Abstract:CIE has recently recommended a new color appearance model CIECAM16 to replace CIECAM02. It was also intended to recommend a uniform color space (UCS) based on CIECAM16, CIECAM16-UCS, for predicting color difference. However, there was a debate as to whether CIECAM16 can be used to predict color difference, since it takes tristimulus values calculated using the CIE 2 degrees observer as input, while tristimulus values for color difference are usually calculated using the CIE 10 degrees observer, as in the CIEDE2000 formula. Thus, further evidence is needed before CAM16-UCS can be recommended by the CIE as uniform color space. In this paper, we investigate the likely difference in color difference prediction when using CAM16-UCS, and its potential statistical significance. Firstly, the reflectance of each pair of color samples in the visual color difference datasets: BFD-P, Leeds, RIT-DuPont and Witt was generated based on the given tristimulus values. Then, color difference AE2,F and AE10,F, with F being the CAM16-UCS, can be computed under any illuminant using the 2 degrees and 10 degrees observers respectively. Comparison results showed that the difference between AE2,F and AE10,F was not statistically significant. Finally, both AE2,F and AE10,F were used to predict the visual color difference DV and the STRESS values between AE2,F and DV, and between AE10,F and DV respectively. Statistical tests showed that the differences between AE2,F and DV, and between AE10,F and DV were not significant. Hence this study shows that CAM16-UCS can be reliably used for predicting color difference. The findings are valuable for CIE to recommend CAM16-UCS as a uniform color space. Currently CIE TC1-98 is investigating the establishment of a new colorimetric system based on cone response tristimulus values LMS. It is expected that the reflectance datasets generated from the color difference datasets will be useful for the evaluation of any new colorimetric system.(c) 2023 Society for Imaging Science and Technology.

A Modification of CIECAM02 Based on the Hunt&#x2010;Pointer&#x2010;Estevez Matrix

The Performance of CIECAM02.

Different Matrices for CIECAM02

A Revision of CIECAM02 and Its CAT and UCS

Optimum Solution of the CIECAM02 Yellow–blue and Purple Problems

Comprehensive color solutions: CAM16, CAT16, and CAM16-UCS

Testing the Robustness of CIECAM02

Testing Colour Appearance Models Using Corresponding-Colour and Magnitude-Estimation Data Sets

Quantifying Colour Appearance. Part II. Testing Colour Models Performance Using Lutchi Colour Appearance Data

Testing the performance ofCIECAM02from 100 to 3500 cd/m<SUP>2</SUP>

Quantifying Color Appearance .2. Testing Color Models Performance Using Lutchi Color Appearance Data

A Revised Formulation Based on CIECAM16 for Cross-media Colour Reproduction Via Real Scene Experiment

Evaluation of Color Difference Prediction with CIECAM16 Using CIE 2-and 10-Degree Observers

Colour-Difference Evaluation Using Colour Appearance Models

Uniform Colour Spaces Based on CIECAM02 Colour Appearance Model

Further Improvements to Ciecam97s

Mathematical Approach for Predicting Non‐negative Tristimulus Values Using the CAT02 Chromatic Adaptation Transform

Proposed Modification to the CAM16 Colour Appearance Model to Predict the Simultaneous Colour Contrast Effect.

CIE Colour Appearance Models: A Current Perspective

Recent Progress with Extensions to CIECAM02.

Testing Performance of CIECAM02 in Predicting Perceptual Contrast

A Modification of CIECAM02 Based on the Hunt&amp;#x2010;Pointer&amp;#x2010;Estevez Matrix