COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COLOR MODELS FOR HUMAN

PERCEPTION AND VISUAL COLOR DIFFERENCE

Burambekova Aruzhan, Shamoi Pakizar

Abstract Color is integral to human experience, influencing emotions, decisions, and perceptions. This paper presents a comparative analysis of various color models’ alignment with human visual perception. The study evaluates color models such as RGB, HSV, HSL, XYZ, CIELAB, and CIELUV to assess their effectiveness in accurately representing how humans perceive color. We evaluate each model based on its ability to accurately reflect visual color differences and dominant palette extraction compatible with the human eye. In image processing, accurate assessment of color difference is essential for applications ranging from digital design to quality control. Current color difference metrics do not always match how people see colors, causing issues in accurately judging subtle differences. Understanding how different color models align with human visual perception is crucial for various applications in image processing, digital media, and design.

Key words: Color Models; color difference metrics; image processing; k-Means clustering; machine learning; human perception. AMS Mathematics Subject Classification: 68T01, 68T45, 68U10.

1 Introduction

Color is one of the most influential object properties [1]. The way humans perceive colors is a complex and intriguing process, influenced by various physical, psychophysical, physiological, and psychological factors [2]. The perception of color is fundamentally subjective and varies from individual to individual [3]. The brain plays a crucial role in decoding electrical signals into color experiences [4]. The existence of 7.5 to 10 million colors and the role of color in cultural practices further highlight the complexity of color perception [5]. In computer graphics and digital imaging, accurately simulating this process is essential to create visually appealing and lifelike images.

The demand has driven the development of various color models [6], each with its own strengths and weaknesses in accurately representing human color perception.

This article provides a comparative evaluation of several prominent color systems, including RGB, CMYK, HSV, and CIE LAB[7], [8]. We will explore their theoretical foundations and practical applications[9], as well as their effectiveness in capturing the nuances of human vision. Understanding these color systems can help us better appreciate the efforts to bridge the gap between digital representation and human perception.

Color difference, also known as color distance, is a measure that assigns how different colors are perceived by each other. Perceptually similar color pairs have smaller distances [10].

The search for an optimal color difference formula has spanned several decades, resulting in numerous options. Existing formulas often incorporate specific attributes like lightness, chroma, and hue weighting functions to capture the complexity of color perception. However, despite extensive efforts, finding a universally effective formula that consistently reflects perceptual similarities and differences remains an ongoing problem.

2 Related Work

The color difference is important in different perception-based image processing problems, for example, Lossy Image Compression, Color Gamut Map**, Segmentation, and Image Enhancement [11], [12]. A range of studies have explored the concept of color distance, each proposing different models and methods for its measurement.

The common way to calculate color distance is by using the CIE LAB color difference, denoted as ΔEabΔsubscriptsuperscript𝐸𝑎𝑏\Delta E^{*}_{ab}roman_Δ italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This is calculated as the Euclidean distance between the two points representing the color stimuli in the space.[13]

More advanced color difference formulas have been created, including CIE94 and CIEDE2000 [14]. They aim to provide a better correlation with human perception.

Recent research proposed a novel model based on visual recognition [15]. Another paper introduced a hybrid color distance model inspired by the human vision system [16]. [17] evaluates the performance of various color distance measures in image segmentation, with the graph-partition approach and the Frechet distance yielding the best results. Next, [18] proposes a luminance-invariant color distance based on parallel coordinates and [19] testing various vector distance measures for color image retrieval. Lastly, [20] presents a color difference model based on the receptors’ properties in the honeybee’s color vision system.

One common formulation, documented in CIEDE2000 [14], includes standard attributes such as lightness, chroma, and hue weighting functions. Additionally, it considers an interactive term between chroma and hue differences. This formulation has been shown to improve the performance of blue colors and includes a scaling factor for enhancing the performance of gray colors.

All color-difference formulas are designed to assess the color differences between pairs of stimuli separated by a fine line[21]. Based on the CIEDE2000 system, a novel color-difference formula has been developed for pairs of samples with no separation, encompassing a wide range of color differences smaller than 9.1 units on the CIEDE2000 scale. This new formula is designated the color-difference formula for the no separation viewing condition and is referred to as ΔENSΔsubscript𝐸𝑁𝑆\Delta E_{NS}roman_Δ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Similar approaches CMC(I:c) and BFD(I:c) [22] have better agreement with experimental results for small color differences between surface colors than other published formulas.

Most early researchers opted for Riemannian Color Spaces. However, recent color theory trends indicate a non-Riemannian nature of perceptual color space. For example, [23] shows that the principle of diminishing returns applies to human color perception.

Using self-luminous sample pairs on a CRT display, [24] discovered that varying the separation size between the two samples had a minor impact on the perceived color difference. However, it did modify the weighting factor between lightness and chromatic differences.

3 Methods

3.1 Color Models

For analysis, models like RGB, XYZ, and LAb were chosen.

RGB Model

The RGB color model is one of the most widely used methods for color representation in computer graphics. It employs a color coordinate system based on three primary colors: red, green, and blue. The combination of these colors in varying intensities forms the cube-shaped RGB color space, encompassing all colors that can be created through their linear combination.

XYZ Model

The XYZ color model was created by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) in 1931. It is based on human vision and uses three imaginary primary colors to map out all perceivable colors (see Fig. 1). The XYZ model forms the basis for many other color spaces and is used for color matching and comparison.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The 1931 CIE chromaticity diagram (XYZ model) [25].

LAB Model

The LAB color model, or CIELAB, represents color in three dimensions: L* for lightness, a* for the green-red component, and b* for the blue-yellow component (see Fig. 2). It is designed to be perceptually uniform, meaning equal changes in value correspond to roughly equal changes in perceived color. LAB is widely used in industries where color accuracy is critical, such as printing and textile manufacturing.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The CIELAB color space diagram [26]

The CIE 1976 (L⁢a⁢b⁢) color difference formula is shown below in Eq. 1.

ΔEab=(L2L1)2+(a2a1)2+(b2b1)2Δsuperscriptsubscript𝐸𝑎𝑏superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐿2superscriptsubscript𝐿12superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑎2superscriptsubscript𝑎12superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑏2superscriptsubscript𝑏12\Delta E_{ab}^{*}=\sqrt{(L_{2}^{*}-L_{1}^{*})^{2}+(a_{2}^{*}-a_{1}^{*})^{2}+(b% _{2}^{*}-b_{1}^{*})^{2}}roman_Δ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG (1)

The CIEDE2000 color difference formula is given by:

ΔE00=(ΔLkLSL)2+(ΔCkCSC)2+(ΔHkHSH)2+RT(ΔCkCSC)(ΔHkHSH)Δsubscript𝐸00superscriptΔsuperscript𝐿subscript𝑘𝐿subscript𝑆𝐿2superscriptΔsuperscript𝐶subscript𝑘𝐶subscript𝑆𝐶2superscriptΔsuperscript𝐻subscript𝑘𝐻subscript𝑆𝐻2subscript𝑅𝑇Δsuperscript𝐶subscript𝑘𝐶subscript𝑆𝐶Δsuperscript𝐻subscript𝑘𝐻subscript𝑆𝐻\Delta E_{00}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{\Delta L^{\prime}}{k_{L}S_{L}}\right)^{2}+% \left(\frac{\Delta C^{\prime}}{k_{C}S_{C}}\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{\Delta H^{% \prime}}{k_{H}S_{H}}\right)^{2}+R_{T}\left(\frac{\Delta C^{\prime}}{k_{C}S_{C}% }\right)\left(\frac{\Delta H^{\prime}}{k_{H}S_{H}}\right)}roman_Δ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 00 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG ( divide start_ARG roman_Δ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( divide start_ARG roman_Δ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( divide start_ARG roman_Δ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG roman_Δ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG roman_Δ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) end_ARG (2)

where the terms are defined as follows:

ΔL=L2L1Δsuperscript𝐿superscriptsubscript𝐿2superscriptsubscript𝐿1\Delta L^{\prime}=L_{2}^{*}-L_{1}^{*}roman_Δ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (3)
ΔC=C2C1Δsuperscript𝐶superscriptsubscript𝐶2superscriptsubscript𝐶1\Delta C^{\prime}=C_{2}^{\prime}-C_{1}^{\prime}roman_Δ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (4)
ΔH=2C1C2sin(Δh2)Δsuperscript𝐻2superscriptsubscript𝐶1superscriptsubscript𝐶2Δsuperscript2\Delta H^{\prime}=2\sqrt{C_{1}^{\prime}C_{2}^{\prime}}\sin\left(\frac{\Delta h% ^{\prime}}{2}\right)roman_Δ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 square-root start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG roman_sin ( divide start_ARG roman_Δ italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) (5)
RT=2C7C7+257sin(2Δθ)subscript𝑅𝑇2subscript𝐶7subscript𝐶7superscript2572Δ𝜃R_{T}=-2\sqrt{\frac{C_{7}}{C_{7}+25^{7}}}\sin\left(2\Delta\theta\right)italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - 2 square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 25 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG roman_sin ( 2 roman_Δ italic_θ ) (6)
SL=1+0.015(L150)220+(L150)2subscript𝑆𝐿10.015superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐿150220superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐿1502S_{L}=1+\frac{0.015(L_{1}^{*}-50)^{2}}{\sqrt{20+(L_{1}^{*}-50)^{2}}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 + divide start_ARG 0.015 ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 50 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 20 + ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 50 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG (7)
SC=1+0.045C1subscript𝑆𝐶10.045superscriptsubscript𝐶1S_{C}=1+0.045C_{1}^{\prime}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 + 0.045 italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (8)
SH=1+0.015C1(10.17cos(Δh30)+0.24cos(2Δh)+0.32cos(3Δh+6)0.20cos(4Δh63))subscript𝑆𝐻10.015superscriptsubscript𝐶110.17Δsuperscriptsuperscript300.242Δsuperscript0.323Δsuperscriptsuperscript60.204Δsuperscriptsuperscript63S_{H}=1+0.015C_{1}^{\prime}\left(1-0.17\cos(\Delta h^{\prime}-30^{\circ})+0.24% \cos(2\Delta h^{\prime})+0.32\cos(3\Delta h^{\prime}+6^{\circ})-0.20\cos(4% \Delta h^{\prime}-63^{\circ})\right)italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 + 0.015 italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - 0.17 roman_cos ( roman_Δ italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 30 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 0.24 roman_cos ( 2 roman_Δ italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 0.32 roman_cos ( 3 roman_Δ italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 0.20 roman_cos ( 4 roman_Δ italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 63 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) (9)

CIELUV Model

The LUV color model, or CIE LUV (see Fig. 3), is similar to LAB but optimized for different applications. LUV is used primarily in computer graphics and digital imaging due to its linearity and ease of transformation to other color spaces. It provides a perceptually uniform color space for more accurate color representation.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: CIELUV Model (u,v)superscript𝑢superscript𝑣(u^{\prime},v^{\prime})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) chromaticity diagram using the 1931 standard observer. (Photo downloaded from Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/.)

HSL Model

HSL stands for Hue, Saturation, and Lightness. It is often used in graphics software to select colors more intuitively. The HSL model represents colors in a cylindrical coordinate system, making it easier to independently adjust hue, saturation, and lightness.

HSV Model

HSV(HSB) stands for Hue, Saturation, and Value. It is similar to HSL but uses value instead of lightness, which can make it more intuitive for certain applications (see Fig. 4). The HSV model is commonly used in image editing software and for color-picking tools.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: HS* Models. (Photo downloaded from Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/.)

Basically, conversion from each model are widely used in image processing. For example, the conversion from XYZ to CIELAB is presented in Eq. 10

Lsuperscript𝐿\displaystyle L^{*}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =116f(YYn)16absent116𝑓𝑌subscript𝑌𝑛16\displaystyle=116\cdot f\left(\frac{Y}{Y_{n}}\right)-16= 116 ⋅ italic_f ( divide start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) - 16 (10)
asuperscript𝑎\displaystyle a^{*}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =500[f(XXn)f(YYn)]absent500delimited-[]𝑓𝑋subscript𝑋𝑛𝑓𝑌subscript𝑌𝑛\displaystyle=500\cdot\left[f\left(\frac{X}{X_{n}}\right)-f\left(\frac{Y}{Y_{n% }}\right)\right]= 500 ⋅ [ italic_f ( divide start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_ARG italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) - italic_f ( divide start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ]
bsuperscript𝑏\displaystyle b^{*}italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =200[f(YYn)f(ZZn)]absent200delimited-[]𝑓𝑌subscript𝑌𝑛𝑓𝑍subscript𝑍𝑛\displaystyle=200\cdot\left[f\left(\frac{Y}{Y_{n}}\right)-f\left(\frac{Z}{Z_{n% }}\right)\right]= 200 ⋅ [ italic_f ( divide start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) - italic_f ( divide start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ]

where

f(t)={t1/3if t>(629)313(296)2t+429otherwise𝑓𝑡casessuperscript𝑡13if 𝑡superscript629313superscript2962𝑡429otherwisef(t)=\begin{cases}t^{1/3}&\text{if }t>\left(\frac{6}{29}\right)^{3}\\ \frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{29}{6}\right)^{2}t+\frac{4}{29}&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}italic_f ( italic_t ) = { start_ROW start_CELL italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL if italic_t > ( divide start_ARG 6 end_ARG start_ARG 29 end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 29 end_ARG start_ARG 6 end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t + divide start_ARG 4 end_ARG start_ARG 29 end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL otherwise end_CELL end_ROW (11)

3.2 k-means Clustering

We employ the k-means clustering algorithm [27] [28] in various color models to extract dominant colors from an image. The process involves the following steps:

  • Convert the image from its original color space (typically RGB) to the desired color model (e.g., HSV, HSL, CIELAB).

  • Reshape the image data into a 2D array where each row represents a pixel, and each column represents a color channel in the selected color model.

  • Apply the k-means clustering algorithm to the 2D array to find k𝑘kitalic_k clusters representing the dominant colors. The objective function of k-means clustering is to minimize the sum of squared distances between each pixel and the centroid of its assigned cluster:

    mini=1k𝐱Ci𝐱μi2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘subscript𝐱subscript𝐶𝑖superscriptnorm𝐱subscript𝜇𝑖2\min\sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in C_{i}}\|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{\mu}_{i}\|^{2}roman_min ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_x ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ bold_x - italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

    where 𝐱𝐱\mathbf{x}bold_x is a pixel, Cisubscript𝐶𝑖C_{i}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the set of pixels assigned to cluster i𝑖iitalic_i, and μisubscript𝜇𝑖\mathbf{\mu}_{i}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the centroid of cluster i𝑖iitalic_i.

  • The centroids of the k𝑘kitalic_k clusters represent the dominant colors in the image.

    μi=1|Ci|𝐱Ci𝐱subscript𝜇𝑖1subscript𝐶𝑖subscript𝐱subscript𝐶𝑖𝐱\mathbf{\mu}_{i}=\frac{1}{|C_{i}|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in C_{i}}\mathbf{x}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG | italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_x ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_x

    where μisubscript𝜇𝑖\mathbf{\mu}_{i}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the centroid of cluster i𝑖iitalic_i, and |Ci|subscript𝐶𝑖|C_{i}|| italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | is the number of pixels in cluster i𝑖iitalic_i.

  • Convert Dominant Colors Back to RGB for display and further analysis.

By applying these steps, we can extract the dominant colors from an image using different color models, allowing us to analyze and compare their effectiveness in representing the image’s color characteristics.

3.3 Survey design

In our experiments, 15 human participants (7 males and 8 females aged 20 to 23 years old) took part in a survey to evaluate perceived color differences between color pairs. The experiment aimed to understand how well various color models and metrics align with human visual perception. A set of color pairs was presented to each participant (see Fig. 7). The color pairs were selected to cover a range of hues, saturations, and brightness levels. The perceived differences provided by the participants were collected and averaged for each color pair.

4 Results

Two experiments were formulated to determine which of the most popular color spaces is closer to human perception. The first experiment (see Fig.5) involves obtaining dominant color palettes from an image using k-means[29], [30] in different color models. The second experiment compares the results obtained from calculating the color differences between sets of color pairs using different color models and survey results from people about how they perceive these pairs of colors.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: K-means based dominant palettes extraction: comparison between color models

The first experiment employed Vincent van Gogh’s famous painting, "The Starry Night." The celestial body depicted prominently in the sky is the bright yellow moon. The experiment showed that the colors in the picture are not all the same as those that a person would see when looking at it. Among the considered models, HSL resulted in the most human-consistent color palette.

The second experiment analysis involves estimating color differences between two colors using Euclidean Distance, Weighted Euclidean Distance, CIE 2000, CIE CMC(1:c), and distance in a cylindrical coordinate system(see Fig. 6).

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Color Differences
Refer to caption
Figure 7: Color Pairs used in the survey

Experimental data is presented in Table 1.

HSL showed the highest correlation (0.72) with human perception, indicating a strong positive relationship. HSV also demonstrated a significant positive correlation (0.60), suggesting it aligns well with human perception.

Table 1: Results of the experiment on color difference across various color models
Color Pair Euclid. RGB w_RGB LAB CIE2000 LAB CMC HSV HSL XYZ CMC CIE LUV Human
1, 2 39.37 72.08 10.42 11.15 0.1304 0.2833 14.95 7.32 6
3, 4 83.76 142.05 15.94 14.58 0.0003 0.0003 5.44 11.47 3
5, 6 134.63 216.96 20.01 22.65 0.0006 0.0006 30.01 25.58 4
7, 8 229.11 391.30 29.01 33.62 0.5657 0.4000 83.69 18.81 5
9, 10 190.82 350.73 29.23 27.03 0.6325 0.4000 70.30 24.32 5
11, 12 132.85 260.87 51.08 69.14 0.0004 0.0004 58.14 53.40 3
13, 14 188.58 323.92 30.41 28.26 0.4393 0.6966 110.57 15.30 5
15, 16 180.88 326.44 35.27 32.58 0.6418 0.4510 78.51 17.62 6
17, 18 145.34 247.51 52.25 68.85 0.0006 0.0006 75.59 65.13 2
19, 20 128.55 253.57 30.10 29.83 0.3137 0.1569 35.91 32.29 2
Refer to caption
Figure 8: Heatmap illustrating the correlations between estimated color differences of various color models and human perception

Moderate positive correlation (0.24) of XYZ indicates some alignment. Euclidean RGB and weighted RGB got low positive correlations (0.18 and 0.15, respectively), suggesting a limited relationship. However, some formulas on models got negative correlations: Lab cie2000, Lab CMC, and CMC CIE LUV.(8)

5 Conclusion

Existing color difference measures may not accurately align with human perception, leading to inconsistency in determining color variations. It is challenging to define color closeness due to non-uniformity and high correlation among their components in different spaces. The current paper presents our preliminary results on comparing different color models and how they relate to human vision. It analyzes the effectiveness of different color systems, such as RGB, HSV, HSL, and others, to see how well they represent how we see color.

This is important in image processing because it’s essential to accurately judge color differences in digital design and quality control. However, current methods for measuring color differences don’t always match up with how we actually see colors.

Along with different color spaces, there are also different formulas for calculating color differences, like CIE 1976 and CMC(1:c). HSL and HSV have the highest correlation and lowest MAE, making them the best models for aligning with human color perception. CMC CIE LUV has a pretty average MAE, but there’s a negative correlation, which has mixed results. The Euclidean RGB, weighted RGB, Lab CIE 2000, and Lab CMC all have low correlation and a high MAE. They showed themselves to be the worst in comparison with human perception.

The study is limited by a small sample size, which may not reflect real-world conditions. Future work could expand the participant pool and explore additional color models to improve alignment with human perception.

Acknowledgement

This research has been funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Grant No. AP22786412)

References

  • [1] P. Shamoi, A. Inoue, and H. Kawanaka, ‘‘Color aesthetics and context-dependency,’’ in SCIS-ISIS 2022, 2022, pp. 1–7.
  • [2] S. Cojocaru, ‘‘The symbolic and psychosemantic polyvalence of colors,’’ Review of Artistic Education, vol. 28, p. 231–238, Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.35218/rae-2024-0029
  • [3] M. Muratbekova and P. Shamoi, ‘‘Color-emotion associations in art: Fuzzy approach,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 37 937–37 956, 2024.
  • [4] F. Moreira da Silva, ‘‘Color processing and human perception,’’ in AHFE International, ser. IHSI 2023.   AHFE International, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002840
  • [5] S. P. Nair, ‘‘In one’s true colours: Nuances of colour cognition,’’ Journal of Psychology Research, vol. 10, p. 271, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:151416340
  • [6] P. Shamoi, D. Sansyzbayev, and N. Abiley, ‘‘Comparative overview of color models for content-based image retrieval,’’ in 2022 International Conference on Smart Information Systems and Technologies (SIST), 2022, pp. 1–6.
  • [7] K. Misue, ‘‘Development of a tool to help understand color spaces and color differences,’’ in 2020 24th International Conference Information Visualisation (IV), 2020, pp. 565–572.
  • [8] K. Misue and H. Kitajima, ‘‘Design tool of color schemes on the cielab space,’’ in 2016 20th International Conference Information Visualisation (IV), 2016, pp. 33–38.
  • [9] C.-C. Tseng and S.-L. Lee, ‘‘A low-light color image enhancement method on cielab space,’’ in 2018 IEEE 7th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE), 2018, pp. 141–142.
  • [10] S. Feng-wu and J. Mai, ‘‘A statistical features-based color difference classification method,’’ in 2013 25th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), 2013, pp. 2063–2067.
  • [11] I. Lissner and P. Urban, ‘‘Toward a unified color space for perception-based image processing,’’ IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 21, pp. 1153–1168, 3 2012. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5975217
  • [12] Z. Zhou, D. Li, D. Lin, L. Liang, and L. Liu, ‘‘Application of multi-color space feature fusion in color difference processing,’’ in 2014 Fourth International Conference on Instrumentation and Measurement, Computer, Communication and Control, 2014, pp. 751–755.
  • [13] Commission Internationale de l’Г‰clairage (CIE), Colorimetry.   Vienna, Austria: CIE Central Bureau, 2004, cIE Publication No. 15.
  • [14] M. R. Luo, G. Cui, and B. Rigg, ‘‘The development of the cie 2000 colour‐difference formula: Ciede2000,’’ Color Research & Application, vol. 26, pp. 340–350, 10 2001.
  • [15] **gqin Lv and Jiangxiong Fang, ‘‘A Color Distance Model Based on Visual Recognition,’’ 2018.
  • [16] Ramon Moreno, Manuel Grana, and Alicia D Anjou, ‘‘A hybrid color distance for image segmentation,’’ HAIS, 2011.
  • [17] Jaume VergГ©s-LlahГ and Alberto Sanfeliu, ‘‘Evaluation of Distances Between Color Image Segmentations,’’ IbPRIA, 2005.
  • [18] C. Vertan, B. Ionescu, and M. Ciuc, ‘‘Color image edge detection by parallel coordinates-based color distance,’’ International Conference on Communications, 2010.
  • [19] D. Androutsos, K. Plataniotis, and A. Venetsanopoulos, ‘‘Distance measures for color image retrieval,’’ Proceedings 1998 International Conference on Image Processing. ICIP98 (Cat. No.98CB36269), 1998.
  • [20] W. Backhaus and R. Menzel, ‘‘Color distance derived from a receptor model of color vision in the honeybee,’’ Biological Cybernetics, 2004.
  • [21] F. Mirjalili, M. R. Luo, G. Cui, and J. Morovic, ‘‘Color-difference formula for evaluating color pairs with no separation: Ens,’’ J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 789–799, May 2019.
  • [22] M. R. Luo and B. Rigg, ‘‘Bfd <i>(l:c)</i> colour‐difference formula part 1ndashdevelopment of the formula,’’ Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists, vol. 103, pp. 86–94, 2 1987.
  • [23] R. Bujack, E. Teti, J. Miller, E. Caffrey, and T. L. Turton, ‘‘The non-riemannian nature of perceptual color space,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119, 5 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2119753119
  • [24] G. Cui, M. R. Luo, B. Rigg, and W. Li, ‘‘Colour‐difference evaluation using crt colours. part i: Data gathering and testing colour difference formulae,’’ Color Research & Application, vol. 26, pp. 394–402, 10 2001. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227847626_Colour-difference_evaluation_using_CRT_colours_Part_I_Data_gathering_and_testing_colour_difference_formulae
  • [25] G. D. Hastings and A. Rubin, ‘‘Colour spaces - a review of historic and modern colour models*,’’ African Vision and Eye Health, vol. 71, no. 3, p. 133–143, Dec. 2012. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/aveh.v71i3.76
  • [26] B. C. K. Ly, E. B. Dyer, J. L. Feig, A. L. Chien, and S. Del Bino, ‘‘Research techniques made simple: Cutaneous colorimetry: A reliable technique for objective skinВ color measurement,’’ Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 3–12.e1, Jan. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2019.11.003
  • [27] S. Na, L. Xumin, and G. Yong, ‘‘Research on k-means clustering algorithm: An improved k-means clustering algorithm,’’ in 2010 Third International Symposium on intelligent information technology and security informatics.   Ieee, 2010, pp. 63–67.
  • [28] A. R. Weeks and G. E. Hague, ‘‘Color segmentation in the hsi color space using the k-means algorithm,’’ in Nonlinear image processing VIII, vol. 3026.   SPIE, 1997, pp. 143–154.
  • [29] Y. Chang and N. Mukai, ‘‘Color feature based dominant color extraction,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 93 055–93 061, 2022.
  • [30] G. Xie, B. Guo, Z. Huang, Y. Zheng, and Y. Yan, ‘‘Combination of dominant color descriptor and hu moments in consistent zone for content based image retrieval,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 146 284–146 299, 2020.

Burambekova Aruzhan,

School of Information Technology and Engineering, Kazakh-British Technical University,

Tole Bi street 59, Almaty, Kazakhstan, Email: [email protected],

Shamoi Pakizar,

School of Information Technology and Engineering, Kazakh-British Technical University,

Tole Bi street 59, Almaty, Kazakhstan, Email: [email protected],