Can we estimate which colors our participants see? Comparing results from different gamma correction methods

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Déborah Epicoco, Domicele Jonauskaite, Christine Mohr, C. Alejandro Parraga
{"title":"Can we estimate which colors our participants see? Comparing results from different gamma correction methods","authors":"Déborah Epicoco, Domicele Jonauskaite, Christine Mohr, C. Alejandro Parraga","doi":"10.1177/20416695241278562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In experimental color research, one must ensure that color is displayed and described reliably. When monitors are involved, colors are displayed through device-dependent color systems. However, these values must be translated into device-independent color systems to interpret what people perceive, often involving techniques such as gamma correction. We sought to explore the feasibility of estimating gamma instead of relying on direct gamma measurements, which typically require specialized equipment like a chromameter. Potential solutions include a computerized perception-based gamma estimation task or adopting the industry-standard gamma value of 2.2. We compared these two solutions against the chromameter measurements in the context of a color-matching task. Thirty-nine participants visually matched red, yellow, green, and blue physical objects using a computerized color picker. Starting from these color choices, we applied two RGB-to-CIE Lab color conversion methods: one using a perception-based gamma estimation and another using the industry-standard gamma. Color values obtained with the chromameter differed from the other two methods by 6–15 JNDs. Small differences existed between the results obtained using the perception-based task and the industry-standard gamma. Thus, we conclude that when standard viewing conditions cannot be assumed, adopting a gamma value of 2.2 should suffice.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695241278562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In experimental color research, one must ensure that color is displayed and described reliably. When monitors are involved, colors are displayed through device-dependent color systems. However, these values must be translated into device-independent color systems to interpret what people perceive, often involving techniques such as gamma correction. We sought to explore the feasibility of estimating gamma instead of relying on direct gamma measurements, which typically require specialized equipment like a chromameter. Potential solutions include a computerized perception-based gamma estimation task or adopting the industry-standard gamma value of 2.2. We compared these two solutions against the chromameter measurements in the context of a color-matching task. Thirty-nine participants visually matched red, yellow, green, and blue physical objects using a computerized color picker. Starting from these color choices, we applied two RGB-to-CIE Lab color conversion methods: one using a perception-based gamma estimation and another using the industry-standard gamma. Color values obtained with the chromameter differed from the other two methods by 6–15 JNDs. Small differences existed between the results obtained using the perception-based task and the industry-standard gamma. Thus, we conclude that when standard viewing conditions cannot be assumed, adopting a gamma value of 2.2 should suffice.
我们能估计出参与者看到的颜色吗?比较不同伽玛校正方法的结果
在色彩实验研究中,必须确保可靠地显示和描述色彩。当涉及显示器时,色彩是通过与设备相关的色彩系统来显示的。然而,这些数值必须转换成与设备无关的色彩系统,以解释人们的感知,这通常涉及伽马校正等技术。我们试图探索估算伽马值的可行性,而不是依赖直接伽马值测量,后者通常需要色度计等专业设备。潜在的解决方案包括基于感知的计算机化伽马估算任务或采用行业标准伽马值 2.2。我们将这两种解决方案与色度计测量方法在色彩匹配任务中进行了比较。39 名参与者使用电脑选色器对红色、黄色、绿色和蓝色实物进行视觉配色。从这些颜色选择开始,我们采用了两种 RGB 到 CIE Lab 颜色转换方法:一种是基于感知的伽玛估计法,另一种是行业标准伽玛法。使用色度计获得的颜色值与其他两种方法相差 6-15 JND。使用基于感知的任务和行业标准伽马值得出的结果差异很小。因此,我们得出结论:当无法假设标准观看条件时,采用 2.2 的伽玛值就足够了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信