Sivalogeswaran Ratnasingam1,*
and Javier Hernández-Andrés2
1Intelligent Systems Research Centre, School of Computing and Intelligent Systems, Magee Campus, University of Ulster, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, BT48 7JL, UK
2Department of Optics, Sciences Faculty, University of Granada, Granada, 18071, Spain
In this paper, an algorithm is proposed to estimate the spectral power distribution of a light source at a pixel. The first step of the algorithm is forming a two-dimensional illuminant invariant chromaticity space. In estimating the illuminant spectrum, generalized inverse estimation and Wiener estimation methods were applied. The chromaticity space was divided into small grids and a weight matrix was used to estimate the illuminant spectrum illuminating the pixels that fall within a grid. The algorithm was tested using a different number of sensor responses to determine the optimum number of sensors for accurate colorimetric and spectral reproduction. To investigate the performance of the algorithm realistically, the responses were multiplied with Gaussian noise and then quantized to . The algorithm was tested with standard and measured data. Based on the results presented, the algorithm can be used with six sensors to obtain a colorimetrically good estimate of the illuminant spectrum at a pixel.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Citation lists with outbound citation links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
Test Results of the Algorithm Using Generalized Inverse Estimation When Applying Zero Noise and Unquantized Image Sensor Responsesa
Munsell (CIE)
Floral (CIE)
Munsell (Measured)
Floral (Measured)
Number of Sensors
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
3
12.06 (0.71)
0.9679 (0.0020)
12.16 (0.88)
0.9542 (0.0022)
6.910 (0.20)
0.9818
9.267 (0.43)
0.9715
4
7.980 (0.88)
0.9845 (0.0021)
11.266 (0.96)
0.9664 (0.0036)
4.201 (0.099)
0.9941
6.691 (0.94)
0.9802 (0.0015)
6
4.371 (0.33)
0.9957
6.561 (1.6)
0.9767 (0.0043)
2.676 (0.093)
0.9976
3.713 (0.10)
0.9899
8
3.321 (0.17)
0.996
4.012 (0.85)
0.9824 (0.0019)
2.124 (0.057)
0.9976
3.6281 (0.69)
0.9892 (0.002)
Mean Euclidean distance in the CIELuv space between the actual and the estimated spectra, standard deviation , mean GFC, and standard deviation of GFC are listed. In this test, Munsell floral test reflectances were illuminated by CIE standard and measured test daylights.
Table 3
Test Results of the Algorithm Using Wiener Estimation When Applying Zero Noise and Unquantized Image Sensor Responsesa
Munsell (CIE)
Floral (CIE)
Munsell (Measured)
Floral (Measured)
Number of Sensors
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
3
13.4 (0.68)
0.9573 (0.0020)
17.1 (1.0)
0.9441 (0.0031)
13.3 (0.61)
0.9587 (0.0011)
13.2 (0.59)
0.9600 (0.0013)
4
12.9 (1.0)
0.9667 (0.0026)
14.0 (1.8)
0.9528 (0.0071)
6.91 (0.22)
0.9883
8.78 (1.2)
0.9772 (0.0021)
6
5.52 (0.28)
0.9862
7.19 (1.7)
0.9776 (0.0048)
3.54 (0.097)
0.9946
2.90 (0.65)
0.9888 (0.0014)
8
3.27 (0.15)
0.9943
3.38 (1.9)
0.9845 (0.0063)
1.99 (0.055)
0.9971
1.20 (0.11)
0.9917
Mean Euclidean distance in CIELuv space between the actual and the estimated spectra, standard deviation , mean GFC, and standard deviation of GFC are listed. In this test, Munsell floral test reflectances were illuminated by CIE standard and measured test daylights.
Table 4
Test Results of the Algorithm Using Generalized Inverse Estimation When Applying Different Numbers of Image Sensor Responsesa
Munsell (CIE)
Floral (CIE)
Munsell (Measured)
Floral (Measured)
Number of Sensors
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
3
12.20 (0.069)
0.9681
12.58 (0.088)
0.9537
7.842 (0.020)
0.9819
9.717 (0.035)
0.9704
4
7.082 (0.068)
0.9875
12.53 (0.10)
0.9650
4.803 (0.040)
0.9923
6.759 (0.068)
0.9830
6
4.750 (0.061)
0.9927
9.115 (0.14)
0.9739
2.937 (0.013)
0.9971
3.805 (0.036)
0.9890
8
3.464 (0.020)
0.9961
6.321 (0.13)
0.9765
2.371 (0.011)
0.9972
3.171 (0.075)
0.9890
Mean Euclidean distance in CIELuv space between the actual and the estimated spectra, standard deviation , mean GFC, and standard deviation of GFC are listed. The sensor responses were multiplied with Gaussian noise, and the resultant responses were quantized to . In this test, Munsell floral test reflectances were illuminated by CIE standard and measured test daylights.
Table 5
Test Results of the Algorithm Using Wiener Estimation When Applying Different Numbers of Image Sensor Responsesa
Munsell (CIE)
Floral (CIE)
Munsell (Measured)
Floral (Measured)
Number of Sensors
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
3
13.5 (0.071)
0.9572
16.3 (0.096)
0.9456
12.2 (0.057)
0.9613
13.5 (0.057)
0.9603
4
11.4 (0.080)
0.9713
15.9 (0.17)
0.9498
7.17 (0.044)
0.9872
14.4 (0.20)
0.9587
6
5.08 (0.051)
0.9859
11.4 (0.16)
0.9687
3.39 (0.013)
0.9946
9.39 (0.15)
0.9746
8
3.44 (0.019)
0.9939
3.97 (0.23)
0.9812
2.29 (0.010)
0.9967
1.37 (0.016)
0.9913
Mean Euclidean distance in CIELuv space between the actual and the estimated spectra, standard deviation , mean GFC, and standard deviation of GFC are listed. The sensor responses were multiplied with Gaussian noise, and the resultant responses were quantized to . In this test, Munsell floral test reflectances were illuminated by CIE standard and measured test daylights.
Tables (5)
Table 1
Parameters of the Gaussian Sensitivity Functions
Number of Sensors
FWHM (nm)
Peak Sensor Positions (nm)
3
80
450, 550, 650
4
80
437, 512, 587, 637
6
80
425, 475, 525, 575, 625, 675
8
60
419, 456, 494, 531, 569, 606, 644, 681
Table 2
Test Results of the Algorithm Using Generalized Inverse Estimation When Applying Zero Noise and Unquantized Image Sensor Responsesa
Munsell (CIE)
Floral (CIE)
Munsell (Measured)
Floral (Measured)
Number of Sensors
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
3
12.06 (0.71)
0.9679 (0.0020)
12.16 (0.88)
0.9542 (0.0022)
6.910 (0.20)
0.9818
9.267 (0.43)
0.9715
4
7.980 (0.88)
0.9845 (0.0021)
11.266 (0.96)
0.9664 (0.0036)
4.201 (0.099)
0.9941
6.691 (0.94)
0.9802 (0.0015)
6
4.371 (0.33)
0.9957
6.561 (1.6)
0.9767 (0.0043)
2.676 (0.093)
0.9976
3.713 (0.10)
0.9899
8
3.321 (0.17)
0.996
4.012 (0.85)
0.9824 (0.0019)
2.124 (0.057)
0.9976
3.6281 (0.69)
0.9892 (0.002)
Mean Euclidean distance in the CIELuv space between the actual and the estimated spectra, standard deviation , mean GFC, and standard deviation of GFC are listed. In this test, Munsell floral test reflectances were illuminated by CIE standard and measured test daylights.
Table 3
Test Results of the Algorithm Using Wiener Estimation When Applying Zero Noise and Unquantized Image Sensor Responsesa
Munsell (CIE)
Floral (CIE)
Munsell (Measured)
Floral (Measured)
Number of Sensors
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
3
13.4 (0.68)
0.9573 (0.0020)
17.1 (1.0)
0.9441 (0.0031)
13.3 (0.61)
0.9587 (0.0011)
13.2 (0.59)
0.9600 (0.0013)
4
12.9 (1.0)
0.9667 (0.0026)
14.0 (1.8)
0.9528 (0.0071)
6.91 (0.22)
0.9883
8.78 (1.2)
0.9772 (0.0021)
6
5.52 (0.28)
0.9862
7.19 (1.7)
0.9776 (0.0048)
3.54 (0.097)
0.9946
2.90 (0.65)
0.9888 (0.0014)
8
3.27 (0.15)
0.9943
3.38 (1.9)
0.9845 (0.0063)
1.99 (0.055)
0.9971
1.20 (0.11)
0.9917
Mean Euclidean distance in CIELuv space between the actual and the estimated spectra, standard deviation , mean GFC, and standard deviation of GFC are listed. In this test, Munsell floral test reflectances were illuminated by CIE standard and measured test daylights.
Table 4
Test Results of the Algorithm Using Generalized Inverse Estimation When Applying Different Numbers of Image Sensor Responsesa
Munsell (CIE)
Floral (CIE)
Munsell (Measured)
Floral (Measured)
Number of Sensors
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
3
12.20 (0.069)
0.9681
12.58 (0.088)
0.9537
7.842 (0.020)
0.9819
9.717 (0.035)
0.9704
4
7.082 (0.068)
0.9875
12.53 (0.10)
0.9650
4.803 (0.040)
0.9923
6.759 (0.068)
0.9830
6
4.750 (0.061)
0.9927
9.115 (0.14)
0.9739
2.937 (0.013)
0.9971
3.805 (0.036)
0.9890
8
3.464 (0.020)
0.9961
6.321 (0.13)
0.9765
2.371 (0.011)
0.9972
3.171 (0.075)
0.9890
Mean Euclidean distance in CIELuv space between the actual and the estimated spectra, standard deviation , mean GFC, and standard deviation of GFC are listed. The sensor responses were multiplied with Gaussian noise, and the resultant responses were quantized to . In this test, Munsell floral test reflectances were illuminated by CIE standard and measured test daylights.
Table 5
Test Results of the Algorithm Using Wiener Estimation When Applying Different Numbers of Image Sensor Responsesa
Munsell (CIE)
Floral (CIE)
Munsell (Measured)
Floral (Measured)
Number of Sensors
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
CIELuv Distance ()
GFC ()
3
13.5 (0.071)
0.9572
16.3 (0.096)
0.9456
12.2 (0.057)
0.9613
13.5 (0.057)
0.9603
4
11.4 (0.080)
0.9713
15.9 (0.17)
0.9498
7.17 (0.044)
0.9872
14.4 (0.20)
0.9587
6
5.08 (0.051)
0.9859
11.4 (0.16)
0.9687
3.39 (0.013)
0.9946
9.39 (0.15)
0.9746
8
3.44 (0.019)
0.9939
3.97 (0.23)
0.9812
2.29 (0.010)
0.9967
1.37 (0.016)
0.9913
Mean Euclidean distance in CIELuv space between the actual and the estimated spectra, standard deviation , mean GFC, and standard deviation of GFC are listed. The sensor responses were multiplied with Gaussian noise, and the resultant responses were quantized to . In this test, Munsell floral test reflectances were illuminated by CIE standard and measured test daylights.