←back to thread

276 points samwillis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
GrantMoyer ◴[] No.41082733[source]
In my opinion, plotting chromaticity on a Cartesian grid — by far the most common way — is pretty misleading, since chromaticity diagrams use barycentric coordinates (and to be clear, I blame the institution, not the author). The effect is that the shape of the gamut looks skewed, but only because of how it's plotted; the weird skewedness of a typical XYZ chromaticity diagram doesn't represent anything real about the data.

Instead, a chromaticity diagram is better thought of as a 2D planar slice of a 3D color space, specifically the slice through all three standard unit vectors. From this conception, it's much more natural to plot a chromaticity diagram in an equilateral triangle, such as the diagram at [1]. A plot in a triangle makes it clear, for instance, that the full color gamut in XYZ space isn't some arbitrary, weird, squished shape, but instead was intentionally chosen in a way that fills the positive octant pretty well given the constraints of human vision.

[1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/777501/why-is-th...

replies(3): >>41083509 #>>41088308 #>>41089277 #
1. jacobolus ◴[] No.41088308[source]
The CIE 1976 u'v' chromaticity diagram is skewed to be closer to perceptually uniform, and is probably overall a better picture than the xy chromaticity diagram or than the equilateral triangle picture.

X, Y, and Z dimensions are somewhat arbitrary, so plotting xy inside an equilateral triangle isn't inherently more correct than plotting it inside an isosceles right triangle.

If you want you can use something closer to the cone cell responses as your coordinates, and the result may be conceptually clearer, but any 2d picture like this is going to be misleading to viewers who don't have a sophisticated understanding of how vision works and what the diagram means.