The ULAB Colour Space
Dong-Ho Kim*
FourOne System Co. Ltd., 76, Geomdanro-27gil, Buk-gu, Daegu 702-800, Korea
Received 11 November 2012; revised 4 October 2013; accepted 7 October 2013
Abstract: A new colour space, named ULAB, is developed.
It is derived from the CIELAB colour space and can be con-
verted to and from CIELAB. Unlike modified CIELAB
colour-difference formulae, ULAB incorporates corrections
for lightness, chroma, and hue differences into its colour
coordinates. For the small magnitude colour difference
data, it shows the performance as good as more compli-
cated formulae such as CIEDE2000. ULAB shows another
chance of developing a colour space approximately more
uniform than CIELAB. VC 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Col Res Appl,
40, 17–29, 2015; Published Online 16 December 2013 in Wiley Online
Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/col.21854
Key words: colour space; colour difference formula; CIE-
LAB; CIEDE2000
INTRODUCTION
Colour-difference formula is an essential tool for indus-
trial colour quality control. Since the International Com-
mission on Illumination (CIE) recommended the
CIELAB1 and CIELUV1 colour spaces for unifying the
usage of practice in 1976, various colour-difference
formulae were developed by modifying CIELAB. Those
representative ones showing better performance to the
perceptual data than CIELAB are: CMC2 and BFD3 in
1980s, and CIE94,4 LCD99 (Leeds Colour Difference
1999)5 and DIN996 in 1990s. The approach culminated to
the CIEDE20007 formula.
The lack of associated colour spaces for most advanced
CIELAB-based formulae stimulated colour scientists form-
ing the CIE Technical Committee 1-55: Uniform Colour
Space for Industrial Colour-Difference Evaluation in 1999.
Attempts for developing the uniform colour space (UCS)
were made and those based on DIN99 and the CIECAM028
colour appearance model were proposed by Cui et al.9 in
*Correspondence to: Dong-Ho Kim (e-mail: donghokim@korea.com)
Contract grant sponsor: Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning,
Korea.
C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
V of the colour-difference formula is judged by the
Volume 40, Number 1, February 2015
2002 and Luo et al.10 in 2006, respectively. In 2009, Oleari
et al.11 achieved a Euclidean formula, OSA-GPE, based on
the log-compressed OSA-UCS space. These UCSs showed
reasonable performances comparable to CIEDE2000 in pre-
dicting the colour discrimination data. Regarding the UCS,
the Euclidization of the first quadrant of CIEDE2000 by
V€olz12 is also noteworthy.
This article describes the development of a new colour
space, named ULAB. The small magnitude colour differ-
ence data used to develop CIEDE2000 were re-analysed
and re-tested with four colour-difference formulae (CMC,
CIE94, LCD99, and CIEDE2000), five colour spaces
(CIELAB, DIN99, DIN99d,9 CAM02-SCD,10 and OSA-
GPE), and ULAB.
METHODOLOGY
Dataset
The colour-difference dataset compiled by Luo et al.7
was used in this study. It combined the four different
datasets: BFD,13 RIT,14,15, KIM,16 and WIT,17 and was
used for developing the CIEDE2000 formula. The use of
this dataset is good for benchmarking existing and new
colour-difference formulae and colour spaces. Table I
shows the number of pairs originally included in each
dataset, those actually tested, and those in combined
(hereafter COM) dataset, etc. The visual differences (DV)
were adjusted to a common scale (DVa) based on
CIEDE2000 (DE00).
DVa 5M  DV (1)
P
ðDE00  DVÞ
where M5 P .
ðDVÞ2
In Table II, to test the performance of colour models, the
dataset was further divided according to the prevalence of
colour attributes and colour centers.
Performance
The uniformity of the colour space or the performance
17
TABLE I. Datasets used for testing colour-difference formulae and colour spaces
No. No. pairs No. pairs Weighting No. pairs in combined Percentage DV adjustment
Dataset pairs exc.a tested factor (COM) dataset (%) factor

RIT 312 0 312 8 2496 24.7 0.954

WIT 418 4 414 6 2484 24.6 0.395
KIM 0 307 8 2456 24.3
PCb 104 0.812
GSc 203 0.949
BFD 2776 108 2668 1 2668 26.4 0.943
Sum 3813 112 3701 - 10,104 100.0 –
a
Pairs having very small (DE   0:2, 49 pairs) and large (DE   10, 63 pairs) colour-differences were excluded from the combined dataset.
b
PC: the pair comparison method.
c
GS: the grey scale method.

agreement between the visual differences (DV) obtained Logarithmic Function.

by psychophysical experiments and the calculated differ-
DIN99 : L99 5105:51 ln ð110:0158 L Þ (4)
ences (DE) using the particular colour model. The two
performance testing indices are currently widely used:
PF/33 and STRESS.18 The values of these indices desig- DIN99d : L99d 5325:22 ln ð110:0036 L Þ (5)
nate the degree of disagreement between DV and DE,
e.g., PF/3 5 30 indicates approximately a 30% discrep-    
ancy between DV and DE. The smaller the PF or STRESS 1 0:15
OSA-GPE : LE 5 ln 11 LOSA (6)
value, the better the performance of colour model. 0:015 2:89

Model colour space where LOSA is the OSA-UCS lightness.

The model colour space in this study is ULAB. The Hyperbolic Function.
coordinates of ULAB are denoted with subscript “U”: LU 1:7J
(lightness), CU (chroma), hU (hue-angle), etc. CAM02-SCD : J 0 5 (7)
110:007J
The ULAB colour difference, DEU, between two colour
stimuli is calculated as Eq. (2).
"      #1=2 where J is the CIECAM02 lightness.
DLU 2 DCU 2 DHU 2 Figure 1 shows each lightness scale as a function of Y.
DEU 5 1 1 (2)
kL kC kH [The ULAB lightness LU is given in Eq. (15).]
where DLU, DCU, and DHU are ULAB lightness, chroma,
and hue differences between the “reference” and “test” in TABLE II. The test dataset (3701 pairs) divided
a pair. according to the prevalence of colour attributes, and
The kL, kC, and kH are correction factors for lightness grey and blue centers
difference, chroma difference, and hue difference, respec-
Subset group Data dividing conditiona No. pairs
tively. For the reference condition, the correction factors
are set at unity. L  2 666
DL
DE00  0:75

CHR ðDCÞ2 1ðDHÞ2 1DR 2283

Lightness Scale ðDE00 Þ2
 0:75
0
Grey C m < 10 384
Lightness Functions. The lightness functions of colour Blue 0
230 < h m < 320 377
models considered in this study are mainly classified into C  2 372
DC
DE00  0:75
the power, the logarithmic, and the hyperbolic functions.  2
H DH 610
Power Function. DE00  0:75
 1=3  3 CH The rest of CHR 540
Y Y 6
CIELAB : L 5116 216 for > ; and
Yn Yn 29 LCH None of the above 752
 3    3 a
The rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
CIEDE2000 colour-difference formula is given by
29 Y Y 6
L 5 for  (3)  0 2  0 2  0 2
DL
 0  0 
3 Yn Yn 29 DE00 5 kL SL 1 kDC C SC
1 kDH H SH
1RT kDC C SC
DH
kH SH . For brevity,
0
component colour differences are denoted as follows: DL5 kDL ,
0 0
 0  0  L SL

where Y and Yn are the CIE tristimulus value Y and that DC5 kDC
C SC
, DH5 DH
k H SH , and DR5R DC
T k C SC
DH
kH SH . k L, k C , and kH val-
of the perfect reflecting diffuser. ues are all set to unity.

18 COLOR research and application

FIG. 1. The lightness scale as a function of the CIE tristi- FIG. 2. Lightness weighting functions (a* 5 b* 5 0).
mulus value Y (a* 5 b* 5 0).
tions are obtained by using Eq. (13) and setting a* 5 b* 5
0. In the figure, the sudden changes of SL values near L* 5
8 for CAM02-SCD and OSA-GPE are due to the extension
Lightness Weighting Functions. The lightness weight- of L* from cube-root to linear functions for dark colours
ing functions (SL) are used for adjusting the non- (Pauli extension19). It is also the case for ULAB.
uniformity of existing colour space’s lightness scale.
Modeling Lightness Scale. The lightness function LU
CIE94; and LCD99 : SL 51 (8)
was modeled by referring to the forms of the above light-
0:040975 L ness and lightness weighting functions. By considering
SL 5 if L  16 also the compatibility and reversibility to existing equa-
CMC : 110:01765 L (9)
tions, it was modeled as Eq. (14).
SL 50:511 if L < 16
0:015ðL 250Þ2 LU 5ðp1 Þ ln ð11p2 Y1p3 Y 3 Þ (14)
CIEDE2000 : SL 511 (10)
½201ðL 250Þ2 1=2
where Y is the CIE tristimulus value.
The weighting function for the component colour dif- The model coefficients of Eq. (14) were determined by
ference can be calculated directly. The Euclidean distance two steps. First, the shape of LU (against Y) was approxi-
in the modified CIELAB colour difference formula is mated to the CIE L*, and simultaneously the shape of SL
given as of LU calculated by Eq. (13) was made to similar to that
" of CIEDE2000. It was carried out on the trial and error
   2   #1=2
DL 2 DC DH  2 basis. Next, the pi values were further optimized for the
DE5 1 1 (11) lightness difference dataset (L subset in Table II) by min-
kL S L kC SC kH SH
imizing the combined PF/3 and STRESS values,
Let DC* and DH* be zero and all correction factors k be ðPF=31100  STRESSÞ=2, using the GRG (Generalized
1 in Eq. (11). Then, Reduced Gradient) nonlinear method of the Solver in
jDL j Microsoft Excel. A similar approach was carried out by
DE5 (12) Luo et al.10 in the development of CIECAM02 based
SL
UCS. To obtain the best coefficients in the model, they
Thus, minimized PF/3 using a Quasi-Newton method until the
jDL j smallest PF/3 value was reached. The degree of fit of LU
SL 5 (13) can be seen in the results section. The ULAB lightness
DE
function, Lu is given in Eq. (15).
Along the L* axis, if we calculate a series of lightness
LU 510  ln ð111:2Y10:02Y 3 Þ (15)
differences (DL*) and the corresponding colour differen-
ces (DE) using a particular colour model, we can compute where Y is the CIE tristimulus value and can be calcu-
the lightness weighting function (SL). In Fig. 2, all SL func- lated from L* as follows:

Volume 40, Number 1, February 2015 19

  
L 116 3
Y5Yn if L > 8
116
 3 (16)
3
Y5Yn L 
if L  8
29

where Yn is the CIE tristimulus value Y for the perfect

reflecting diffuser.

Chroma Scale
Chroma Functions. The CIELAB chroma function C*
is the combination of power functions of the CIE tristi-
mulus values X, Y, and Z.
Power Function.

CIELAB : C 5½ða Þ2 1ðb Þ2 1=2 (17)

     FIG. 3. The chroma scale as a function of the CIELAB

1=3  1=3 1=3
chroma C* (L* 5 50, and hab 5 0).
where a 5 500 XXn 2 YYn and b 5 200 YYn
 1=3  6
3
2 ZZn , for XXn , YYn and ZZn > 29 . X, Y, Z are the tristi-
chroma scale resulting to improve uniformity. Those of
mulus values of the test colour stimulus, and Xn, Yn, Zn CMC, CIE94, LCD99, and CIEDE2000 are as follows.
are those of the perfect reflecting diffuser.
The four colour spaces (DIN99, DIN99d, CAM02- 0:0638 C
CMC : SC 5 10:638 (22)
SCD, and OSA-GPE) have chroma scales derived from 110:0131 C
the logarithmic function of C* or its analogue. In the
below, the detailed equations for the chroma (the colour- CIE94 : SC 5110:045 C (23)
fulness in the case of CAM02-SCD) is only provided for
DIN99. Those for other colour spaces, please see LCD99 : SC 5ð110:045 C ÞSCH (24)
references.
Logarithmic Function. where SCH 5110:07 cos ðhab 290Þ10:16 cos ð2hab 170Þ2
0:05 cos ð3hab Þ20:03 cos ð4hab Þ for C > 4, and SCH 51
ln ð110:045GÞ for C  4.
DIN99 : C99 5 (18)
0:045 CIEDE2000 : SC 5110:045 C0 (25)
 
2 2 1=2  
where G 5 ½e 1f  , e 5 a cos ð16 Þ1b sin ð16 Þ, and
  As can be seen, SC of LCD99 is hue-angle dependent and
f 50:7½b cos ð16 Þ2a sin ð16 Þ.
that of CIEDE2000 calculated from the different chroma
DIN99d : C99d 522:5 ln ð110:06GÞ (19) scale C0 . Thus, all SC curves in Fig. 4 are drawn by using
the following equation similar in form to Eq. (13).
where G is different from but similarly determined to that
of DIN99. jDC j
SC 5 (26)
DE
ln ð110:0363MÞ
CAM02-SCD : M0 5 (20) where DE is the colour difference calculated by a particu-
0:0363
lar colour space and corresponds to DC*. The lightness
where M is the CIECAM02 colourfulness. and hue-angle are fixed at L* 5 50, and hab 5 0.
   
1 0:5 Modeling Chroma Scale. By considering the general
OSA-GPE : CE 5 ln 11 COSA (21)
0:05 1:256 form and the compatibility of the existing chroma func-
tions above, the chroma function CU was modeled as the
where COSA is the OSA-UCS chroma. The chroma func- logarithmic function of C* as following.
tions are plotted against C* in Fig. 3. [The ULAB chroma
CU is given in Eq. (28).] CU 5ðp4 Þ ln ½11p5 ðeC Þ (27)

Chroma Weighting Functions. The chroma weighting where e is a factor used for adjusting C* before the loga-
function (SC) is used to adjust the existing colour space’s rithmic compression. It is temporarily set to unity in the

20 COLOR research and application

FIG. 4. Chroma weighting functions (L* 5 50, and hab 5 FIG. 5. The hue-angle change as a function of the CIE-
0). LAB hue-angle hab (L* 5 50, and C* 5 25).

chroma scale modeling, as e is dependent on the CIELAB

L* and hab, and determined when the new colour space’s
hue-angle hU is calculated. The coefficients of Eq. (27) where e and f are different from but similarly determined
were determined by minimizing the combined PF/3 and to those of DIN99.
STRESS values to fit the dataset mainly having chroma  
b
differences (C subset in Table II). The ULAB chroma CAM02-SCD : h5tan 21 (32)
function, CU is given in Eq. (28). a

ln ½110:065ðeC Þ where “a” and “b” are initial opponent responses in

CU 5 (28) CIECAM02.
0:036
 
where e is the L* and hab dependent chroma pre-scaling 21 2J
OSA-GPE : h5tan (33)
factor (see Modeling Hue Scale section). As in the case G
of the lightness scale modeling, please refer to the results
section for the degree of fit of CU. where G and J are computed from the CIE tristimulus
values X, Y, and Z. Figure 5 shows the change of hue-
angles in each colour space when it is transformed from
CIELAB. The curves are drawn for L* 5 50 and C* 5
Hue Scale 25. [The ULAB hue-angle hU is given in Eq. (42).]
Hue Functions. The hue-angle of the colour space is
generally determined by taking the arctangent of the ratio Hue Weighting Functions. In most cases, the hue
of the yellow-blue to the red-green opponent responses. weighting function (SH) has dependency on both the
That of CIELAB is given by Eq. (29). chroma and the hue-angle.
 
21 b CMC : SH 5ðFT112FÞSC (34)
CIELAB : hab 5tan (29)
a
where SC is given in Eq. (22), and
where a* and b* are given by Eq. (17). Hue-angles of
other colour spaces are as follows. " #1=2
ðC Þ4
  F5 ;
f ðC Þ4 11900
DIN99 : h99 5tan 21 (30)
e
T 50:361j0:4 cos ð351hab Þj if h < 164 or h > 345; and
where e and f are given by Eq. (18).
  T 50:561j0:2 cos ð1681hab Þj if 164  h  345:
21 f
DIN99d : h99d 5tan 150 (31)
e CIE94 : SH 5110:015 C (35)

Volume 40, Number 1, February 2015 21

 TABLE IV. The relation among the hue-angle (h), the
eccentricity factor (et), and the hue quadrature (H) in
CIECAM02
i hi ei (et) Hi (x0.9)

1 (red) 20.14 0.8 0

2 (yellow) 90 0.7 90
3 (green) 164.25 1 180
4 (blue) 237.53 1.2 270

FIG. 6. Hue weighting functions (L* 5 50, and C* 5 25).
The SH of CIE94 has no hue-angle dependency.
LCD99 : SH 5ð110:015 C ÞSHH (36)
where SHH 5120:03cos ðhab 160Þ10:12cos ð2hab Þ10:12
cos ð3hab Þ20:07cos ð4hab 245Þ for C > 4, and SHH 51
for C  4.
CIEDE2000 : SH 5110:015 C0 T (37)
where T 5120:17cos ðh0 230Þ10:24cos ð2h0 Þ10:32 cos
ð3h 16Þ20:2cos ð4h0 263Þ. As SL and SC, SH is calculated
0
using the following equation.
jDH  j
SH 5 (38)
DE
where DE is the colour difference calculated by a particu-
lar colour space and corresponds to DH*. In Fig. 6, the
lightness and chroma are fixed at L* 5 50, and C* 5 25.
Modeling Hue Scale. First, it was considered the
DIN99 hue-angle h99 and the CIECAM02 (CAM02-SCD)
hue quadrature H. The h99 is calculated from the e and f
coordinates (axes) which are the results of the rotation
and re-scaling of a*b* coordinates [see Eqs. (18) and
(30).] That is, hab 5 16 , 106 , 196 , and 286 are rotated
to h99 5 0 , 90 , 180 , and 270 , respectively. Then, the
rotated axes along the directions of 1a99, 1b99, 2a99,
and 2b99 are scaled by factors of 1, 0.7, 1, and 0.7,
respectively. The relation is summarized in Table III.
The relation between hue-angle (h) and hue quadrature
(H) of CIECAM02 is given in Table IV. The eccentricity
factor, et of CIECAM02 is computed from h using Eq.
(39).
h  p  i
et 50:25 cos h 12 13:8 (39)
180
et for intermediate hue-angle (hi  h < hi11 ) is originally
calculated by linear interpolation of the data in Table IV
using Eq. (40).20
 
h2hi
et 5ei 1ðei11 2ei Þ (40)
hi11 2hi
Eq. (41) shows the calculation of H for hi  h < hi11 .
" h2h
#
i
H5Hi 1100 ei
(41)
h2hi 2h
ei 1 hi11
ei11
It can be seen that the transformation from h to H in
CIECAM02 is similar to that from hab to h99, i.e., the
rotation and scaling of coordinates.
In the modeling of hU, the five hue angles (hU 5 0 ,
90 , 180 , 240 , and 300 ) are selected as key positions
for the coordinates transformation (rotation and scaling).
The relation of hU to hab and e (the chroma pre-scaling
factor) is set as in Table V. The five hue angles are
selected for correcting not only the hue scale but also the
irregularity of colour discrimination ellipses in the grey
and blue regions. hU 5 0 , 90 , 180 and factors e1, e2,
e3 are for adjusting the elongation of discrimination ellip-
ses along yellow-blue axis in the neutral region. hU 5
240 , 300 and factors e4, e5 are for adjusting the rotation
of ellipses in the blue region. The scaling factor e for the

TABLE III. The relation among the hab, the scaling TABLE V. The presumed relation among the hab, the
factors along colour axes, and the h99 in the DIN99 chroma prescaling factor (e) and the hU
colour space
i hi (hab) ei hU,i
Directions hab Scaling factor h99
1 h1 e1 0
1a99 16 1 0 2 h2 e2 90
1b99 106 0.7 90 3 h3 e3 180
2a99 196 1 180 4 h4 e4 240
2b99 286 0.7 270 5 h5 e5 300

22 COLOR research and application

TABLE VI. The relation among the hab, the chroma transformation from hab to hU, the degrees of the rotation
prescaling factor (e) and the hU and scaling are dependent on the lightness level. To make
the conversion from hab to hU and vice versa easier and
i hi (hab) ei hU,i
simpler, it is set as h1 5 0, and e1 5 1. Other hi and ei
1 h1 5 0 e1 5 1 hU,1 5 0 values given in Table VI are determined by minimizing
2 h2 5 80 1 0.2L* e2 5 0.95 2 0.004L* hU,2 5 90 the combined PF/3 and STRESS values to fit the dataset
3 h3 5 195 2 0.25L* e3 5 1.05 hU,3 5 180
4 h4 5 260 2 0.15L* e4 5 1.6 2 0.0075L* hU,4 5 240
mainly having chromatic differences (CHR subset in
5 h5 5 312 2 0.2L* e5 5 0.12 1 0.0075L* hU,5 5 300 Table II). The degree of fit of hU can be seen in the
results section.

hue-angle, hi  hab < hi11 is computed as Eq. (40). The

hU may be calculated using the equation similar in form
to Eq. (41). However, once e is determined, we can cal-
culate hU using the following simple equation.
! PF/3 values according to the sources of datasets, and Fig.
ei
21
hU 5hU;i 1ðhU;i11 2hU;i Þ eei (42)
ei11 21
In Table V, the hi and ei are assumed to have different
values according to the lightness (L*). That is, in the
RESULTS OF THE COLOUR MODELS TESTING
The performances of 10 colour models are summarized in
Tables VII (PF/3) and VIII (STRESS). Figure 7 visualizes
8 does STRESS values according to the prevalence of col-
our attributes, and grey and blue centers. It can be seen
that ULAB shows a reasonably good and comparable per-
formance to other colour difference formulae or colour
spaces. It performed best to the overall (COM), the WIT,

TABLE VII. Colour models performance testing results (PF/3)

Dataset CIELAB CMC CIE94 LCD99 DIN99 CIEDE 2000 DIN99d CAM02-SCDa OSA-GPE ULAB

COM 54.3 36.4 36.9 35.3 38.3 30.8 33.0 32.6 35.0 30.5
RIT 30.6 28.3 20.2 17.9 22.3 19.3 21.4 22.8 25.8 19.1
WIT 69.3 46.0 41.3 39.3 43.6 37.5 39.1 38.4 44.3 34.5
KIM 47.2 27.3 33.4 32.3 32.7 22.0 26.1 25.3 30.1 24.3
BFD 52.5 37.4 41.2 39.8 43.1 34.8 36.7 36.0 34.5 35.1
L 41.7 37.6 39.3 39.3 36.8 38.6 37.2 37.1 37.9 37.8
CHR 56.6 36.2 34.5 32.5 35.8 29.7 33.5 32.6 33.0 29.6
Grey 30.1 28.6 28.8 29.4 24.9 25.4 26.6 30.0 31.0 26.5
Blue 61.5 45.8 46.9 38.6 45.3 31.9 36.9 30.3 32.9 32.7
C 44.1 31.1 30.7 28.5 31.3 30.1 30.1 28.8 30.5 30.4
H 36.2 36.3 30.0 27.1 30.4 28.3 32.1 33.2 32.1 27.2
CH 46.1 33.9 31.7 30.1 32.6 31.0 32.3 33.5 33.8 30.7
LCH 52.7 39.6 38.6 38.1 40.1 36.6 37.1 37.3 37.6 36.8
a
The lightness correction factor kL 5 1.24 for CAM02-SCD. (kL 5 1 for other models.)

FIG. 7. Performance testing results (PF/3) using the four datasets and the combined dataset.

Volume 40, Number 1, February 2015 23

FIG. 8. Performance testing results (STRESS) using subsets divided according to the prevalence of colour attributes and
colour centers.

TABLE VIII. Colour models performance testing results (STRESS)

Dataset CIELAB CMC CIE94 LCD99 DIN99 CIEDE 2000 DIN99d CAM02-SCDa OSA-GPE ULAB

COM 0.431 0.301 0.321 0.311 0.337 0.268 0.284 0.282 0.289 0.263
RIT 0.265 0.279 0.186 0.167 0.211 0.188 0.209 0.230 0.250 0.184
WIT 0.513 0.353 0.320 0.306 0.343 0.301 0.301 0.306 0.351 0.272
KIM 0.401 0.247 0.306 0.295 0.298 0.192 0.228 0.220 0.262 0.213
BFD 0.403 0.299 0.337 0.329 0.357 0.284 0.301 0.293 0.276 0.280
L 0.325 0.283 0.308 0.308 0.280 0.302 0.287 0.288 0.285 0.291
CHR 0.427 0.296 0.276 0.263 0.293 0.244 0.280 0.272 0.267 0.236
Grey 0.243 0.231 0.231 0.236 0.193 0.216 0.213 0.241 0.254 0.215
Blue 0.486 0.353 0.366 0.310 0.361 0.247 0.297 0.242 0.265 0.267
C 0.376 0.270 0.264 0.243 0.267 0.254 0.251 0.250 0.244 0.255
H 0.307 0.312 0.252 0.231 0.268 0.242 0.286 0.288 0.275 0.226
CH 0.364 0.259 0.244 0.223 0.250 0.236 0.251 0.263 0.247 0.228
LCH 0.411 0.300 0.299 0.295 0.313 0.286 0.287 0.286 0.295 0.281
a
The lightness correction factor kL 5 1.24 for CAM02-SCD. (kL 5 1 for other models.)

and the chromatic differences (CHR) dataset. For the sub- Unlike PF/3, STRESS can be further utilized to test
set having mainly hue differences (H) and that with no whether two colour models are statistically significantly
prevalence of colour attributes (LCH), the results from PF/ different or not. Tables IX to XXI show the F-test result
3 and STRESS are not in agreement with each other. of each dataset or subset using the STRESS values in

TABLE IX. F-test results of the COM dataset using STRESS indices. The number of data in COM set is 10104,
and the left and right confidence values of F distribution with 5% significance level are 0.962 and 1.040, respec-
tively. (In Tables X to XXI, figures in parenthesis in the caption of each table refer to these values for each subset.)

24 COLOR research and application

TABLE X. RIT subset (312, 0.800, 1.249)

TABLE XI. WIT subset (414, 0.824, 1.213)

TABLE XII. KIM subset (307, 0.799, 1.252)

TABLE XIII. BFD subset (2668, 0.927, 1.079)

Volume 40, Number 1, February 2015 25

TABLE XIV. L subset (666, 0.859, 1.164)

TABLE XV. CHR subset (2283, 0.921, 1.086)

TABLE XVI. Grey subset (384, 0.818, 1.222)

TABLE XVII. Blue subset (377, 0.817, 1.224)

26 COLOR research and application

TABLE XVIII. C subset (372, 0.816, 1.226)

TABLE XIX. H subset (610, 0.853, 1.172)

TABLE XX. CH subset (540, 0.844, 1.184)

TABLE XXI. LCH subset (752, 0.867, 1.154)

Volume 40, Number 1, February 2015 27

Table VIII. The cell filled with the leaf-green colour rep- TABLE A1. The relation among the hab, the chroma
resents that the colour model shown on the cross of the prescaling factor (e) and the hU
first row and the column containing the cell has a statisti-
i hi (hab) ei hU,i
cally significantly better performance than that shown on
the cross of the first column and the row containing the 1 0 1 0
cell. The opposite is the case when the cell is filled with 2 80 1 0.2L* 0.95 2 0.004L* 90
3 195 2 0.25L* 1.05 180
the orange colour. Thus for a particular colour model, the 4 260 2 0.15L* 1.6 2 0.0075L* 240
more the number of leaf-green cells is in the column, the 5 312 2 0.2L* 0.12 1 0.0075L* 300
better the performance is. When there is no statistical sig-
nificance between the colour models, the cell is not filled
with any colour. From Tables IX to XXI, it can be seen
ln ½110:065ðeC Þ
that ULAB shows best fits (for five subsets) or no statisti- CU 5 ; (A.3)
cal differences to the best models (for seven subsets). 0:036
Only for the Grey subset, ULAB is statistically signifi- where e is calculated by using the data in Table AI as
cantly worse than the best colour model (DIN99). follows:
 
CONCLUSION hab 2hi
e5ei 1ðei11 2ei Þ if hi  hab < hi11 :
A new colour space ULAB was developed by testing and hi11 2hi
improving the relationship between the existing visual data
and the colour space formula. For the small magnitude col-
our difference dataset used to develop CIEDE2000 colour hU is calculated by using the data in Table AI as
difference formula, it shows reasonable performance com- follows: !
ei
pared with CIEDE2000 as well as some colour spaces 21
hU 5hU;1 1ðhU;i11 2hU;i Þ eei if hi  hab < hi11 :
such as DIN99d, CAM02-SCD, and OSA-GPE. A simple ei11 21
Euclidean distance formula in ULAB colour space is likely (A.4)
to have the functionality as similar as CIEDE2000: correc-
tions for differences in lightness, chroma and hue, and aU 5CU cos ðhU Þ: (A.5)
those of grey and blue colours. As ULAB is fairly concise
and has no hue-angle dependent cosine functions, it is easy
to convert to and from CIELAB. Further testing and opti- bU 5CU sin ðhU Þ: (A.6)
mizing to other colour discrimination data would help the
refinement of ULAB.
ULAB Colour Difference
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Differences between two colour stimuli denoted by sub-
The author is grateful to Drs. Yoon-Cheol Park and scripts 1 (usually the reference or the standard) and 2
Soon-Young Park of KITECH (Korea Institute of Indus- (the test or the batch) shall be calculated as follows:
trial Technology) for their interest and support to this DLU 5LU;2 2LU;1 (A.7)
research.
DaU 5aU;2 2aU;1 (A.8)
APPENDIX : ULAB COLOUR SPACE DbU 5bU;2 2bU;1 (A.9)
ULAB Colour Coordinates DCU 5CU;2 2CU;1 (A.10)
DhU 5hU;2 2hU;1 (A.11)
LU 510  ln ð111:2Y10:02Y 3 Þ; (A.1)  
1=2 DhU
DHU 52ðCU;2  CU;1 Þ sin (A.12)
2
where Y is the CIE tristimulus value and transformed
from L*: The ULAB colour difference DEU between two colour
  stimuli is calculated as;
L 116 3 "  #1=2
Y5Yn if L > 8; and (A.2) 1 DLU 2 2 2
116 DEU 5 1ðDCU Þ 1ðDHU Þ (A.13)
1:33 kL
 3
3 or
Y5Yn L if L  8: "  #1=2
29 DLU 2 2 2
DEU 50:75 1ðDaU Þ 1ðDbU Þ ; (A.14)
Note. LU 5 100 for Y 5 100 (or L* 5 100) when the kL
coefficient in front of the log function is changed from
100
‘10’ to ln ½111:2ð100Þ10:02ð100Þ3 .

where kL 5 1 for the reference condition.

28 COLOR research and application

Note. The ideal formula for the Euclidean distance
between the two points in ULAB space is: a 5C cos ðhab Þ: (A.18)
      1=2
2 2 2
DEU 5 k1E DL U
1 DC U
1 DH U
, where the coef-
kL kC kH
b 5C sin ðhab Þ: (A.19)
ficients (k) are correction factors for total or component col-
our differences. In Figs. 2, 4 and 6, it can be seen that the
relative sizes of lightness, chroma, and hue weighting func-
tions of ULAB become similar to those of other colour mod- 1. CIE Publ. 15:2004. Colorimetry. Vienna: CIE Central Bureau; 2004.
els when a factor of 1.33 is multiplied to them. Thus, kE 5 2. Clarke FJJ, McDonald R, Rigg B. Modification to the JPC79 colour-
difference formula. J Soc Dyers Col 1984;100:128-132; 281-282.
1.33 is applied to the DEU equation above.
3. Luo MR, Rigg B. BFD(l:c) colour-difference formula. Part 1: Develop-
ment of the formula. J Soc Dyers Col 1987;103:86-94.
Inverting ULAB to CIELAB 4. CIE Publ. 116:1995. Industrial Colour Difference Evaluation. Vienna:
 1=3  3 CIE Central Bureau; 1995.
Y Y 6
L 5116 216 if > ; and 5. Kim DH, Cho EK, Kim JP. Evaluation of CIELAB-based colour-differ-
Yn Yn 29 ence formulae using a new dataset. Color Res Appl 2001;26:369-375.
6. DIN 6176: Farbmetrische Bestimmung von Farbabst€anden bei
 3    3
29 Y Y 6 K€oroerfarben nach der DIN99-Formel. Berlin: DIN Deutsche Institut

L 5 if  ; (A.15) f€
ur Normung e.V; 2000.
3 Yn Yn 29 7. Luo MR, Cui G, Rigg B. The development of the CIE 2000 colour-
difference formula: CIEDE2000. Color Res Appl 2001;26:340-350.
where the CIE tristimulus value Y is calculated from LU 8. CIE Publ. 159:2004. A Colour Appearance Model for Colour Manage-
by using following equations:21 ment Systems. Vienna: CIE Central Bureau; 2004.
9. Cui G, Luo MR, Rigg B, Roesler G. Uniform colour spaces based on the
Y5r1s; DIN99 colour-difference formula. Color Res Appl 2002;27:282-290.
where 10. Luo MR, Cui G, Li C. Uniform colour spaces based on CIECAM02
colour appearance model. Color Res Appl 2006;31:320-330.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!1=3 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!1=3 11. Oleari C, Melgosa M, Huertas R. Euclidean color-difference formula
q d q d for small-medium color differences in log-compressed OSA-UCS space.
r5 2 1 2 ; and s5 2 2 2 ; J Opt Soc Am A 2009;26:121-134.
2 108 2 108
12. V€olz HG. Euclidization of the CIEDE2000 color difference system
for the calculation of large color differences. Color Res Appl 2006;31:
where    5-12.
LU 13. Luo MR, Rigg B. Chromaticity-discrimination ellipses for surface col-
q550 12exp ; and d524ð60Þ3 227q2 : ours. Color Res Appl 1986;11:25-42.
10
14. Alman DH, Berns RS, Snyder GD, Larsen WA. Performance testing of
color-difference metrics using a color tolerance dataset. Color Res Appl
exp ð0:036 CU Þ21
C 5 ; 1989;14:139-151.
0:065ðeÞ 15. Berns RS, Alman DH, Reniff L, Snyder GD, Balonon-Rosen MR. Vis-
where e is calculated using the data in Table AI as ual determination of suprathreshold color-difference tolerances using
probit analysis. Color Res Appl 1991;16:297-316.
follows: 16. Kim DH. The influence of parametric effects on the appearance of small
colour differences. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; 1997.
hU;i11 2hU;i 17. Witt K. Geometric relations between scales of small colour differences.
e5 ðh if hU;i  hU < hU;i11 : (A.16)
U;i11 2hU Þ ðhU 2hU;i Þ Color Res Appl 1999;24:78-92.
ei 1 ei11 18. Garcia P, Huertas R, Melgosa M, Cui G. Measurement of the relation-
ship between perceived and computed Color differences. J Opt Soc Am
A 2007;24:1823-1829.
hab is calculated by using the data in Table AI as 19. Pauli H, Proposed extension of the CIE recommendation on “Uniform
follows: Color Spaces, Color Difference Equations, and Metric Color Terms”. J
  Opt Soc Am 1976;66:866-867.
e2ei 20. Luo MR, Hunt RWG. The structure of the CIE 1997 colour appearance
hab 5hi 1ðhi11 2hi Þ if hU;i  hU < hU;i11 : model (CIECAM97s). Color Res Appl 1998;23:138-146.
ei11 2ei
21. Lengyel E. Mathematics for 3D Game Programming and Computer
(A.17) Graphics, 2nd edition. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media; 2004.

Volume 40, Number 1, February 2015 29