S H = 1+ 0.015Cab*
kL = kC = k H = 1 for reference conditions

*
Cab = Cab,standard
*
or *
Cab,1 *
Cab,2
When one of the color samples is the standard, SC and SH are calculated based on the C*ab
value of the standard. When neither sample is a standard, the geometric mean chroma is
used to calculate SC and SH.
2.3.2 CIEDE2000
CIE published CIEDE200010 color-difference equation in Technical Report CIE 142-
2001. CIEDE2000 has the form:

1/ 2
⎡⎛ * ⎞ 2 ⎛ * ⎞ 2 ⎛ * ⎞2 ⎤
ΔL ΔCab ΔH ab
⎢
ΔE = ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ + ΔR⎥ Eq.2-46
⎢⎣⎝ k L SL ⎠ ⎝ kC SC ⎠ ⎝ k H S H ⎠ ⎥⎦
where,
ΔR = RT f (ΔC *ΔH * ) ,
ΔR is an interactive term between chroma and hue differences, and the RT function is
intended to improve the performance of a color-difference equation for fitting chromatic
differences in the blue region.
Given a pair of color values in CIELAB,
18
L' = L*
a' = (1 + G) a*
b' = b*
C ' = a' 2 +b' 2 Eq.2-47
−1
h ' = tan (b' / a'),
where
⎛ * 7
⎞
⎜
G = 0.5 1 −
Cab ⎟,
⎜ * 7 7 ⎟
⎝ C ab + 25 ⎠
* *
and where Cab is the arithmetic mean of the Cab values for a pair of samples.
ΔL* = L*2 − L*1

ΔC * = C2* − C1*
⎧0 C1'C2' = 0
⎪ '
⎪⎪ h2 − h1 C1'C2' ≠ 0; h2' − h1' ≤ 180
'
Δh = ⎨ '
'
⎪ h2 − h1 − 360
'
C1'C2' ≠ 0; (h'
2 − h1')> 180
⎪ '
⎪⎩ h2 − h1' + 360 C1'C2' ≠ 0; (h '
2 − h1')< −180
⎛ Δh ' ⎞
ΔH * = 2 C1*C2* sin⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
Equation 2-43 can now be rewritten for CIEDE2000 as:
1/ 2
⎡⎛ * ⎞ 2 ⎛ * ⎞ 2 ⎛ * ⎞
2
* ⎤
ΔL ΔCab ΔH ab ΔCab*
ΔH ab
ΔE 00 = ⎢⎜ +
⎟ ⎜ +
⎟ ⎜ ⎟ + RT
⎥ Eq.2-48
⎢⎣⎝ k L SL ⎠ ⎝ kC SC ⎠ ⎝ k H S H ⎠ kC SC k H S H ⎥⎦
where,
0.015(L' − 50) 2
SL = 1+
20 + (L' − 50) 2
and
SC = 1+ 0.045C'
19
and
S H = 1+ 0.015C'T ,
where
T = 1− 0.17cos(h' − 30 o ) + 0.24 cos(2h') + 0.32cos(3h' + 6 o ) − 0.2cos(4h' − 63o )
and
RT = −sin(2Δθ )RC ,
where
Δθ = 30exp{−[(h' − 275 o ) /25]2 }
and
C'7
RC = 2
C'7 +25 7
L', C', and h' are the arithmetic means of the L’, C’ and h’ values for a pair of samples.
L' = (L*2 + L*1 ) /2

C' = (C2' − C1') /2
⎧ h1' + h2'
⎪ h1' − h2' ≤ 180; C1'C2' ≠ 0
⎪ 2
⎪ h1' + h2' + 360
⎪ h1' − h2' > 180; (h1' + h2' )< 360; C1'C2' ≠ 0
h' = ⎨ 2
⎪ h ' + h ' − 360
⎪ 1 2
h1' − h2' > 180; (h1' + h2' )≥ 360; C1'C2' ≠ 0
⎪ 2
⎪⎩ h1' + h2' C1'C2' = 0
20
2.3.3 DIN99
CIEDE94 and CIEDE2000 color-difference equations do not include an associated color
space. In CIEDE2000, there are a lightness correction, a chroma correction, a hue
correction, an interactive correction between chroma and hue, and a rescaling of a*.
These corrections indicate that CIELAB is not a uniform color space. A potential
uniform space candidate, DIN99 color space,21 was developed in 1999 and has been
adopted as a German standard. Rohner and Rich22 presented the DCI-95 formula which
applies logarithmic transformations and rescaling of the CIELAB variables L* and Cab
*
and calculates new coordinates using CIELAB hue angle hab . Datacolor International
tested DCI-95 and found that the equation performed as well as CIE94 by making a
modification to the internal parameters.23 Thus, based on the structure of DCI-95, the
chroma weighting function, SC , was added. Also, in order to fit the experimental data for
neutral colors, the ratios of the red/green and yellow/blue coordinates were added.
The DIN99 color difference equation is:
1
ΔE 99 =
kE
[ΔL299 + Δa99
2
+ Δb99 ]
2 1/ 2
where
L99 = 105.51ln(1+ 0.0158L* )
e = acos(16 o ) + bsin(16 o )
f = 0.7[bcos(16 o ) − asin(16 o )]
Eq.2-49
G= e + f 2 2
C99 = ln(1+ 0.045G) /0.045

f
h99 = arctan( )
e
a99 = C99 cos(h99 )
b99 = C99 sin(h99 )
21
This equation is not only a new color-difference equation but also has an associated
color space.
2.3.4 Modification of CIECAM02
In 2006, Luo et al.24 derived three uniform color spaces based on CIECAM02 to fit large
color differences, suprathreshold color differences and the combined large color
difference. In these uniform color spaces, equal distances approximately represent equal
color differences. The large color difference datasets include six data sets: Zhu et al.,25-27
OSA,28 Guan and Luo,29 BFDB,30 Pointer and Attridge,31 and Munsell.32,33
Suprathreshold sets were BFD, RIT-DuPont, Leeds, and Witt datasets.
Zhu et al. gave 144 large color difference pairs using CRT colors. The pairs were chosen
along five scales in CIELAB color space: hue, lightness, chroma, a light series, and a
dark series and had an average of 10 ΔE*ab units. The OSA data were from the
experiment in which the viewing condition was D65 and 10° observer conditions. The
OSA data had 128 color pairs and the average was 14 ΔE*ab units. The Guan data had
292 wool sample pairs and the average color difference is 11 ΔE*ab units. The BFDB
dataset had 238 nylon sample pairs and the average ΔE*ab was 12 units. The Pointer &
Attridge dataset had 1308 pairs and an average of 9 ΔE*ab units. The datasets consisting
of smaller color difference data included the BFDB, RIT-DuPont, Leeds, and Witt
datasets and had 3657 sample pairs with an average of 2.6 ΔE*ab units.
The modified CIECAM02 models were:
22
ΔE ' = [(ΔJ ' /K L ) 2 + Δa' 2 + Δb' 2 ]
1/ 2
where
(1+ 100c1)J
J' =
1+ c1J
Eq.2-50
ln(1+ c 2 M)
M' =
c2
a' = M ' cos(h)
b' = M ' sin(h)
where, J, M, h are the CIECAM02 lightness, colorfulness, and hue angle values
respectively. The ΔJ’, Δa’, and Δb’ are the J’, a’, and b’ differences between the standard
and sample in a pair. The KL, c1, and c2 coefficients had different values for CAM02-
LCD, CAM02-SCD, and CAM02-UCS. These values are listed in Table 2-III.
Table 2-III. The coefficients for modified CIECAM02 models.
CAM02-LCD CAM02-SCD CAM02-UCS

KL 0.77 1.24 1.00
c1 0.007 0.007 0.007
c2 0.0053 0.0363 0.0228
2.4 Euclidean Spaces

2.4.1 A Euclidean Color Space by Thomsen
In 1999, Thomsen34 derived a Euclidean color space by integrating the chroma
difference adjustment Sc based on CIE94. He assumed that the adjustment of the chroma
difference in CIE94 was more important than the hue difference. The lightness L* in
Euclidean color space was not changed, only chroma was derived as:
C*
ln(1+ 0.045C * )
∫ 1+ 0.045t =
dt
C =
*'
Eq.2-52
0 0.045
Thus, the Euclidean color space has the form:
23
L*' = L*
ln(1+ 0.045C * )
a*' = a*
0.045C *
Eq.2-53
ln(1+ 0.045C * )
b*' = b*
0.045C *
C * = a*2 + b*2
The constants in Eq.2-53 were determined by minimizing the maximum disagreement
with ΔE94:
L*' = L*
ln(1+ 0.053C * )
a*' = a*
0.050C *
Eq.2-54
ln(1+ 0.053C * )
b*' = b*
0.050C *
C * = a*2 + b*2
In this color space, the small Euclidean distances agreed to within 10.5% with ΔE94.
2.4.2 Euclidean Color Space based on DIN99
Both Thomsen’s Euclidean and DIN99 color spaces have the same formula for chroma
C*, but the lightness L* in DIN99 color space has a logarithmic form. Cui and Luo, et
al.23 presented three Euclidean color spaces by modifying DIN99 in 2001. They merged
four datasets (VFD-P,35 RIT-DuPont, Leeds,36 and Witt37) to form a combined dataset
for deriving new Euclidean color space. The first Euclidean color space, DIN99b, kept
the same basic structure as the DIN99 formula. The coefficients in DIN99b were
calculated by fitting the combined dataset. The DIN99b is:
24
1
[ b + Δb99 b ]
1/ 2
ΔE 99 b = ΔL299 b + Δa99
2 2
kE
where
L99 b = 303.671ln(1+ 0.0039L* )
e = acos(26 o ) + bsin(26 o )
f = 0.83[bcos(26 o ) − asin(26 o )]
Eq.2-55
G= e + f 2 2
C99b = 23.0ln(1+ 0.075G)

f
h99 b = arctan( ) + 26
e
a99 b = C99 b cos(h99 b )
b99 b = C99 b sin(h99 b )
In DIN99b color space, the color tolerance in blue region was not a circle, but ellipses.
Compared with ΔE00, DIN99b performed worse in the blue region. Thus, the second and
the third Euclidean color space were derived to improve the performance in the blue
region. In 1999, Kuehni pointed out that a single linear power for CIELAB was not
correct. He gave a new formula that linearized a* and b* values and also included the
blue region correction. According to his idea, Cui and Luo et al. replaced the tristimulus
value X by X ' = c 0 x − (c 0 −1)Z , where c0 was an optimized coefficient. The second color
space DIN99c and the third color space DIN99d were derived by using X’ equation with
and without the rotation of a* and b* axies respectively. DIN99c is below:
25
1
[ ]
1/ 2
ΔE 99c = ΔL299c + Δa99c
2
+ Δb99c
2
kE
where
X'= 1.1X − 0.1Z
L99c = 317.651ln(1+ 0.0037L* )
e = a*
f = 0.94b * Eq.2-56
G = e2 + f 2
C99c = 23.0ln(1+ 0.066G)
f
h99c = arctan( )
e
a99c = C99c cos(h99c )
b99c = C99c sin(h99c )
In DIN99c, there is no rotation of a* and b* axes.
The DIN99d is:
1
[ ]
1/ 2
ΔE 99d = ΔL299d + Δa99d
2
+ Δb99d
2
kE
where
X'= 1.12X − 0.12Z
L99d = 325.221ln(1+ 0.0036L* ) Eq.2-57
e = a * cos(50 o ) + b * sin(50 o )
f = 1.14[−a * sin(50 o ) + b * cos(50 o )]
G = e2 + f 2
C99d = 22.5ln(1+ 0.06G)
f
h99d = arctan( ) + 50 o
e
a99d = C99d cos(h99d )
b99d = C99d sin(h99d )
In DIN99d, there is a rotation of 500.
26
These three color spaces were tested by using the combined dataset. Overall, there was a
slight improvement for the combined dataset, but for the blue region, DIN99c and
DIN99d gave a large improvement.
27
3. RIT-Dupont Dataset
3.1 Background
In 1989, Alman et al.18 at RIT designed an experiment (phase I)38 to develop a color
tolerance dataset that could be used to test the performance of color-difference metrics. In
this experiment, fifty color normal observers observed one color-difference anchor pair
and 315 different color pairs in random order. Here, the color-difference of the anchor
pair was defined as the visual color tolerance. The observer compared the total color
difference of each pair with color tolerance of the anchor pair and decided if the former
one was larger or smaller than the latter one.
The color-difference of the near-gray anchor pair was ∆E*ab 1.02, and the L*a*b* values
of anchor pair were: L*1=49.53, a*1=-0.08, b*1=-5.65; L*2=48.89, a*2=0.17, b*2=-4.90.
The 317 color pairs had nine color centers: grey, four medium chroma hues (orange,
yellow-green, blue-green, purple), and four high chroma hues (red, yellow, green, blue).
There were five vectors sampled at each color center. Five vector directions
(A,B,C,D,and E in blue color) are plotted in Fig.3-1.
L* b*
A D E
C
B a*
a*
b*
Fig.3-1 Five vectors (A, B,C,D,and E) in CIELAB space
28
An acrylic-lacquer automotive coating was sprayed onto primed aluminum panels.
Samples were cut into 6.5 by 5.0 cm2 rectangles from the sprayed panels. The color
difference pairs subtended a visual field of 10° by 5° . The viewing condition was filtered
tungsten with a CCT near 6500K. Principal component analyses were used to determine
each vector direction. Probit analysis was used to analyse the experimental response that
was the population frequency of rejection decisions for each color-difference pair (visual
difference greater than the anchor pair). The frequency-of-rejection data yielded
sigmoidal response functions. The tolerance with rejection probability equal to 0.5
(denoted as T50) means the color difference visually equivalent to the anchor pair. The
frequency distribution was compared to the assumed probability distribution by using a
χ 2 test. The large number of high χ 2 values indicated the experimental data did not fit a
cumulative-normal distribution model in all cases. Based on the T50 tolerance estimates,
uncertainty was calculated by the 95% upper and lower fiducial limits. Although the
median tolerance determinations were very precise, the design of five vectors in this
experiment could not determine interaction between L* and a* (or b*). Thus, in 1999,
Berns et al.18 designed a second experimental phase. In phase II,39 the two vectors D and
E in phase I were replaced by four vectors which varied simultaneously in L*, a* and b*,
shown in Fig.3-2.
29
L* L*
G F
A H I
C
B
a* a*
b* b*
Fig.3-2 Seven vectors (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H and I) in CIELAB space
Also, based on nine color centers in phase I, five color centers with higher L* values and
five color centers with lower L* values were added. Totally, there were nineteen color
centers that sampled the color gamut of the acrylic lacquer paint. The viewing conditions
and anchor pair were the same as those in phase I. A total of 315 color-difference pairs
were compared with color anchor pair by the fifty observers and the T50 was determined
in Phase I. A second group of 50 observers judged 530 color-difference pairs in phase II.
Compared with phase I, the vector directions sampled lightness and chromaticness
separately and together in phase II, which gave more difficulty to judge. Besides, since
the color difference increased between the anchor pair color space location and the test
pair location in phase II, the observer uncertainty increased. Thus, the phase II
represented greater experimental uncertainty than the phase I. In order to pool the results
in phase I and phase II, a median filtering algorithm was designed by M.R. Balonon-
Rosen.40 The filtering algorithm reduced the uncertainty in phase II, and did not affect
phase I T50, because the visual results in phase I had high precision. As a result, 156
visual color tolerance with 19 color centers perceptually equivalent to 1 CIELAB color-
difference unit were generated.
30
The 19 color centers should be considered as the nominal color centers because the
vectors of these color centers have their own actual color centers, which are slightly
different from the nominal color centers. Here, the average values ( x ) of actual color
center for 19 color centers were calculated and used as a common origin for all the
vectors at each center. Thus, each tolerance has: +T50, x , -T50. The RIT-DuPont color-
tolerance vectors in CIELAB space are shown in Fig.3-3 – Fig.3-7.
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in CIEL*a*b* Space
80
60
40
b*
20
−20
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80

a*
Fig.3-3 RIT-DuPont color-tolerance vectors in a*b* plane
80
70
60
50
L*
40
30
20
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

a*
31
Fig.3-4 RIT-DuPont color-tolerance vectors in a*L* plan

100
90
80
70
60
50
L*
40
30
20
10
0
−20 0 20 40 60 80
b*
Fig.3-6 RIT-DuPont color-tolerance vectors in b*L* plane
80
70
60
50
L*
40
30
20
80
60
40
40
20
20
0 0
−20 −20
b* −40
a*
Fig.3-7 RIT-DuPont color-tolerance vectors in CIELAB space
32
3.2 Color-Difference Ellipsoids
If a color space is uniform, the unit color differences at a color center will form a sphere.
In CIELAB space, the color tolerance is summarized as an ellipsoid, not a sphere.
Visualization of color difference ellipsoids is very useful to analyze the systematic
variation in color difference behavior. Melgosa et al41 provided a method to obtain the
ellipsoids that fit the RIT-Dupont data in 1997.
Mathematically, the ellipsoid equation in xyz coordinate can be described as:
b11 x 2 + 2b12 xy + b22 y 2 + 2b13 xz + 2b23 yz + b33 z 2 = 1 Eq.3-1
where bij is the coefficients of ellipsoid.42
In CIELAB space, color discrimination35,43 at any color center can be represented as:
2 2 2
b11 Δa * + 2b12 Δa * Δb * + b22 Δb * + 2b13 Δa * ΔL* + 2b23 Δb * ΔL* + b33 ΔL* = ΔE ab
*2
Eq.3-2
For constant ΔE ab
*
, this equation defines an ellipsoid. In order to fit RIT-Dupont dataset,
the six coefficients (bij) in Eq.3-2 will be calculated by minimizing the S2 function
defined as:
S 2 = ∑ ( ΔV 2 − ΔE ab
*2 2
) Eq. 3-3
Where, ΔV is the constant visual difference. The median tolerance T50 and first
eigenvector provided by the RIT-Dupont dataset, were used to minimize the S2 function.
The average values of actual color center for 19 color centers were used so that each
eigenvector has a common center.
From Eq.3-2, the equation of ellipses in a*b* plane can be written as:
33
b11Δa 2 + 2b12 ΔaΔb + b22 Δb 2 = ΔE ab
*2
Eq.3-4
The orientation of the major axis of the ellipses in Eq.3-4 with respect to the a* axis can
be calculated as:
1 ⎛ 2b12 ⎞
θ = tan−1⎜ ⎟ Eq.3-5
2 ⎝ b22 − b11 ⎠
The major and minor axes of the ellipses can be calculated as:
2sin(2θ )
a= Eq.3-6
sin(2θ ) × (b11 + b22 ) − 2b12
2sin(2θ )
b= Eq.3-7
sin(2θ ) × (b11 + b22 ) + 2b12
The RIT-DuPont ellipses in a*b*, a*L*, and b*L* planes are shown in Fig.3-8, Fig.3-10,
and Fig.3-12, respectively. The RIT-DuPont ellipses with vectors a*b*, a*L*, and b*L*
plane are shown in Fig.3-9, Fig.3-11, and Fig.3-13, respectively. Here, all the ellipses are
enlarged 300%.
RIT−Dupont Visual data in CIEL*a*b* Space RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses and Vectors in CIEL*a*b* Space
80 80
60 60
40 40
b*
b*
20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80

a* a*
Fig.3-8 RIT-DuPont ellipses in a*b* plane. Fig.3-9 RIT-DuPont ellipses with vectors in a*b* plane.
34
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
L*
L*
40 40
30 30
20 20
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
a* a*
Fig.3-10 RIT-DuPont ellipses in a*L* plane. Fig.3-11 RIT-DuPont ellipses with vectors in a*L* plane.
100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
L*
L*
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−20 0 20 40 60 80 −20 0 20 40 60 80
b* b*
Fig.3-12 RIT-DuPont ellipses in b*L* plane. Fig.3-13 RIT-DuPont ellipses with vectors in b*L* plane.
In Fig.3-8, the ellipses in blue region tilt toward greenish blue at low chroma and toward
reddish blue at high chroma. The neutral ellipses are smaller than those in the higher
chroma regions. In addition, when the chroma increases, the ellipse size increases. The tilt
relative to the L* direction is very slight in Fig.3-10 and Fig.3-12. In general, the RIT-
DuPont ellipsoids visualization indicates that CIELAB is not a color uniform space.
35
3.3 CIECAM02
The RIT-DuPont vectors 3D-CIECAM02 space and ab, aJ, and bJ plane of CIECAM02
space are shown in Fig.3-14-Fig.3-17, respectively. The RIT-DuPont ellipses ab, aJ, and
bJ plane in CIECAM02 space are shown in Fig.3-18, Fig.3-20, and Fig.3-22, respectively.
The RIT-DuPont ellipses with vectors ab, aJ, and bJ plane in CIECAM02 space are
shown in Fig.3-19, Fig.3-21, and Fig.3-23, respectively.
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in CIECAM02 Space
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
−40
−20
0 60
40
20 20
0
40 −20
−40
b
a
Fig.3-14 RIT-DuPont vectors in CIECAM02 space.
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in ab plane (CIECAM02 space)
60
40
20
b
−20
−40
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a
Fig.3-15 RIT-DuPont vectors in ab plane (in CIECAM02 space).
36
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in aJ plane (CIECAM02 Space)
80
60
40
20
J
0
−20
−40
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a
Fig.3-16 RIT-DuPont vectors in aJ plane (in CIECAM02 space)
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in CIECAM02 Space
90
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
0
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig3-17 RIT-DuPont vectors in Jb plane (in CIECAM02 space).
37
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in CIECAM02 Space (from +T50 & −T50) RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors and Ellipses in CIECAM02 Space
60 60
40 40
20 20
b
b
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60

a a
Fig.3-18 RIT-DuPont ellipses in Fig.3-19 RIT-DuPont ellipses with

ab plane (in CIECAM02 space). vectors in ab plane (in CIECAM02 space).
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
J
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
a a

aJ plane (in CIECAM02 space). vectors in aJ plane (in CIECAM02 space).
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
J
J
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−40 −20 0 20 40 60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60

b b

bJ plane (in CIECAM02 space). vectors in bJ plane (in CIECAM02 space).
38
As we known, for a perfect agreement between the RIT-Dupont dataset and a uniform
color space, all ellipses should be circles with constant radius. RIT-DuPont ellipses in
CIELAB space are smaller in the neutral region and increase in size when chroma
increases. In Fig.3-18, the sizes of ellipses in CIECAM02 color space are closer. For the
No.11 color center (light bluish green), the ellipses in ab plane behave like a circle. Also,
the ellipses in blue region do not tilt as much as the ellipses in CIELAB color space. They
tilt slightly toward greenish blue at low chroma and toward to reddish blue at high
chroma. But, all ellipses are orientated more or less toward the origin, which are similar
to CIELAB space. There is a ellipsis near neutral in Fig.3-18 which is larger than those in
the other region. This indicates that the pattern of ellipses in CIECAM02 is similar to that
of CIELAB except that CIECAM02 is more uniform than CIELAB in some color
positions.
3.4 IPT
The RIT-DuPont vectors in IPT space and PT, IT, and IT plane of IPT space are shown in
Fig.3-24-Fig.3-27, respectively. The RIT-DuPont ellipses IP, IT, and PT plane in IPT
space are shown in Fig.3-28, Fig.3-30, and Fig.3-32, respectively. The RIT-DuPont
ellipses with vectors IP, IT, and PT plane in IPT space are shown in Fig.3-29, Fig.3-31,
and Fig.3-33, respectively.
39
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in IPT Space
80
70
60
50
I
40
30
20
−20 80
0 60
40
20 20
0
40 −20
T
P
Fig.3-24 RIT-DuPont vectors in IPT space.
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in PT plane (IPT space)
80
60
40
T
20
−20
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80

P
Fig.3-25 RIT-DuPont vectors in PT plane (in IPT space).
40
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in IP plane (IPT Space)
80
70
60
I
50
40
30
20
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

P
Fig.3-26 RIT-DuPont vectors in IP plane (in IPT space).
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Vectors in IT plane (IPT Space)

100
90
80
70
60
50
I
40
30
20
10
−20 0 20 40 60 80
T
Fig.3-27 RIT-DuPont vectors in IT plane (in IPT space).
41
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in PT plane (IPT Space) RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses&Vectors in PT plane (IPT Space)
80 80
60 60
40 40
T
T
20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
P P
Fig.3-28 RIT-DuPont Fig.3-29 RIT-DuPont

ellipses in PT plane (in IPT space). ellipses and vectors in PT plane (in IPT space).
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in IP plane (IPT Space) RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses&Vectors in IP plane (IPT Space)
80 80
70 70
60 60
I
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

P P
Fig.3-30 RIT-DuPont Fig.3-31 RIT-DuPont ellipses and

ellipses in IP plane (in IPT space). vectors in in IP plane (in IPT space).
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in IT plane (IPT Space) RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses&Vectors in IT plane (IPT Space)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
I
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
T T
Fig.3-30 RIT-DuPont Fig.3-33 RIT-DuPont ellipses and

ellipses in IT plane (in IPT space). vectors in in IT plane (in IPT space).
42
Similar to the behavior of the ellipses of No.11 color center in CIECAM02 color space,
the ellipses in IPT color space also looks like a circle. The ellipses in the blue region of
IPT space tilt toward to origin more than those CIELAB and CIECAM02 color spaces.
Thus, in IPT space, all ellipses are orientated toward the origin. The ellipses in neutral
region are not as large as those in CIECAM02 color space. From this point, IPT space
performs better than CIECAM02 and CIELAB space.
In general, the visualization of RIT-Dupont data in CIELAB, CIECAM02 and IPT color
space indicates that none of these color spaces is uniform. CIECAM02 and IPT color
space perform as well as CIELAB. In some case, they are more uniform than CIELAB
color space.
43
4. Qiao and Berns Dataset
4.1 Background
In 1998, Qiao, et al44 designed an experiment that sampled hue circles at two lightness
(L*=40 and 60) and two chroma levels (C*ab=20 and 40) and also included three of the
five CIE recommended colors (red, green, and blue). A Fujix Pictrography 3000 digital
printer and glossy photographic papers were used to produce sample pairs. The gamut of
the printer was tested and it was found that the greatest C*ab that could be produced at
constant lightness and for all hues was limited to 40 due to the irregular shape of the color
gamut. Since for a given color center, color difference pairs needed to be formed with
predefined differences in ΔH ab
*
with minimal differences in lightness and chroma, the
candidate color difference pairs were constrained by Eq.4-1:
ΔL* < 0.6

ΔCab
*
< 0.6 Eq.4-1
ΔH ab
*
< 0.9
ΔE ab
*
The sample pairs were measured with a Milton Roy ColorScan 45/0 spectrophotometer,
the identical instrument used for the RIT-DuPont dataset.
Based on the color gamut data, the highest C*ab of a hue circle meeting the experimental
design was 40 with an L*=40. The chroma was reduced to 35 in order to minimize
quantization limitations near the edge of the color gamut. Thus the first CIELAB hue
44
circle was defined at L*=40 and C*ab=35. A second hue circle was defined at the same
lightness of 40, but a reduced chroma of 20. The third hue circle was defined at a higher
lightness of 60 with the reduced chroma of 20. Also, the four chromatic CIE-
recommended color centers were included to the experiment. Only the red, green, and
blue centers were evaluated because the yellow center was outside the color gamut of the
Fujix printer. Thus, 39 color centers were generated.
For each color center, 9 to 10 color-difference pairs with increasing ΔH ab

*
were selected
from the sorted sample data. Each color sample was cut into a 2.5” x 2.0” rectangle,
where the cutter was oriented 450 to the plane of the surface to minimize viewing of the
paper support. Samples were affixed adjacently onto the L*=50 gray cardboard forming
color-difference pairs.
Forty-five observers participated in the experiment. The CIELAB values of the anchor
pair were: L*1=49.03, a*1=0.93, b*1=2.27; L*2=49.35, a*2=0.10, b*2=2.79. The color
difference in CIELAB was ΔE ab

*
= 1.03. Totally there were 393 color difference pairs.
Probit analysis was used to analyze the frequency of rejection data. Through the analysis,
forty-four visual tolerances varying in hue at two lightness and chroma levels were
chosen. The Qiao data are plotted in CIELAB space in Fig.4-1 and 4-2.
45
Qiao data in CIEL*a*b* space (L*=40,C*=20,C*=35) Qiao data in CIEL*a*b* space (L*=60, C*=20)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
b*
0
b*
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−40 −40
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
a* a*
Fig.4-1 Qiao data in a*b* plane Fig.4-2 Qiao data

(Lightness=40, Chroma=20 and 35) (Lightness=60, Chroma=20) in a*b* plane.
4.2 Plots of Qiao Experimental Results in Color Spaces
The color difference of Qiao data in CIELAB, CIECAM02 and IPT color space are
plotted in Fig.4-3 – 4-5, respectively.

Qiao Data in CIEL*a*b* Color Space
3.5 L40C20
L40C35
L60C20
2.5
ΔH
2
1.5
0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.4-3 Color difference of Qiao data in CIELAB
46
Qiao Data in CIECAM02 Color Space
3.5
L40C20
L40C35
L60C20
2.5
ΔH
2
1.5
0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.4-4 Color difference of Qiao data in CIECAM02
Qiao Data in IPT Color Space

3.5
L40C20
L40C35
L60C20
2.5
ΔH
2
1.5
0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.4-5 Color difference of Qiao data in IPT
In CIELAB color space, for L=40,C*ab=20, the colors with hue angle around 1000 and
3000 have almost the unit color difference. The color difference from 00 to 400 agrees with
that from 1300 to 1600. For L=40, C*ab=35, only color difference at around 300 has the
unit color difference. The maximum color difference centered around 2300 and 2500.
47
Generally, there is close agreement between 1300 and 2200 for the three datasets. The
tolerances for L=40,C*ab=20 between 00 and 300 changes in the direction opposite to that
of the other two datasets. Apparently, CIELAB color tolerances have a hue angle
dependency.
The mean value ( ΔE ) and standard deviation ( δ (ΔE) ) of Qiao color differences in
CIELAB, CIECAM02 and IPT color spaces are listed in Table 4-I.
Table 4-I. ΔE and δ (ΔE) in Three Color Spaces

L40C20 L40C35 L60C20
ΔEab 1.343 2.075 1.351
ΔE CIECAM 02 1.509 2.144 1.525
ΔE IPT 1.168 1.764 1.301
δ ( ΔEab ) 0.353 0.748 0.363
δ (ΔE CIECAM 02 ) 0.303 0.630 0.512
δ (ΔE IPT ) 0.259 0.537 0.396
The comparisons among the three datasets in CIELAB, CIECAM02, and IPT color space
are plotted in Fig.4-6 – 4-8.

L40C20 in CIEL*a*b*, CIECAM02 and IPT Color Space
2.5
CIEL*a*b*
IPT
CIECAM02
ΔH
1.5
0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
48
Fig.4-6 Color difference of L40C20 in three color spaces
3.5 CIEL*a*b*
IPT
CIECAM02
2.5
ΔH
2
1.5
0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle

2.5
CIEL*a*b*
IPT
CIECAM02
ΔH
1.5
0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Clearly, the Qiao color difference in IPT color space is closest to the unit color difference.
However, there is evidence that CIELAB, CIECAM02, and IPT color tolerances have a
hue-angle dependency. Thus, it also means that the color difference equation in these
color spaces should contain a hue-angle dependent function.
49
5. Hung and Berns Dataset
5.1 Background
In 1995, Hung and Berns45 designed an experiment to determine twenty-four loci of
constant perceived hue using a CRT. A BARCO CalibratorTM 19” high-resolution color
monitor was set up with a maximum white near D65 and a luminance of 50 cd/m2.
Twelve reference stimuli (red, red-yellow, yellow, yellow-green, green, green-cyan, cyan,
cyan-blue, blue, blue-magenta, magenta, magenta-red, white) were selected as the
reference. These twelve stimuli had the highest chroma for the display. The test stimuli
were used to sample the CRT color gamut in two ways: at constant lightness (CL) and at
varying lightness (VL). Each CL test stimuli increased C*uv by 25% compared with the
reference stimulus. The VL test stimuli sampled the CRT gamut in 10 L* increments
between 20 and 90. There were three CL test stimuli and 8 VL test stimuli for each of the
12 reference hues. Each test stimulus was along a locus with constant C*uv and L* and
variable hue.
Twenty-four color patches were displayed on the CRT having three rows by eight
columns. There were eight 20-mm square stimuli in each row. The gray patches with
equal lightness to the test stimulus position were put on the first row. The variable hue
patches were on the second row and the reference patches were on the bottom row
respectively. For a given test stimulus position, the corresponding reference stimulus was
displayed on the third row, and a neutral patch with equal lightness as the test stimuli was
displayed on the first row. For the test patches on the second row, the lightness (L*) and
chroma (C*uv) were equal to the test stimuli position. If the C*uv was out of display
50
gamut, the C*uv was replaced by the new C*uv that was on the gamut boundary. The right
four patches were with increased huv and the left four patches were with decreased huv.
The color-difference of the center pair was 2.0ΔE*uv relative to the test stimulus position.
The color-difference of each successive patch increased by 4.0ΔE*uv from its neighbor.
The color that was picked up on the middle row by the observer and its opposite-sided
color was displayed below the bottom row.
There were nine observers in a darkened room that participated in the experiment. The
viewing condition was under Illuminant C and the background corresponded to a
luminance factor of 0.2. The observer’s task was to choose one color stimulus closest in
hue to the reference stimulus. Then, the selected color became the new center point of the
eight positions. Thus, the color difference between each patch changed to 5/8ΔE*uv of the
previous display. Totally, 132 color positions were represented in the experiment.
5.2 Hung Data Plots in CIELAB, CIECAM02,
and IPT Color Spaces
The Hung dataset in CIELAB, CIECAM02, and IPT color spaces are plotted in Fig.5-1 –
5-6, respectively.
51
Constant Lightness in CIEL*a*b* Varying Lightness in CIEL*a*b*
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
b*
b*
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −60
−80 −80
−100 −50 0 50 100 −100 −50 0 50 100

a* a*
Fig.5-1 Constant hue loci from the constant Fig.5-2 Constant hue loci from the variable
lightness experiment in CIELAB space. lightness experiment in CIELAB space.
Constant Lightness in CIECAM02 Varying Lightness in CIECAM02
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
bc
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −60
−80 −80
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
ac a
Fig.5-3 Constant hue loci from the constant Fig.5- 4 Constant hue loci from the variable
lightness experiment in CIECAM02 space. lightness experiment in CIECAM02 space.
Constant Lightness in IPT Varying Lightness in IPT

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
T
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −60
−80 −80
−100 −100
−100 −50 0 50 100 −100 −50 0 50 100

P P
Fig.5-5 Constant hue loci from the Fig.5-6 Constant hue loci from the
constant lightness experiment in IPT space. variable lightness experiment in IPT space.
52
In Fig.5-1, the lines of constant hue in the blue region tend to shift to purple as chroma is
decreased. This means the lack of blue constancy in CIELAB color space. The curve shift
in the blue region is shown in Fig.5-3. However, there is an improvement in hue
uniformity and hue constancy in CIECAM02, even in the blue region. In Fig.5-5 and
Fig.5-6, the IPT color space has the minimum degree of spread for all the hue angles.
Comparing Fig.5-4 and Fig.5-6 with Fig.5-2, the curve in cyan-blue region in
CIECAM02 and IPT space is straighter than the CIELAB color space.
In CIELAB space, L*, a*, and b* are calculated from tristimulus values and reference
white point. The reference white point values are used in a von Kries transformation. But,
this chromatic adaptation is performed in XYZ tristimulus space, not a physiological cone
space. This causes hue shift problem1, especially effects hue constancy in blue area46. The
perceptual attributes of CIECAM02 and IPT color spaces are calculated from the Hunt-
Pointer-Estevez primaries, not from tristimulus values directly. Using transform to Hunt-
Pointer-Estevez cone fundamentals improves the hue constancy in CIECAM02 and IPT.
5.3 Conclusion
The Hung data can be used to evaluate the hue linearity of color spaces. The visualization
of Hung data in CIELAB, CIECAM02 and IPT color spaces shows the poor blue linearity
in CIELAB color space. Also, CIECAM02 and IPT color spaces result in hue linearity
improvement.
53
6. Optimizing Color-Difference Formula
6.1 Background
The CIE used the RIT-DuPont and Luo-Rigg datasets to derive the color-difference
equation, CIE94. In 2007, Berns used the RIT-DuPont color tolerance dataset (19 color
centers and156 color pairs) and the Qiao, et al. hue dataset (44 color pairs) reference to
optimize color-difference equations in CIECAM02 and IPT color space. Eq.6-1 shows the
optimization equation for IPT:

1/ 2
⎡⎛ ⎞2 ⎤
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ 2 2
⎥
⎢⎜ ΔI ⎟ ⎛ ΔC ⎞ ⎛ ΔH ⎞ ⎥
ΔE optimized = β e ⎢⎜ + ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ Eq.6-1
⎢⎜ ⎛ − ⎞ β L ,2 ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1+ βC ,1C pt ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1+ β H ,1C pt ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎟
⎢⎜ β L,0 + β L,1⎜ I ⎟ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎜100 ⎟ ⎟ ⎥
⎣⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎦
The same form of the equation was used for CIECAM02.
In the CIELAB color space, +T50 and –T50 of the RIT-DuPont dataset is symmetric.
However, this symmetric relation did not maintain in the CIECAM02 and IPT color
spaces. Thus, only the x and +T50 coordinates were used in developing CIECAM02
color-difference and IPT color-difference equations.
sΔE *
A coefficient of variation (CV), pt
, was calculated as a performance metric. The
x ΔE *
pt
objective function minimized CV for the 200-sample dataset with the constraint that the
average color difference was unity.
54
6.2 CIECAM02
CIECAM02 JCh (lightness, chroma, hue angle) coordinates were calculated for the D65
illumination at 1500 lx, background reflectance Yb=100, and an average surround.
The optimized CIECAM02 color-difference equation is shown in Eq.6-2.11

1/ 2
⎡⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎛ ΔC ⎞ 2 ⎛ ΔH ⎞ 2⎤
Δ J
ΔE CIECAM 02,JCH = ⎢⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎣⎝ k J SJ ⎠ ⎝ kC SC ⎠ ⎝ k H S H ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎛ J ⎞2
SJ = 0.5 + 1.25⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Eq.6-2
⎝ 100 ⎠
SC = 1 + 0.02C jch
S H = 1 + 0.01C jch
Since there is an assumption that lightness and chromaticness is independent in CIELAB
and CIECAM02, the three axes in CIECAM02 color space could be rotated relative to
each other so that the CIECAM02 color-difference equation can be optimized to match
neutral color tolerances. Berns derived a rotation matrix (Eq.6-3) to improve the medium
gray ellipsoid. In another words, a rotation matrix was optimized where the objective
function was minimizing the medium gray CV. The final optimized rotation matrix is
given in Eq.6-4.
⎛ J '⎞ ⎛ β1,1 β1,2 β1, 3 ⎞ ⎛ J ⎞

⎜ a '⎟ = ⎜ β β2,2 β2,3 ⎟ ⎜ a ⎟ Eq.6-3
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 2,1 ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ b ' ⎠ ⎜⎝ β 3,1 β 2,2 β 3, 3 ⎟⎠ ⎝ b ⎠
⎛ J '⎞ ⎛ 1.000 0.015 −0.032⎞⎛ J ⎞

⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎜ a'⎟ = ⎜ −0.166 0.934 −0.086⎟⎜ a⎟ Eq.6-4
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ b'⎠ ⎝ −0.060 −0.088 0.892 ⎠⎝ b⎠
55
The medium gray was used to evaluate the performance of color-difference equations.
The magnitudes of each vector for the medium gray tolerance are listed in Table 6-I.
Table 6-I. Medium gray tolerance vector

VECTOR CIELAB CIEDE2000 CIECAM02OPT CIECAM02OPT_ROT
A 0.92 0.75 0.99 1.04
B 0.85 1.14 0.95 1.00
C 1.30 1.13 1.12 1.01
D 0.91 1.07 1.09 1.01
E 1.25 1.27 0.96 1.01
F 1.01 0.97 1.13 0.98
G 0.99 0.94 0.92 0.98
H 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.98
I 0.91 0.88 0.93 0.98
CV 0.16 0.17 0.09 0.02
It indicates that the neutral tolerance in CIELAB and CIEDE2000 is not spherical and the
optimized CIECAM02 color-difference equation had an improvement. Also, rotated
CIECAM02 gave the best performance.
The optimized CIECAM02 color-difference equation ellipses in ab, aJ, and bJ plane are
shown in Fig.6-1 - 6-3.

CIECAM02 Difference Dquation Ellipses CIECAM02 Difference Dquation Ellipses
80
60
70
40 60
50
20
J
b
40
0
30
−20
20
−40
10
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
a a
Fig.6-1 CIECAM02 Color-Difference Fig.6-2 CIECAM02 Color-Difference

Equation Ellipses in ab Plane Equation Ellipses in aJ Plane
56
CIECAM02 Difference Dquation Ellipses
90
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
0
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.6-3 CIECAM02 Color-Difference Equation Ellipses in bJ Plane
The rotated CIECAM02 color-difference equation ellipses in ab, aJ, and bJ plane are
plotted in Fig.6-4 – 6-6.

Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation Ellipses in Rotated CIECAM02 Space Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation Ellipses in Rotated CIECAM02 Space
80
60
70
40 60
50
20
J
b
40
30
−20
20
−40 10
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
a a
Fig.6-4 Rotated CIECAM02 Color-Difference Fig.6-5 Rotated CIECAM02 Color-Difference

Equation Ellipses in ab Plane Equation Ellipses in aJ Plane
Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation Ellipses in Rotated CIECAM02 Space

90
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
0
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.6-6 Rotated CIECAM02 Color-Difference Equation Ellipses in bJ Plane
57
CIECAM02 color-difference equation ellipses and CIECAM02 RIT-Dupont ellipses at
middle gray color center are shown in Fig.6-7 - 6-9. The ellipses are also enlarged triple
times.
CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) for Middle Gray CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) for Middle Gray
6
52
4
51
2 50
b
J
49
0
48
−2
47
−4
46
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
a a
Fig.6-7 ΔE CIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont Fig.6-8 ΔE CIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont
Ellipses at Middle gray in ab Plane Ellipses at Middle gray in aJ Plane
CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) for Middle Gray
54
53
52
51
50
J
49
48
47
46
45
−4 −2 0 2 4 6
b
Fig.6-9 ΔE CIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle gray in bJ Plane
Fig.6-10 – Fig.6-12 is the rotated CIECAM02 color-difference equation ellipses and
rotated CIECAM02 RIT-Dupont ellipses at middle gray color center.
58
Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) for Middle Gray Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) for Middle Gray
53
52
4
51
2 50
b
J
0 49
48
−2
47
−4
46
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
a a
Fig.6-10 ΔE Rot _ CIECAM 02 VS. RIT-Dupont Fig.6-11 ΔE Rot _ CIECAM 02 VS. RIT-Dupont
Ellipses at Middle gray in ab Plane Ellipses at Middle gray in aJ Plane
Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Vata(red) for Middle Gray
53
52
51
50
J
49
48
47
46
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
b
Fig.6-12 ΔE Rot _ CIECAM 02 VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle gray in bJ Plane
In Fig.6-7 – Fig.6-12, it indicates that the rotated CIECAM02 color difference equation
ellipses fit the visual color tolerance better than CIECAM02 color difference equation
ellipses. Due to rotated CIECAM02 color difference equation was designed to optimize
the middle gray ellipsoid, its tolerance at middle gray is more like a sphere than
CIECAM02.
The CIECAM02 color-difference equation ellipses and CIECAM02 RIT-Dupont ellipses
in ab, aJ, and bJ planes are plotted in Fig.6-13 – Fig.6-15.
59
CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red)
80
60
70
40
60
20 50
b
J
40
0
30
−20
20
−40
10
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
a a
Fig.6-13 ΔE CIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. Fig.6-14 ΔE CIECAM 02 Ellipses VS.

RIT-Dupont Ellipses in ab Plane RIT-Dupont Ellipses in aJ Plane
CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red)
90
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.6-15 ΔE CIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses in bJ Plane
The rotated CIECAM02 color-difference equation ellipses and CIECAM02 RIT-Dupont
ellipses in ab, aJ, and bJ planes are shown in Fig.6-16 – Fig.6-18.

Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red)
80
60
70
40
60
20 50
b
40
0
30
−20
20
−40
10
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
a a
Fig.6-16 ΔE Rotated _ CIECAM 02 Ellipses Fig.6-17 ΔE Rotated _ CIECAM 02 Ellipses

VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses in ab Plane VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses in aJ Plane
60
Rotated CIECAM02 Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red)
90
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.6-18 ΔE Rotated _ CIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses in bJ Plane
Generally, the agreement between CIECAM02 color equation and visual results is close
to that between rotated CIECAM02 color equation and visual results. For the yellow,
moderate greenish blue, and grayish yellow green center, both equations are very similar
to the visual experimental ellipses. For thee blue and strong orange yellow center, the
agreement between equations and visual results was very poor.
6.3 IPT
Eq.6-5 is the optimized IPT color-difference equation.11

1/ 2
⎡⎛ 2 2 2⎤
ΔI ⎞ ⎛ ΔC pt ⎞ ⎛ ΔH pt ⎞
ΔE IPT ⎢
= ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎣⎝ kI SI ⎠ ⎝ kC SC ⎠ ⎝ k H S H ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎛ I ⎞ 3.5
SJ = 0.7 + 1.6⎜ ⎟ Eq.6-5
⎝ 100 ⎠
SC = 1+ 0.03C pt
S H = 1+ 0.01C pt
61
C pt = t 2 + p 2
where, ⎛t⎞ Eq.6-6
h pt = tan−1⎜ ⎟
⎝ p⎠
ΔI = I2 − I1
ΔC pt = C pt,2 − C pt,1 Eq.6-7
⎛ h − h pt,1 ⎞
ΔH pt = 2 C pt,2C pt,1 sin⎜ pt,2 ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
The optimized IPT color-difference equation ellipses in PT, IP, and IT planes are shown
in Fig.6-19 – Fig.6-21.
IPT Color Difference Equation Ellipses IPT Color Difference Equation Ellipses
80
80
70
60
60
40
T
50
20
40
30
−20
20
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

P P
Fig.6-19 IPT Color-Difference Fig.6-20 IPT Color-Difference

Equation Ellipses in PT Plane Equation Ellipses in IP Plane
IPT Color Difference Equation Ellipses
90
80
70
60
I
50
40
30
20
10
−20 0 20 40 60 80
T
Fig.6-21 IPT Color-Difference Equation Ellipses in IT Plane
62
The IPT color difference equation ellipses and RIT-Dupont ellipses at the middle gray
color center are plotted in Fig.6-22 – Fig.6-24.

IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) for Middle Gray IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) for Middle Gray
7
59.5
6
59
5
58.5
4
58
3
57.5
2
T
I
57
1 56.5
0 56
−1 55.5
55
−2
54.5
−3
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
P P
Fig.6-22 ΔE IPT VS. RIT-Dupont Fig.6-23 ΔE IPT VS. RIT-Dupont

Ellipses at Middle gray in PT Plane Ellipses at Middle gray in IP Plane
IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) for Middle Gray
60
59
58
I
57
56
55
54
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T
Fig.6-24 ΔE IPT VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle gray in IT Plane
IPT color difference equation ellipses fit the experimental color tolerance at the middle
gray color center better than CIECAM02 color difference equation ellipses did, especially
the ellipses in the IP plane.
Fig.6-25 – Fig.6-27 is the comparison between IPT color difference equation ellipses and
RIT-Dupont ellipses.
63
IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red)
80
80
70
60
60
40
T
I
50
20
40
0
30
−20
20
−40
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
P P
Fig.6-25 ΔE IPT VS. Fig.6-26 ΔE IPT VS.

RIT-Dupont Ellipses in PT Plane RIT-Dupont Ellipses in IP Plane
IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red)
100
90
80
70
60
50
I
40
30
20
10
0
−40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
T
Fig.6-27 ΔE IPT VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses in IT Plane
For some color centers, such as light brown, moderate reddish brown, moderate yellow,
the IPT color difference equation ellipses fit the RIT-DuPont ellipses very well. For the
blue center, there was an improvement to fit the visual experimental result.
64
7. Transformations to Euclidean Color-Difference Spaces
7.1 Theory
In Euclidean space, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Is the
shortest distance between two points in curved surfaces still a straight line in a non-
Euclidean space? In Fig.7-1, there are points A, B, and C on a mountain. We can see that
points A and B are locally in a plane, and points A and C are on a curved surface. Now,
the question is what are the shortest distances on the mountain from points A to B, and
from points A to C, respectively? Since points A and B are in a plane, the shortest
distance between points A and B on the mountain is a Euclidean distance. However,
shortest distance on the mountain between points A and C is a curve, not a straight line,
which is shown in Fig.7-2.
Fig.7-1 Point A, B, and C on the mountain
65
Fig.7-2 The distance between Point A and C on the mountain
A geodesic line is the shortest path between two points in a curved space. The line
element47,48,49 is used to characterize the properties of a Riemann space. A Riemann space
is a subset of a Euclidean space in which tensors are used to describe distance, angle, and
curvature. It is shown as curve C with two end points A and B in Fig.7-3.
B
Fig.7-3 Curve C between point A and B
In order to calculate the length of curve C, it is divided into many n segments, shown in
Fig.7-4. Their lengths are summed.
C
A
Fig.7-4 Curve C and its segments
Assume curve C is represented by X(t)47, a≤t≤b. X(tm) is a chord with vertices m, m =
0,1,2,…,n; t0 = a<t1<…<tn-1<tn = b. A polygon of n chords with vertices is Zn. Zn has
length
66
l(Z) = l1 + l2 + ...+ ln where lm = X m − X m −1 Eq.7-1
lm is the length of the mth chord.
• •
Here we define X = dx /dt . Because X is continuous, the mean value theorem of
differential calculus can be applied:
lm = (t m − t m −1 )Vm Eq.7-2
where, Vm is a vector with components

• • •
X1(t m1), X 2 (t m 2 ), X 3 (t m 3 ) (t m−1 < t mj < t m ) Eq.7-3
• •
Thus, lm = (t m − t m−1 )( X m + ηm ) where ηm = Vm − X m Eq.7-4
Now, sum up the chords from 1 to n,

n • n
l(Z n ) = ∑ (t m − t m −1 )( X m ) + ∑ (t m − t m −1 )ηm Eq.7-5
m =1 m =1
•
ηm is the difference of the distances of the points X m and Vm from the origin and is, at
•
most, equal to the distance Dm = Vm − X m between these points because of the triangle
•
inequality. X is continuous, so, with an ε > 0 , a δ (ε) > 0 can be found such that
Dm < ε when t mj − t m < δ ( j = 1,2,3) Eq.7-6
Thus if the maximum chord length is less than δ , then

n n n
∑ (t m − t m−1)ηm ≤ ∑ (t m − t m−1)Dm < ε ∑ (t m − t m−1 ) = ε(b − a) Eq.7-7

m=1 m=1 m=1
67
This indicates that as the maximum chord length approaches zero the last sum in Eq.7-5
approaches zero while the first sum in Eq.7-5 approaches the integral:
b • • b •
l= ∫ X X dt = ∫ X dt Eq.7-8
a a
Now, we replace the fixed value a and b in Eq.7-8 by t0 and a variable t respectively, then
l becomes a function of t. Thus, the arc length of curve C s(t) is
• • ~
∫
t
s(t) = x• x d t . Eq.7-9
t0
It has a simple geometric interpretation. If t>t0, then s(t) is the length of the portion of C
with initial point x(t0) and terminal point x(t). If t<t0, then s(t) is negative, and that length
is given by –s(t).
In 3-D space, we may write symbolically dx=(dx1,dx2,dx3) and

2 2 2
ds 2 = dx • dx = dx1 + dx 2 + dx 3 . Eq.7-10
Here, ds in Eq.7-10 is called the line element of C.
7.2 Derivation of CIECAM02 Euclidean Color Difference
Space
As was mentioned before, in Cartesian coordinates, a line element is
ds = dx 2 + dy 2 + dz 2 Eq.7-11
In cylindrical coordinates, it is shown in Fig 7-5,
68
Fig 7-5 Cylinder coordinate (x,y,z)
x = r cosϕ
y = r sin ϕ Eq.7-12
z=z
Thus, the line element in cylindrical coordinates is
ds = dx 2 + dy 2 + dz 2
= (cosϕ ) 2 dr 2 + (sin ϕ ) 2 dr 2 + r 2 (cosϕ ) 2 dϕ 2 + r 2 (sin ϕ ) 2 dϕ 2 + dz 2 Eq.7-13
= dr 2 + r 2 dϕ 2 + dz 2
CIECAM02 color space can be considered as cylindrical coordinates:
r = C,ϕ = hab ,z = J
and the square of the line element is
ds2 = dC 2 + C 2 dh 2 + dJ 2
⎛ ΔCab ⎞ 2 ⎛ ΔH ⎞ 2 ⎛ ΔJ ⎞ 2
ΔE 2
CIECAM 02, JCH =⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟
⎝ kC SC ⎠ ⎝ k H S H ⎠ ⎝ k J SJ ⎠
2
⎛ dCab ⎞ 2 ⎛ Cab d h ab ⎞ ⎛ dJ ⎞ 2
∧
=⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ Eq.7-14
⎝ C C ⎠ ⎝ H H ⎟⎠ ⎝ k J SJ ⎠
k S ⎜ k S
∧ ∧ hab π
where, dH =Cab d h ab , d h ab =
180
In the new Euclidean space:
69
∧2 ∧ hnewπ
ds 2 = dCnew
2
+ Cnew
2
d h new + dJ new
2
, where h new = Eq.7-15
180
From Eq 7-14, we have
1
dCnew = dCab
kC SC
∧ Cab ∧
Cnew d h new = d h ab Eq.7-16
k H SH
1
dJ new = dJ
k J SJ
Therefore,
c ab
1
Cnew = ∫ k S dC ab
0 c c
c ab
1
= ∫ 1+ 0.02t dt Eq.7-17
0
= 50ln(1+ 0.02C )
J
1
J new = ∫kS dJ
0 J J
J
1
= ∫ t 2
dt
0.5 + 1.25(
0 )
100
Eq.7-18
200 2 J 1 5
=
5 0
∫ d(
5t 2 100 2
t)
1+ ( )
100 2
200 2 5
= arctan J
5 100 2
∧ ⎛ ∂h ∂h ∧ ⎞
Cnew d h new = Cnew ⎜ new dCab + new d h ab ⎟ Eq.7-19
⎝ ∂Cab ∂hab ⎠
From Eq 7-16, we have
70
∧ ⎛ ∂h ∂hnew ⎞ Cab ∧
Cnew d h new = Cnew ⎜ new dC + dh ⎟ = d h ab Eq.7-20
⎝ ∂Cab ∂hab
* ab ab
⎠ SH
Thus
∂hnew
P= = 0,
∂Cab
Eq.7-21
∂h Cab Cab
Q = new = =
∂hab Cnew S H Cnew (1+ 0.01Cab )
The color distance becomes independent of the actual distance, thus the integrability
condition ∂P /∂hab = ∂Q /∂Cab must be satisfied. Because ∂P /∂hab = 0, ∂Q /∂Cab must
also equal zero. Consequently, Q must be constant. Also, since P=∂hnew/∂Cab=0, hnew is
independent of Cab. So, we can rewrite Eq. 7-21 as
Cab
hnew = hab = khab Eq.7-22
Cnew (1+ 0.01Cab )
Assuming constant k is not equal to 1, then new hue angle hnew is rotated by k times based
on hue angle hab. When hue angle hab is large, then the rotation is large, and vice versa. To
avoid this asymmetrical rotation, it is reasonable to set k equal to 1.
200 2 2
Here, let J = k1 arctan J , Cnew = k 2 50ln(1+ 0.02Cab
*
) , k1 and k2 are
5 100 5
calculated by performing optimization, in which the coefficient of variation for the 200
sample dataset (RIT-Dupont dataset and Qiao dataset) is minimized.
Thus, the new Euclidean difference is:
71
200 2.5
J new = k J 0.99 × arctan J
2.5 100
C new = k C 0.94 × 50 ln(1 + 0.02C ab )
hnew = hab , where Eq.7-23
a new = C new cosh new
bnew = C new sinh new
7.3 Derivation of IPT Euclidean
The optimized IPT color difference equation is below:
⎡⎛ 2 1/ 2
⎞ 2 ⎛ ΔC pt ⎞ ⎛ ΔH pt ⎞ ⎤
2
ΔI
ΔE pt = ⎢⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎝ k I SI ⎠ ⎝ kC SC ⎠ ⎜⎝ k H S H ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎛ I ⎞ 3.5
SI = 0.7 + 1.6⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Eq.7-24
⎝ 100 ⎠
SC = 1+ 0.03C pt
S H = 1+ 0.01C pt
ΔI ΔI
ΔI = =
I + I2 3.5 1.6 I −I
0.7 + 1.6( 1 ) 0.7 + 3.5
(I1 + 2 1 ) 3.5
200 100 2 Eq.7-25
ΔI ΔI
= ≈
1.6 ΔI 3.5 0.7 + 1.6 * I 3.5
0.7 + (I1 − ) 1
100 3.5
2 100 3.5
So,
I
1
I= ∫ t 3.5
dt Eq.7-26
0 0.7 + 1.6( )
100
72
Because the result of the above integration is very complicated, we simply the above
equation as
ΔI
ΔI ≈ Eq.7-27
1.6 3.5
0.7 + 3.5
* I1
100
ΔI ΔI
≈ + Eq.7-28
3.2 3 3.2 4
1.4 + 3
* I1 1.4 + 4
* I1
100 100
The above relationship is shown in Fig.7-6.
1.8
y=1/(0.7+1.6*(x/100)3.5)
y=1/(1.4+3.2*(x/100)3)+1/(1.4+3.2*(x/100)4)
1.6
1.4
1.2
y
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x
Fig.7-6 The Plot of Eq.7-27(blue) VS. Eq.7-28(red)

Thus,
I
1 I
1
I= ∫ 3.2
dt + ∫ 3.2
dt Eq.7-29
0 1.4 + *t 3 0 1.4 + *t 4
100 3 100 4
Since the integration of Eq.7-29 is very complicated, here, we use a logarithmic function
to approximate the integration result. This integration result is shown below:
73
120
y=integral of 1/(1.4+3.2*(x/100)3)+1/(1.4+3.2*(x/100)4)
y=326.7936*log(1+0.003*x);
100
80
60
y
40
20
−20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x
Fig.7-7 The Integration Result (red) VS. Approximate Function (blue)
From Fig.7-7, we use the approximate function to replace the original function. Thus,
I = 326.7936ln(1+ 0.03I ) Eq.7-30
From Eq.7-24,
ΔC ΔC
ΔC = ≈ Eq.7-31
1+ 0.03ΔC 1+ 0.03C
So,
c
1 1
C= ∫ 1+ 0.03t dt = 0.03 ln(1+ 0.03C) Eq.7-32
0
Using the same method in CIECAM02, we have
74
Inew = k I 0.22 × 326.7936ln(1+ 0.03I)
1
Cnew = k c 0.92 × ln(1+ 0.03C)
0.03
hnew = h pt
Eq.7-33
pnew = Cnew cosh new
t new = Cnew sinh new
ΔE pt = [ΔInew ]
1/ 2
2
+ Δpnew
2
+ Δt new
2
75
8. Quantitative Performance Evaluation
8.1 Computational Experiment
Three factors were calculated to evaluate the Euclidean color spaces and other color
spaces. The first one was PF/3 derived by Guan and Luo.50 There are four statistical
measures used to evaluate the comparisons between visual color difference and ΔE from
different color difference equations. Since these four different statistical measures gave
different results, Guan and Luo combined the four measures into one value (PF) . PF is
shown in Eq.8-1.
PF = 100(γ + VAB + CV /100 − r) Eq.8-1
where, VAB was derived by Schultz51 , γ and CV were proposed by Coates et al.,52 and r
represents the correlation coefficient.
1
N
∑ (X i − fYi )2
CV = ×100 Eq.8-2
X
and f =
∑X Y i i
∑Y i
2
2
1 ⎛ ⎛ Xi ⎞ ⎛ X i ⎞⎞
log10 (γ ) = ∑⎜log10⎜⎝ Y ⎟⎠ − log10⎜⎝ Y ⎟⎠⎟⎟
N ⎜⎝
Eq.8-3
i i ⎠
[X i − (FYi )]
2
1
VAB =
N
∑ X i FYi
Eq.8-4
1/ 2
⎡ n ΔE n
ΔE ⎤
and F = ⎢∑ A
/∑ B ⎥ Eq.8-5
⎣ i=1 ΔE B i=1 ΔE A ⎦
76
N ∑ (X iYi ) − ∑ X i ∑Yi
r= Eq.8-6
⎡
⎣⎢ ∑ i (∑ X ) ⎤⎡
⎦⎥⎣⎢ ∑ i ( )
∑Yi ⎥⎤⎦
2 2
N X2− i N Y2 −
In some cases the correlation coefficient (r) was inconsistent with the other measures. So,
only three measures were used. The PF/3 is:
PF /3 = 100[(γ −1) + VAB + CV /100]/3 Eq.8-7
For the perfect agreement between two datasets, CV=0, VAB=0, γ=1, and PF/3=0.
The second metric was the maximum disagreement,53 which evaluated the percentage of
disagreement between two color difference equations. For perfect agreement, MD=0.
⎡ max(ΔE1,ΔE 2 ) ⎤
MD(ΔE1,ΔE 2 ) = ⎢ −1⎥ ×100% Eq.8-8
⎣ min(ΔE1,ΔE 2 ) ⎦
Although the PF/3 is used widely, it cannot indicate the significance of difference
between the two formulae or spaces tested. Thus, the third metric was used based on
statistical F test.54
The testing hypothesis is described below, for which VM is given:

N
∑ (ΔV − a
i M ΔE Mi ) 2
VM = i= 1
, M ∈ {A,B} Eq.8-9
N −1
(1) Define the null and alternate hypotheses
H0: VA=VB (which means two formulae without significant difference)
HA: VA≠ٛ VB (which means two formulae with significant difference)
77
(2) Calculate the F value as F ٛ =VA/VB
(3) Reject the hypothesis (H0) when F < FC or if F ٛ >1/FC
where Fc = F(df A ,df B ,0.975) is the lower critical value of the two-tailed F distribution
with 95% confidence level and df A and df B are the degrees of freedom. N is the number
of samples in the dataset, and df A = df B = N −1 in this study. VA and VB represent the
residual error variances after scaling correction for Models A and B, respectively. The
formula of aM is:
∑ (ΔE ΔV )
Mi i
aM = i
Eq.8-10
∑ (ΔE ) Mi
2
The results can be divided into five categories as shown below:
● Model A is significantly better than model B when F <ٛ FC;
● Model A is significantly poorer than model B when F ٛ >1/ FC;
● Model A is insignificantly better than model B when FC ≤ ٛ F ٛ <1;
● Model A is insignificantly poorer than model B when 1 < ٛ F ٛ ≤1/ FC;
● Model A is equal to model B when Fٛ =1.
In order to evaluate the performance of the Euclidean color spaces described in Chapter 7,
the Euclidean CIECAM02 space (Eq.7-27) and Euclidean IPT space (Eq.7-36) was
compared with the optimized CIECAM02 color-difference equation (Eq.6-2) and the
optimized IPT color difference equation (Eq.6-5), respectively. 100,000 positions in
CIECAM02 were randomly selected as color standards. For each position, a random
direction and random distance scaled between 0 and 5 CIECAM02 units were used to
78
define 100,000 sample colors. Color differences were calculated using Eq.6-2, Eq.7-27
and Eq.6-5, and Eq.7-36. A scatter plot is shown in Fig.8-1 and Fig.8-2.
PF/3 and the average disagreement for the Euclidean CIECAM02 color space was 2.10
and 1.75% respectively. In the Euclidean IPT color space, PF/3 and the average
disagreement is 16.93 and 19.50% respectively.

ΔE EuclideanCIECAM02 VS. ΔE CIECAM02
5
4.5
4
Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Difference
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Optimized CIECAM02 Color Difference
Fig.8-1 Scatter plot comparing ΔEEuclidean-CIECAM02

and ΔECIECAM02 for Random100,000 color-difference pairs.
ΔE EuclideanIPT VS. ΔE IPT

8
6
Euclidean IPT Color Difference
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Optimized IPT Color Difference
Fig.8-2 Scatter plot comparing ΔEEuclidean-IPT

and ΔEIPT for Random100,000 color-difference pairs.
79
ΔE00, ΔELab, ΔECIECAM02,ΔERotate-CIECAM02,ΔEEuclidean-CIECAM02, ΔERotate-Euclidean-CIECAM02,
ΔEIPT, ΔEEuclidean-IPT were calculated by using RIT-Dupont and Qiao,et al. datasets, 200
color pairs and ΔV=1.02. PF/3 values and MD (maximum-disagreement) values between
ΔE and ΔV are shown in Table 8-I. In Table 8-I, the maximum MD and MD standard
deviation are also listed.
Table 8-I. PF/3 and MD values using RIT-Dupont and Qiao, et al. datasets.
PF/3 MDmean MDmax MDstd

ΔEab 35.71 47.00% 324.07% 0.50
ΔE94 25.72 21.85% 120.73% 0.21
ΔE00 22.88 19.54% 89.09% 0.17
ΔECIECAM02 22.65 30.51% 109.63% 0.23
ΔERotate-CIECAM02 22.70 31.48% 111.65% 0.24
ΔEEuclidean-CIECAM02 22.67 19.83% 112.64% 0.18
ΔERotateEuclideanCIECAM02 21.79 18.96% 85.62% 0.17
ΔEIPT 22.54 20.65% 108.98% 0.19
ΔEEuclidean-IPT 24.12 30.13% 134.62% 0.24
The results of the F tests are given in Table 8-II. The Fc and 1/ Fc values were 0.757 and
1.321, respectively for 199 degree of freedom. In each table, the corresponding values
above the diagonal are the inverse of the values under the diagonal.
80
Table 8-II. The F test results using RIT-Dupont and Qiao, et al. datasets.
ΔEab ΔE94 ΔE00 ΔECAM ΔERCAM ΔEECAM ΔERECAM ΔEIPT ΔEEIPT
ΔEab 1.878 2.324 2.545 2.68 2.702 2.805 2.405 2.314
ΔE94 0.532 1.238 1.355 1.428 1.439 1.494 1.281 1.232
ΔE00 0.430 0.808 1.095 1.154 1.163 1.207 1.035 0.995
ΔECAM 0.393 0.738 0.913 1.054 1.062 1.102 0.945 0.909
ΔERCAM 0.373 0.700 0.867 0.949 1.008 1.046 0.897 0.862
ΔEECAM 0.370 0.695 0.860 0.942 0.992 1.038 0.890 0.856
ΔERECAM 0.357 0.670 0.829 0.907 0.956 0.963 0.857 0.825
ΔEIPT 0.416 0.781 0.966 1.058 1.115 1.123 1.166 0.962
ΔEEIPT 0.432 0.812 1.005 1.100 1.159 1.168 1.212 1.040
NOTE. The Fc and 1/ Fc values are 0.757 and 1.321 respectively.
8.2 Analysis
The PF/3 between ΔECIECAM02 and ΔEEuclidean-CIECAM02 for 100,000 random color pairs was
2.1. The average disagreement ( MD ) was only 1.75%, the maximum disagreement
( MDmax ) was 13.8%, and standard deviation ( MDstd ) was 0.02. These indicate that the
Euclidean CIECAM02 color space well approximated the optimized CIECAM02 color-
difference equation. In Figure 8-1, Euclidean distances in Euclidean CIECAM02 color
space are plotted against ΔECIECAM02. Most of points are lying close to the line that has
slope equal to 1. However, in Euclidean IPT color space, the PF/3 between ΔEIPT and
ΔEEuclidean-IPT for 100,000 random color pairs was 16.93, the average disagreement ( MD)
was 19.5%, the maximum disagreement ( MDmax ) was 48.46%, and standard deviation
( MDstd ) was 0.10. Also, in Fig 8-2, it indicates that Euclidean IPT does not approximate
the IPT color-difference equation very well. More color pairs in Euclidean IPT color
space gave larger color differences than the optimized IPT color-difference equation. In
Eq.7-24, the exponent in SI was 3.5, which complicated the integral of SI. So, there are
81
two steps to simply the integration (Eq.7-32 to Eq.7-34), which may affect the precision
of the Euclidean IPT color space.
In Table 8-I, as expected, the optimized CIECAM02 and IPT color difference equations
performed slightly better than ∆E00 color difference equations, because the first two
models were optimized by using RIT-DuPont and Qiao dataset. These data were a part of
data used to derive ∆E00. It shows in Table 8-I that the rotated Euclidean CIECAM02
color space gives the best performance. The Euclidean CIECAM02 color space and the
rotated CIECAM02 color difference equation have as a good performance as the rotated
Euclidean CIECAM02 color space. Thus, the rotated CIECAM02 color difference
equation, the Euclidean CIECAM02 color space, and the rotated Euclidean CIECAM02
color spaces improved the performance of the optimized CIECAM02 color difference
equation. However, as was discussed in the previous paragraph, the Euclidean IPT color
space did not give such improvement. As expected, ΔE*ab gave the worst performance.
Although ∆E00 has good performance, it was derived based on CIELAB, and is not
associated with a uniform color space. The interactive term between chroma and hue
differences in ∆E00 improved the performance for blue color, but it makes it difficult to
derive a Euclidean space based on ∆E00.
In Table 8-II, all the values in the first column are smaller than 0.757, which means that
these eight models significantly perform better than ΔE*ab. As the F-test results of the
rotated CIECAM02 color difference equation, the Euclidean CIECAM02 color space and
the rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color space in Table 8-II were not significantly
82
different, their performances are nearly same. The optimized IPT color difference
equation and the Euclidean IPT color space was optimized by using RIT-DuPont and
Qiao data, thus, their performances are very close, which is shown in Table 8-II. In order
to compare these two models in the whole IPT color space, the 100,000 random color
pairs were used to sample the color space. As we mentioned previously, this type of
global test indicated that the Euclidean IPT color space did not improve the optimized
IPT color difference equation.
In this thesis, the lightness in new Euclidean color space was derived by integrating the
color difference equation along the lightness axis, which is reasonable, because the
lightness difference is independent of chroma and hue. In the new Euclidean color space,
the hue angle did not change in order to avoid the asymmetrical hue angle rotation (see
Eq.7-22). However, the hue difference is dependent of chroma. Volz HG transformed
CIEDE2000 to Euclidean color space47. In his method new hue angle is dependent on
original chroma and hue angle. Since this Euclidization was only done in the first
quadrant, there is no rotation issue. Phillipp Urban also presented a way to transform
color difference equation to Euclidean color space45. His main idea is to combine a 1-D
LUT for the lightness and a 2-D LUT for chroma and hue coordinates. The mean
disagreement between the distances calculated by color difference equations and
Euclidean color difference is below 3%. Cui and Luo, et al52 derived three Euclidean
color spaces based on the DIN99 color difference equation. Unlike CIECAM02 and IPT
color difference equation, DIN99 equation is not only a color difference equation, but
83
also is a color space. One of the DIN99 Euclidean color spaces has 260 hue angle offset
which corresponded to the CIELAB hue angle.
84
9. Qualitative Performance of Visual Dataset
9.1 Visualization of RIT-DuPont Dataset
In the previous chapter, the different metrics were calculated to evaluate different
formulae. In this chapter, the visual performance of CIECAM02, rotated CIECAM02,
Euclidean CIECAM02, IPT, Euclidean IPT will be shown and discussed. All the ellipses
are enlarged triple times.
RIT-DuPont visual ellipses in Euclidean CIECAM02 color space in ab, Ja, and Jb planes
are plotted in Fig.9-1 – Fig.9-3.

RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in Euclidean CIECAM02 Space RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in Euclidean CIECAM02 Space
110
40
100
30
90
20
80
10
70
b
0 60
50
−10
40
−20
30
−30
20
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a a
Fig.9-1 RIT-DuPont Ellipses in Fig.9-2 RIT-DuPont Ellipses in

Euclidean CIECAM02 Space (in ab Plane) Euclidean CIECAM02 Space (in aJ Plane)
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in Euclidean CIECAM02 Space
110
100
90
80
70
J
60
50
40
30
20
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.9-3 RIT-DuPont Ellipses in Euclidean CIECAM02 Space (in bJ Plane)
85
RIT-DuPont visual ellipses in rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color-difference in ab, Ja,
and Jb plane are plotted in Fig.9-4 – Fig.9-6.
RIT−DuPont Visual Ellipsis in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space RIT−DuPont Visual Ellipsis in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space
40 110
100
30
90
20
80
10
70
b
J
0 60
50
−10
40
−20
30
−30
20
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a a
Fig.9-4 RIT-DuPont Ellipses in Rotated Fig.9-5 RIT-DuPont Ellipses in Rotated

RIT−DuPont Visual Ellipsis in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space
110
100
90
80
70
J
60
50
40
30
20
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.9-6 RIT-DuPont Ellipses in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Space (in bJ Plane)
As discussed in Chapter 3, RIT-DuPont visual ellipses in CIELAB are long and thin and
oriented toward the origin. In Euclidean CIECAM02 color space and rotated Euclidean
CIECAM02 color space, RIT-DuPont visual ellipses are almost the same, especially in aJ
and bJ planes, and much closer to circles than those of CIELAB, CIECAM02, and IPT.
Also, the sizes of ellipses in Euclidean CIECAM02 color space and rotated Euclidean
CIECAM02 color space are much closer to each other than in CIELAB, CIECAM02, and
86
IPT. This corresponds to stretching CIECAM02 space by the Riemannian transformation.
In rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color space, the visual tolerance in medium gray, light
brown, dark reddish orange, and moderate greenish blue color center were more uniform
than those in the Euclidean CIECAM02 color space.
RIT-Dupont ellipses with vectors in Euclidean CIECAM02 and rotated Euclidean
CIECAM02 color space are plotted in Fig.9-7 – Fig.9-12, respectively.

RIT−Dupont Visual Ellipses with Vectors in ab plane (Euclidean CIECAM02 Space) RIT−Dupont Visual Ellipses&Vectors in aJ plane (Euclidean CIECAM02 Space)
110
40
100
30
90
20
80
10
70
b
0 60
50
−10
40
−20
30
−30
20
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a a
Fig.9-7 RIT-DuPont Ellipses with Vectors in Fig.9-8 RIT-DuPont Ellipses with Vectors in
RIT−Dupont Visual Ellipses with Vectors in bJ plane (Euclidean CIECAM02 Space)
110
100
90
80
70
L
60
50
40
30
20
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.9-9 RIT-DuPont Ellipses with Vectors in Euclidean CIECAM02 Space (in bJ Plane)
87
RIT−Dupont Visual Ellipsis with Vectors in ab plane (Rotataed Euclidean CIECAM02 Space) RIT−Dupont Visual Ellipsis with Vectors in aJ plane (Rotataed Euclidean CIECAM02 Space)
40 110
100
30
90
20
80
10
70
b
J
0 60
50
−10
40
−20
30
−30
20
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a a
Fig.9-10 RIT-DuPont Ellipses with Vectors in Fig.9-8 RIT-DuPont Ellipses with Vectors in
Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Space(ab Plane) Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Space(aJ Plane)
RIT−Dupont Visual Ellipsis with Vectors in bJ plane (Rotataed Euclidean CIECAM02 Space)
110
100
90
80
70
J
60
50
40
30
20
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.9-9 RIT-DuPont Ellipses with Vectors in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Space (in bJ Plane)
From Fig.9-4, Fig.9-6, Fig.9-9, and Fig.9-12, it indicates that the ellipsoids did not fit the
vectors very well for the light gray color center. Whether the optimized ellipsoids fit the
vectors well or not depends on the position of each vectors, which is a limitation.
Euclidean CIECAM02 color-difference ellipses and Euclidean CIECAM02 RIT-Dupont
ellipses at middle gray color center are shown in Fig.9-13 – Fig.9-15. The semi-axes of
each ellipsis are three times larger than those of ellipsis, whose color difference is equal
to 1.
88
Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray
6 86
85
4
84
83
b
J
0
82
−2
81
−4 80
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
a a
Fig.9-13 ΔE EucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. Fig.9-14 ΔE EucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS.

RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle Gray in ab Plane RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle gray in aJ Plane
Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray
87
86
85
84
83
J
82
81
80
79
−4 −2 0 2 4 6
b
Fig.9-15 ΔE EucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle gray in bJ Plane
Fig.9-16 – Fig.9-18 is the rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color-difference equation
ellipses and rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 RIT-Dupont ellipses for the middle gray color
center.
89
Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray
6 86
85
4
84
2
b
J
83
82
−2
81
−4
80
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
a a
Fig.9-16 ΔE RotEucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. Fig.9-17 ΔE RotEucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS.

RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle Gray in ab Plane RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle Gray in aJ Plane
Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray
87
86
85
84
J
83
82
81
80
79
−4 −2 0 2 4 6
b
Fig.9-18 ΔE RotEucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses at Middle gray in bJ Plane
The ratio of major axis to minor axis of RIT-Dupont middle gray ellipses in ab, Ja, and Jb
plane in Euclidean CIECAM02 space is 1.41, 1.00, 1.19, respectively. In rotated
Euclidean CIECAM02 space, the ratio is 1.18, 1.00, 1.24, respectively. The middle gray
ellipsoid in rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 space is much closer to sphere and fit RIT-
DuPont visual data better than Euclidean CIECAM02 space.
The Euclidean CIECAM02 color-difference ellipses and Euclidean CIECAM02 RIT-
Dupont ellipses in ab, aJ, and bJ plane are plotted in Fig.9-19 – Fig.9-21.
90
Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R)
110
40
100
30
90
20
80
10
70
b
J
0 60
50
−10
40
−20
30
−30
20
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a a
Fig.9-19 ΔE EucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. Fig.9-20 ΔE EucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS.

Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R)
110
100
90
80
70
J
60
50
40
30
20
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.9-21 ΔE EucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses in bJ Plane
The rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color-difference ellipses and rotated Euclidean
CIECAM02 RIT-Dupont ellipses in ab, aJ, and bJ plane are plotted in Fig.9-22 – Fig.9-
23.
Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R)
40 110
100
30
90
20
80
10
70
b
0 60
50
−10
40
−20
30
−30
20
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a a
Fig.9-22 ΔE RotEucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. Fig.9-23 ΔE RotEucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS.
91
Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R)
110
100
90
80
70
J
60
50
40
30
20
−40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.9-24 ΔE RotEucCIECAM 02 Ellipses VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses in bJ Plane
It is shown in Fig.9-19 – Fig.9-24 that color-difference ellipses in Euclidean CIECAM02,
rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 and Euclidean IPT color space are circles as expected. The
visual color tolerance gives good fit to color-difference equation ellipses in both
Euclidean CIECAM02 color space and rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color space. These
visual results are consistent with the statistic and evaluations in the previous chapter.
RIT-DuPont visual ellipses in Euclidean IPT color space in PT, IP, and IT plane are
shown in Fig.9-25 – Fig.9-27.
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in PT plane (Euclidean IPT Space) RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in IP plane (Euclidean IPT Space)
90
30
80
20
70
10
60
T
0
50
−10 40
30
−20
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

P P
Fig.9-19 RIT-DuPont Visual Fig.9-20 RIT-DuPont Visual
92
Ellipses in Euclidean IPT Space (in PT Plane) Ellipses in Euclidean IPT Space (in IP Plane)
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses in IT plane (Euclidean IPT Space)
90
80
70
60
I
50
40
30
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

T
Fig.9-21 RIT-DuPont Visual Ellipses In Euclidean IPT Space (in IT Plane)
The ellipses in Euclidean IPT color space are not tilted so much. The neutral ellipses in
Euclidean CIECAM02 space has large ratio of major axis to minor axis, but, in Euclidean
IPT space, this ratio decreased dramatically. However, generally, the ellipses in IPT space
are not close to circles and the sizes of the ellipses are very different from each other. The
approximate integration in deriving the Euclidean IPT color space affected the
performance of Euclidean IPT color space adversely. Clearly, in Fig.9-19 – Fig.9-21,
visually the RIT-DuPont ellipses in Euclidean IPT color space are not as good as those in
Euclidean CIECAM02 color space and rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color space.
Fig.9-22 – Fig.9-24 is RIT-Dupont ellipses with vectors in Euclidean IPT color space.
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses&Vectors in PT plane (Euclidean IPT Space) RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses&Vectors in IP plane (Euclidean IPT Space)
90
30
80
20
70
10
60
T
0
50
−10 40
30
−20
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

P P
93
Fig.9-22 RIT-DuPont Visual with Vectors Fig.9-23 RIT-DuPont Visual with Vectors
Ellipses In Euclidean IPT Space (in PT Plane) Ellipses In Euclidean IPT Space (in IP Plane)
RIT−Dupont Color−Difference Ellipses&Vectors in IT plane (Euclidean IPT Space)
90
80
70
60
I
50
40
30
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

T
Fig.9-24 RIT-DuPont Visual Ellipses with Vectors In Euclidean IPT Space (in IT Plane)
The ratio of major axis to minor axis of RIT-Dupont middle gray ellipses in PT, IP, and
IT plane in Euclidean IPT space is 1.87, 1.14, 1.62, respectively.
Fig.9-25 – Fig.9-27 is the Euclidean IPT color difference ellipses and RIT-Dupont
ellipses at middle gray color center.

Euclidean IPT Color Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray Euclidean IPT Color Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray
4 73.5
73
3
72.5
2
72
T
71.5
71
−1
70.5
−2
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
P P
Fig.9-25 Euclidean IPT Fig.9-26 Euclidean IPT

Color-Difference Ellipses in PT Plane Color-Difference Ellipses in IP Plane
94
Euclidean IPT Color Difference Equation(B) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(R) for Middle Gray
74.5
74
73.5
73
72.5
72
I
71.5
71
70.5
70
69.5
−1 0 1 2 3 4
T
Fig.9-27 Euclidean IPT Color-Difference Ellipses in IT Plane
Fig.9-28 – Fig.9-30 is the comparison between Euclidean IPT color difference ellipses
and RIT-Dupont ellipses.

Euclidean IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red) Euclidean IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red)
90
30
80
20
70
10
T
60
I
0
50
−10
40
−20 30
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
P P
Fig.9-28 ΔE EucIPT VS. Fig.9-29 ΔE EucIPT VS.

RIT-Dupont Ellipses in PT Plane RIT-Dupont Ellipses in IP Plane
Euclidean IPT Color Difference Equation(blue) VS. RIT−DuPont Visual Data(red)
90
80
70
60
I
50
40
30
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40

T
Fig.9-30 ΔE EucIPT VS. RIT-Dupont Ellipses in IT Plane
95
Fig.9-31 – Fig.9-45 is unity color tolerance ellipses in the different color spaces. Fig.9-31
– Fig.9-33 is ΔE 94
*
=1 ellipses projected in a*b*, a*L*, and b*L* plane.
CIE94 Color Difference Equation CIE94 Color Difference Equation
100
80
90
60
80
40
70
20
60
b*
L*
0 50
40
−20
30
−40
20
−60
10
−80
0
−100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a* a*
Fig.9-31 ΔE Fig.9-32 ΔE
* *
94 =1 94 =1
ellipses projected in a*b* plane ellipses projected in a*L* plane
CIE94 Color Difference Equation

100
90
80
70
60
L*
50
40
30
20
10
0
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
b*
Fig.9-33 ΔE 94 =1 ellipses projected in b*L* plane

*
In Fig.9-31, all the ellipses predicted by CIE94 point toward the origin and become
longer and thinner as the chroma increases. RIT-DuPont experimental ellipses in
CIELAB space indicate that the ellipses are orientated toward to the origin except in blue
area. The ellipses in blue region have an anticlockwise rotation. Obviously, CIE94
equation gives errors in predicting chroma difference for blue color. Also, in RIT-DuPont
ellipses in a*b* plane (see Fig.3-8), for the origin area colors, the ellipses are not constant
circles, but orientated toward around 900. But, as shown in Fig.9-33, CIE94 equation
96
wrongly predicts the color ellipses in that area. It can be seen in Fig.9-32 and Fig.9-33
that the major axis of ellipses in L*a*, L*b* plane increases as chroma increases.
Fig.9-34 – Fig.9-36 is ΔE 00 =1 ellipses projected in a*b*, a*L*, and b*L* planes.
CIE2000 Color Difference Equation CIE2000 Color Difference Equation

100
100
90
80
60 80
40 70
20 60
0 50
L*
b*
−20 40
−40 30
−60
20
−80
10
−100
0
−100 −50 0 50 100 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a* a*
Fig.9-34 ΔE 00 =1 Fig.9-35 ΔE 00 =1
ellipses projected in a*b * plane ellipses projected in a*L * plane
CIE2000 Color Difference Equation

100
90
80
70
60
50
L*
40
30
20
10
0
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
b*
Fig.9-36 ΔE 00 =1 ellipses projected in b*L * plane
Since ΔE 00 was derived to improve the performance for blue colors centers, there is a hue
angle 2750 rotation in Fig.9-34. Besides, a scaling factor for a* scale in ΔE 00 improved
the performance for gray colors, which is shown in Fig.9-34 that the ellipses for gray
colors are not constant circles. ΔE 00 was optimized to fit the combined visual datasets,
including Qiao dataset, Luo-Rigg dataset, and RIT-DuPont-Witt dataset, it gives the best
97
prediction in CIELAB color space. But, the shortcoming is the CIELAB space is not a
uniform space and the interactive term between chroma and hue differences in ΔE 00
makes it difficult derive a Euclidean space mathematically.
Fig.9-37 – Fig.9-39 is ΔE CIECAM 02 =1 ellipses projected in ab, aJ, and bJ plane.

CIECAM02 Color Difference Equation CIECAM02 Color Difference Equation
80 100
90
60
80
40
70
20
60
0 50
b
J
40
−20
30
−40
20
−60
10
−80 0
−100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a a
Fig.9-37 ΔE CIECAM 02 =1 Fig.9-38 ΔE CIECAM 02 =1

ellipses projected in ab plane ellipses projected in aJ plane
CIECAM02 Color Difference Equation
100
90
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
0
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.9-39 ΔE CIECAM 02 =1 ellipses projected in bJ plane
Overall, the chromaticity ellipses are dependent on the chroma location. The ellipses are
smaller in the neutral region and elongate as the chroma increases. Comparing with
ΔE 94
*
=1 and ΔE 00 =1 chromaticity ellipses, the ellipses in Fig.9-37 are much closer to
circle, which also can be found in Fig.3-18.
98
Fig.9-40 – Fig.9-42 is ΔE RotCIECAM 02 =1 ellipses projected in ab,aJ, bJ planes.
Rotated CIECAM02 Color Difference Equation Rotated CIECAM02 Color Difference Equation
80 100
90
60
80
40
70
20
60
0 50
b
J
40
−20
30
−40
20
−60
10
−80 0
−100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
a a
Fig.9-40 ΔE RotCIECAM 02 =1 Fig.9-41 ΔE RotCIECAM 02 =1

ellipses projected in ab plane ellipses projected in aJ plane
Rotated CIECAM02 Color Difference Equation

100
90
80
70
60
50
J
40
30
20
10
0
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
b
Fig.9-42 ΔE RotCIECAM 02 =1 ellipses projected in bJ plane
Because a rotation matrix was used to minimize the mid-gray coefficient of variation, the
ΔE RotCIECAM 02 =1 ellipses in ab plane are rotated in comparison with Fig.9-37.
ΔE IPT =1 ellipses projected in PT, IP, and IT plane are plotted in Fig.9-43 – Fig.9-45.
99
IPT Color Difference Equation IPT Color Difference Equation
100
80
90
60
80
40
70
20
60
0 50
T
I
40
−20
30
−40
20
−60
10
−80
0
−100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
P P
Fig.9-43 ΔE IPT =1 Fig.9-44 ΔE IPT =1

ellipses projected in PT plane ellipses projected in IP plane
IPT Color Difference Equation

100
90
80
70
60
50
I
40
30
20
10
0
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
T
Fig.9-45 ΔE IPT =1 ellipses projected in IT plane
ΔE IPT =1 ellipses are similar with ΔE 94

*
=1 ellipses. Due to the RIT-DuPont visual ellipses
in blue region in IPT space tilt toward to origin, IPT color difference equation predicts
visual data better than ΔE 94

*
does.
9.2 Visualization of Qiao Dataset
The color difference of Qiao data in Euclidean CIECAM02, rotated Euclidean
CIECAM02, and Euclidean IPT color space are plotted in Fig.9-46 – Fig.9-49,
respectively.
100
Qiao Data in Rotated CIECAM02 Color Space
3.5
2.5
2
ΔH
1.5
0.5
L40C20
L40C35
L60C20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.9-46 ΔH of Qiao data in rotated CIECAM02
Qiao Data in Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space

2.5
1.5
ΔH
0.5
L40C20
L40C35
L60C20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.9-47 ΔH of Qiao data in Euclidean CIECAM02
101
Qiao Data in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space
2.5
1.5
ΔH
0.5
L40C20
L40C35
L60C20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.9-48 ΔH of Qiao data in rotated Euclidean CIECAM02
Qiao Data in Euclidean IPT Color Space

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
ΔH
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 L40C20
L40C35
L60C20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.9-49 ΔH of Qiao data in Euclidean IPT
Fig.9-50 – Fig.9-52 is the comparisons among those models.
102
Qiao Data Comparison (L40C20)
2.5
1.5
1
ΔH
0.5
IPT
Euclidean IPT
−0.5 CIECAM02
Rotated CIECAM02
Euclidean CIECAM02
Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02
−1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.9-50 Color difference of L40C20

3.5
2.5
1.5
ΔH
0.5
0 IPT
Euclidean IPT
CIECAM02
−0.5 Rotated CIECAM02
Euclidean CIECAM02
−1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
103
3
2.5
1.5
ΔH
1
0.5
0
IPT
Euclidean IPT
CIECAM02
−0.5
Rotated CIECAM02
Euclidean CIECAM02
−1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue Angle
Fig.9-50 is the ΔH of these six models (IPT, Euclidean IPT, CIECAM02, Rotated
CIECAM02, Euclidean CIECAM02, Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02) for L40C20 change
in the similar pattern as hue angle changes. However, they have unity ΔH at different hue
angles. For L40C35, their behaviors are almost same, except that of ΔH the rotated
Euclidean CIECAM02 decreases from 1.5 to around 1 as the hue angle is larger than 300
degree. Table 9-I is the mean value and coefficient of variation (CV), δΔE ΔE , of Qiao
color differences in six models. The average ΔH in Euclidean IPT color space is closest to
the unit color difference. But, in general, the coefficients of variation of these six models
are very close. The rotated CIECAM02 and rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color spaces
slightly improved the uniformity of color space. Table 9-II is the F-test result using Qiao
data. Since the Fc and 1/ Fc values are 0.510 and 1.961 respectively, none of these six
models has the significant better result and they have almost the same performance. The
rotated CIECAM02 and rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color spaces performed slightly
better than the others, which agree with the CV results.
104
Table 9-I. ΔE and CV (ΔE) in Color Spaces
L40C20 L40C35 L60C20 Average
ΔE CIECAM 02 1.509 2.144 1.525 1.726
ΔE RotCIECAM02 1.578 2.232 1.586 1.797
ΔE IPT 1.168 1.764 1.301 1.411
ΔE EucCIECAM 02 1.227 1.582 1.245 1.351
ΔE RotEucCIECAM 02 1.276 1.608 1.306 1.397
ΔE EucIPT 0.803 1.075 0.878 0.919
CV (ΔE CIECAM 02 ) 0.201 0.294 0.336 0.277
CV(ΔE RotCIECAM02 ) 0.189 0.273 0.322 0.261
CV (ΔE IPT ) 0.222 0.304 0.304 0.277
CV (ΔE EucCIECAM 02 ) 0.249 0.294 0.326 0.290
CV (ΔE RotEucCIECAM 02 ) 0.237 0.272 0.305 0.271
CV (ΔE EucIPT ) 0.255 0.323 0.318 0.299
Table 9-II. The F test results using Qiao, et al. datasets.

ΔECAM ΔERCAM ΔEECAM ΔERECAM ΔEIPT ΔEEIPT
ΔECAM 1.158 0.994 1.149 0.879 0.889
ΔERCAM 0.863 0.858 0.993 0.759 0.767
ΔEECAM 1.005 1.165 1.156 0.884 0.893
ΔERECAM 0.869 1.007 0.864 0.765 0.773
ΔEIPT 1.137 1.317 1.131 1.307 1.011
ΔEEIPT 1.125 1.303 1.118 1.293 0.989
NOTE. The Fc and 1/ Fc values are 0.510 and 1.961 respectively.
In Fig.9-53 – Fig.9-60, the Euclidean IPT color space has the best hue linearity among
rotated CIECAM02, Euclidean CIECAM02, rotated Euclidean CIECAM02, and
Euclidean IPT color spaces. The linearity of rotated CIECAM02 and rotated Euclidean
CIECAM02 color space is very similar, which agrees with the result of the F tests.
105
9.3 Visualization of Hung and Berns Dataset
Hung and Berns dataset in rotated CIECAM02, Euclidean CIECAM02, rotated Euclidean
CIECAM02, and Euclidean IPT color space are plotted in Fig.9-53 – Fig.9-60,
respectively.
Constant Lightness in Rotated CIECAM02 Color Space Varying Lightness in Rotated CIECAM02 Color Space
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
b
b
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −60
−80 −80
−100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
a a
Fig.9-53 Constant hue loci Fig.9-54 Constant hue loci

(from CL) in Rotated CIECAM02 (from VL) in Rotated CIECAM02
Constant Lightness in Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space Varying Lightness in Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
b
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−40 −40
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 −40 −20 0 20 40 60

a a

(from CL) in Euclidean CIECAM02 (from VL) in Euclidean CIECAM02
106
Constant Lightness in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space Varying Lightness in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 Color Space
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
b
b
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−40 −40
−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 −40 −20 0 20 40 60

a a
Fig.9-57 Constant hue loci (from CL) Fig.9-58 Constant hue loci (from VL)
in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 in Rotated Euclidean CIECAM02
Constant Lightness in Euclidean IPT Color Space Varying Lightness in Euclidean IPT Color Space
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
T
T
−10 −10
−20 −20
−30 −30
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50

P P

(from CL) in Euclidean IPT (from VL) in Euclidean IPT
In Euclidean CIECAM02 (Eq.7-23) and Euclidean IPT (Eq.7-33), hue angle is unchanged
in CIECAM02 and IPT color space, and only chroma is changed. So, Fig.9-55 and Fig.9-
56 are similar with Fig.5-3 and Fig.5-4, respectively.
107
10. Conclusions
Optimized CIECAM02 and IPT color difference equations were developed to fit
experimental data from RIT. These color equations are in similar fashion to CIE94 and
CIEDE2000, but not Euclidean. The fundamental focus of this thesis was to derive
Euclidean color spaces based on the CIECAM02 and IPT color difference equations,
respectively, in which color differences can be calculated as a simple color distance. In
order to derive a Euclidean color space, the Euclidean line element was established, from
which terms were derived for the new coordinates of lightness, chroma, and hue angle.
The visual performance, mathematical performance (CV and PF/3) and statistical F test
were used to evaluate how well the new Euclidean color spaces fit the experimental data.
The results show that CIECAM02 Euclidean color space has nearly the same performance
factors as CIECAM02 color difference equation. Both Euclidean CIECAM02 color space
and the rotated Euclidean CIECAM02 color space improve the performance of the
optimized CIECAM02 color difference equation. Conversely, the Euclidean IPT color
space does not give such improvement. The main reason is that the line element for the
lightness dimension, I, could not be directly calculated and an approximation was used.
To improve the Euclidean IPT performance, a new IPT color difference equation should
be designed so that line elements can be established directly. Also, in the new Euclidean
color space (Eq.7-27 and Eq.7-36), the hue angle does not change, and this may affect the
hue linearity for the Hung and Berns data. In the future, a function of hue angle could be
108
considered and used to create new metric for better performance of a new Euclidean color
space.
In Euclidean CIECAM02 and Euclidean IPT color space, geodesics are straight line, thus,
large color difference data set should be used to test in both Euclidean color spaces.
109
11. References
1. M.D.Fairchild, Color Appearance Models. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts,
1998
2. CIE TC1-34, The CIE 1997 Interim Colour Appearance Model (Simple Version),
CIECAM97s, 1998
3. CIE 15.2:1986, Colorimetry, 2nd ed, 1986
4. M.R.Luo, R.W.G.Hunt, The struecture of the CIE 1997 colour appearance model
(CIECAM97s). Color Research and Application, 23:138-146, 1998
5. CIE 159, A Colour appearance model for colour management system: CIECAM02,
2003
6. N.Moroney, M.D.Fairchild, R.W.G.Hunt, C.JLi, M.R.Luo, and T.Newman. The
CIECAM02 color appearance model. In: The 10th Color Imaging Conference, IS&T
and SID, Scottsdale, Arizona, November, 23-27, 2002
7. F.Ebner, M.D.Fairchild, Development and testing of a color space (IPT) with
improved hue uniformity. In: Proceedings of The Sixth Color Imaging Conference, 8-
13, 1998
8. CIE 15:2004, Colorimetry, 2004
9. R.S.Berns, Billmeyer and Saltzman’s Principles of Color Technology. John Wiley &
Sons, 3rd edition, 2000
10. M.R.Luo, G.Cui, B.Rigg, The Development of the CIE 2000 Colour-Difference
formula: CIEDE2000, Color Research and Application, 26:340-350, 2000
11. R.S.Berns. Personnel Communication, 2007
110
12. R.S.Hunter, R.W.Harold, The Measurement of Appearance, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, second edition, 1987
13. R.W.G.Hunt, The function, evolution, and future of colour appearance models, CIE
Expert Symposium ‘96, Colour Standards for Image Technology, CIE Pub. x010,
Vienna,1996
14. M.D.Fairchild, R.S.Berns, Image Color-Appearance Specification Through Extension
of CIELAB, Color Research and Application, 18:174-189, 1993
15. C.J.Li, M.R.Luo, B.Rigg, R.W.G.Hunt, CMC 2000 Chromatic Adaptation Transform:
CMCCAT2000, Color Research and Application, 27:49-58, 2002
16. CIE Publication 116-1995, “Industrial Colour-Difference Evaluation” Vienna:CIE,
1995
17. R.S.Berns, The mathematical development of CIE TC1-29 proposed colordifference
equation: CIELCH,in Proc.7th AIC Congress, Colour’93, Volume B,C19-1,189-192,
1993
18. D.H.Alman, R.S.Berns, G.D.Snyder, W.A.Larsen, Performance Testing of Color-
Difference Metrics Using a Color Tolerance Dataset, Color Research and Application,
14:139-151, 1989,
19. R.S.Berns, D.H.Alman, L.Reniff, G.D.Snyder, M.R.Balonon-Rosen. Visual
determination of suprathreshold color-difference tolerances using probit analysis.
Color Research and Application, 16:297-316, 1991
20. M.R.Luo and B.Rigg, Chromaticity-discrimination ellipses for surface colors, Color
Research and Application, 11: 25-42, 1986
111
21. DIN 6176:2001-03, Farbmetrische Bestimmung von Farbabständen bei Körperfarben
nach der DIN-99-Formel, Berlin: DIN Deutsche Institut für Normung E.V.2000
22. E.Rohner and D.C.Rich: Eine angenähert gleichförmige Metrik fair industrielle
Farbtoleranzen von Körperfarben, Farbe, 42:207-220, 1996
23. G.Cui, M.R.Luo, B.Rigg, G.Roesler, K.Witt, Uniform Colour Spaces Based on the
DIN99 Colour-Difference Formula. Color Research and Application, 27:282-290,
2001
24. M.R.Luo, G.Gui, C.Li. Uniform colour spaces based on CIECAM02 colour-
appearance model. Color Research and Application, 27:320-330, 2006
25. C.Li, M.R.Luo, G.Cui, Colour-difference evaluation using colour appearance models.
In: The 11th Color Imaging Conference, IS&T and SID, Scottsdale, Arizona,
November, 127-131, 2003
26. S.Y.Zhu, M.R.Luo, G.Cui, B.Rigg. Comparing different colour discrimination data
sets. In: The 10th Color Imaging Conference, IS&T and SID, Scottsdale, Arizona,
November, 51-54, 2002
27. S.Y.Zhu, M.R.Luo, G.Cui, New Experimental Data for Investigating Uniform Colour
Spaces. In: The 9th Congress of the International Colour Association (AIC Color 2001),
June 24-29, Rochester, New York, 626-629, 2001
28. D.L.Mac Adam, Uniform color scales, Journal of the Optical Society of America,
64:1619-1702, 1974
29. S.S.Guan, M.R.Luo, A colour-difference formula for assessing large colour differences.
112
30. S.Badu, Large colour differences between surface colours. Ph.D. thesis, 1986,
University of Bradford
31. M.R.Pointer, G.G.Attridge, Some aspects of the visual scaling of large colour
differences. Color Research and Application, 27:298-307, 1997
32. S.M.Newhall, Preliminary report of the O.S.A. Subcommittee on the spacing of the
Munsell colors. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 30:617-645, 1940
33. S.M.Newhall, S.Nickerson, D.Judd, Final report of the O.S.A.Subcommittee on the
spacing of the Munsell colors. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 33:385-418,
1943
34. K.Thomsen, A Eulidean Color Space in High Agreement with the CIE94 Color
Difference Formula. Color Research and Application, 25:64-65, 2000
35. M.R.Luo, B.Rigg, Chromaticity-discrimination ellipses for surface colours. Color
Research and Application, 11:25-42, 1986
36. D.H.Kim, J.H.Nobbs, New weighting functions for the weighted CIELAB colour-
difference formula. Proc Colour 97 Kyoto, 1:446-449, 1997
37. K.Witt, Geometric relations between scales of small colour-differences. Color
38. G.D.Snyder, Visual Determination of Industrial Color-Difference Tolerance Using
Probit Analysis. MS Thesis, RIT, 1991
39. L.Reniff, Visual Determination of Color Differences Using Probit Analysis: Phase II.
MS Thesis, RIT, 1989
40. M.R.Balono-Rosen, An Uncertainty Analysis of a Color Tolerance Database, MS
Thesis, RIT, 1993
113
41. M.Melgosa, E.Hita, A.J.Poza, D.H.Alman, R.S.Berns, Suprathreshold color-difference
ellipsoids for surface colours. Color Research and Application, 22:148-155, 1997
42. O.T.Meara, Introduction to Quadratic Forms, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000
43. M.cheung, B.Rigg, Colour-difference ellipsoids for five CIE colour centers. Color
44. Y.Qiao, R.S.Berns, L.Reniff, E.Montag, Visual determination of hue suprathreshold
color-difference tolerances. Color Research and Application, 23:302-313, 1998
45. P.C.Hung, R.S.Berns, Determination of constant hue loci for a CRT gamut and their
predictions using color appearance spaces. Color Research and Application, 20:285-
295, 1995
46. N.Moroney, Assessing hue constancy using gradients. SPIE Vol.3963;294-300, 2000
47. E.Kreyszig, Introduction to Differential Geometry and Riemannian Geometry.
University of Toronto Press 1967.
48. H.G.Volz,Die, Berechnung grosser Farbabstande in nichteuklidischen Farbraumen.
Die Farbe, 44:1-45, 1998
49. H.G.Volz, Euclideization of the first quadrant of the CIEDE2000 color difference
system for the calculation of large color differences. Color Research and Application,
31:5-12, 2006
50. S.S.Guan, M.R.Luo, Investigation of parametric effects using small colour-differences.
51. W.Schulta, The usefulness of colour-differences formulae for fixing colour tolerances.
In: Color metrics, Soesterberg, AIC/Holland, 245-265, 1972
114
52. C.Alder, K.P.Chaing, R.F.chong, E.Coates, A.A.Khalili and B.Rigg, Uniform
Chromaticity Scales – New Experimental Data. J Soc Dyers Colour, 98: 14-20, 1982
53. P.Urban, M.R.Rosen, R.S.Berns, and D.Schleicher, " Embedding non-Euclidean color
spaces into Euclidean color spaces with minimal isometric disagreement," Journal of
the Optical Society of America, 24:1516-1528, 2007
54. G.Cui, M.R.Luo, B.Rigg, G.Roesler, K.Witt, Uniform Colour Spaces Based on the
DIN99 Colour-Difference Formula. Color Research and Application, 27:282-290,
2001
115

Uniform Color Spaces Based On CIECAM02 and IPT Color Difference e

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uniform Color Spaces Based On CIECAM02 and IPT Color Difference e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

Uniform color spaces based on CIECAM02 and

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

A thesis submitted for partial fulfillment of the

Signature of the Author_____________________________________________________

Coordinator, M.S. Degree Program Date

M.S. DEGREE THESIS

Title of Thesis: Uniform Color Spaces Based on IPT and

I, Yang Xue, hereby grant permission to the Wallace Memorial Library

Submitted for partial fulfillment of the

encouragement, I would not finish my thesis.

Fellowship in Color Science. Their support is greatly appreciated.

member in this big family is an unforgettable memory in my life. My special thanks to

everyone in MCSL: the faculty, staff, and my officemates.

important part in my life.

backgrounds. TC1-34 gave the following definition:2 “to be considered a color

order system. It includes simple chromatic adaptation transforms and predictors of

In 1997, the CIE recommended an interim color appearance model, CIECAM97s,

CIECAM97s,4 CIECAM02,5,6 was developed to improve the performance accuracy

and simplify the model.

colors corresponds to a perceptual color difference. In other words, the calculated

ΔE = k (x1 − x 2 ) 2 + (y1 − y 2 ) 2 + (z1 − z 2 ) 2 ,

yellowness-blueness, respectively. ΔCab* and ΔHab* is the difference in chroma and

experimental data in new Euclidean color spaces.

transformation to a uniform color space.9,12 CIE developed CIELAB color space in

color-difference space.8 Furthermore, it cannot predict luminance-dependent effects such

as the Hunt effect and the Stevens effect.1

should include perceptual attributes such as brightness, lightness, colorfulness, chroma,

saturation, and hue.

Technology. These principles are as follows:

1. The model should be as comprehensive as possible, so that it can be used in a variety

because of the great complexity of dynamic effects.

must have a maximum, and cannot be a simple logarithmic or power function.

mode that does not include rod vision.

unknown, methods of providing approximate scotopic values should be provided.

brightness, lightness, saturation, chroma, and colorfulness.

8. The model should be capable of being operated in a reverse mode.

seen in dark surrounds in isolation from other colors).

designated CIECAM97s. After that, a comprehensive version of the model,

revision to CIECAM97s. CIECAM02 can be used for comparison of device gamuts

affecting other color appearance attributes.7

2.1 IPT Color Space

Image Processing Transform since it is useful for transformations such as gamut

⎡L ⎤ ⎡0.4002 0.7075 −0.0807⎤⎡ X D 65 ⎤

RLAB color space for average surround conditions.14

the other two axes is -1 to 1 in the IPT color space.

2.2 CIECAM02 Color Space

the corresponding perceptual attribute correlates as viewed under a reference white, in

other viewing condition.

2.2.1 Forward Model

surround is selected. For intermediate surrounds these values can be linearly

Table 2-I Viewing condition parameters for different surrounds.

long, medium and short wavelength sensitive space.

⎡ 0.7328 0.4296 −0.1624⎤

converge to 1 for average surrounds with increasingly large values of LA.15

⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛⎜ −(L A +42) ⎞⎟⎤

After D factor is calculated, it is applied to weight chromatic adaptation:

2-2 and 2-3.

Next, the viewing-condition-dependent constants are computed as:

FL = 0.2k 4 (5LA ) + 0.1(1− k 4 ) 2 (5LA )1/ 3 Eq.2-7

perceptual attribute correlates.

post-adaptation non-linear response compression is applied.

ΔL* = L2 − L1

L' = (L2 + L1 ) /2