Pass–fail decisions for three groups of textile patterns around
twelve color centers were correlated statistically with color differences, from
filter–colorimeter measurements, according to twenty formulas. Almost completely
acceptable or unacceptable patterns were omitted, leaving 854 involving over
37,000 decisions. A more balanced selection of 589 patterns involved nearly
28,000 decisions. Adams Chromatic Value type formulas, especially the Morton and
the Glasser Cube Root versions, performed significantly better both than most
others and than assessors too severe or too lenient and no worse than assessors
of correct severity. Problems are discussed.
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.
Number of patterns: a, assessed; b
accepted on less than 50% of occasions; c accepted on
5–95% of occasions.
One pattern per color omitted because of instrument/computer errors.
Not included in correlations (Sect. IV) for reasons discussed there:
omitting this set reduces the total for industrial c to
234.
Table II
Acceptability of Colors, Third Group of Patterns (HATRA-560) and Selected
Plain-Knita
Third,
HATRA-560 group
Selected
HATRA plain-knit group
Sets
Color
a
b
c
c Plain
c Ripple
Sets
c
c1
c2
c3
c4
(11)–(16)
blue
120
79
91
47
44
(3,4,11,12,15)
84
25
12
27
20
(17)–(22)
red
120
66
91
46
45
(6,7,17,18,21)
82
19
11
23
29
(23)–(24)
yellow
40
24
34
34
—
(10,23,24)
53
22
5
7
19
(25)–(32)
green
160
89
125
86
39
(25)–(29)
86
25
22
23
16
(33)–(38)
brown
120
67
94
50
44
(33)–(35)
50
16
12
14
8
Total
560
325
435
263
172
355
107
62
94
92
Number of patterns: a assessed, b
accepted on less than 50% of occasions, c on 5–95% of
occasions; c1 acceptability 5–25%;
c2 > 25–50%;
c3 > 50–75%;
c4 > 75–95%.
k values used: ACV, , 42; , 41.86; now recommended: 40.
Table VII
Percentage of Wrong Decisions with Various Formulas and Two Colorimeters,
Based on a 50% Acceptability Criterion
Formula
Harrison
Colormaster
ACV
5
14
SH
7
15
C64
7
15
JH
9
16
IR
10
14
FMC
11
19
Mean
8
16
Table VIII
Correlation Coefficients, ×(−100), Between Visual Acceptability (%A) and
Calculated Color Difference (ΔE) with Various
Color-Difference Formulas for the First Two Groups of Patternsa
Vertical lines join formulas or values not significantly different at the
5 % level according to the z test.
Blues include pale blue and navy, reds include light and deep
fuchsia.
Table IX
Significance of the Superiority of the Best Formulas (Hotelling) for the
First Two Groups of Patterns
Group
%
Levels:
5 or
(4.5)
4 or
(2.5)
2 or (1)
5×
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−6
10−8
Ze2
sig.
( )
HGY
C64
better
HGY, DH
JH
C64
HATRA-185
than
( )
(HGY)
C64
ACV
( )
(HGY)
DH
JH
C64
G64
sig.
, Ze2
ACV, HGY
C64
Ind.-234
better
Ze2
ACV, HGY
C64
Ze2
than
C64
ACV
C64
C64
sig.
Ze2
ACV,
HGY
C64
Combined-419
better
ACV
HGY
C64
Ze2
than
( )
HGY
C64
ACV
HGY
C64
C64
Table X
Hotelling t Significance Lines for the First Two Groups of
Patterns, for the Best Formulas that Do Not Differ Significantly by the z
Testa
Vertical lines join correlation coefficients, r, ×
(−100) between visual acceptability (%A) and color difference
(ΔE) not significantly different at the 5 %
level.
Table XI
Correlation Coefficients, ×(−100), Between Visual Acceptability (%A) and
Calculated Color Difference (ΔE) with 13 Color Difference
Formulas Involving the Third Group of Patternsa
Vertical lines join values not significantly different at the 5% level
according to the z test.
Table XII
Significance Levels of Differences in Correlation Coefficient between Visual
Acceptability and Color Difference (Hotelling) HATRA-435 Groupa
5×
%
levels:
4
2
1
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
10−6 or (−7)
10−8
CDR
sig.
JH, Fkk
ACV
Ze2-FMC
JH
better
ACV
Ze2
HGf-FMC
Fkk
than
ACV
Ze2
HGf, HGY
Ze5
C64, FMC
ACV
FMC
(HGf)
Ze2, Ze5
C64, HGY
ACV, FMC
Ze2
Ze5, C64
HGf
HGY
FMC
C64
ACV, Ze2
HGY
HGf, Ze5
ACV
FMC
Ze2
Ze5, C64
HGf
HGY
Ze2
FMC
Ze5
C64
HGf
HGY
HGf and formulas below did not differ significantly from one another.
Table XIII
Some Color-Difference Intercorrelation Coefficients Between Different
Formulas, r0, for the HATRA-435 Group
Formula
a
Fkk(−0.66)
0.79
0.81
0.95
0.96
Correlation coefficients (%A/ΔE) in parentheses.
Table XIV
z and Hotelling t Significance Lines for 5%
Compared for the HATRA-435 Groupa
Horizontal lines join formulas not significantly different.
indicates the significant (Hotelling) superiority of to and .
Table XV
Correlation Coefficients, ×(−100), Between Visual Acceptability (%A) and
Calculated Color Difference (ΔE) with Eleven Formulas for
the Combined-589, D&F-186, and Overall-775 Groupsa
Vertical lines join values not significantly different at the 5% level
according to the z test.
Table XVI
Significance Levels of Differences in Correlation Coefficient According to
the Hotelling t Test for the D&F-186 Group (Davidson
and Friede Carpet Data Between 5% and 95% Visual Acceptability)
% levels
5 or
(4.5)
4
3.5
3
2
1.5
1
0.5
0.05
0.0005
JH
Ze2
ACV, , C64
FMC
HGY
Fkk
sig.
C64, FMC
HGY
ACV
CDR
better
HGY, FMC
Ze2
than
ACV
, FMC
HGY
FMC
HGY
(ACV)
HGY
ACV
HGY
HGY
Table XVII
Industrial-234 Group: Color Difference (ΔE) Tolerance Limits
for Different Severity Levels According to the Morton Cube Root Formula
(k = 42) for Different Assessor Groups, Based on
Regression with %A Independent, and for All Assessors, Based on Regressions
with %A and with ΔE Independent
ΔE50
ΔE60
ΔE70
Independent
Different
1.8
1.6
1.3
%A
assessor
2.0
1.7
1.4
%A
groups
2.5
2.1
1.8
%A
All
2.1
1.7
1.5
%A
assessors
1.8
1.3
0.8
ΔE
Table XVIII
Variations Between Groups of Patterns in Mean %A, Mean ΔE,
ΔE50, and
ΔE70
Group
185
234
435
D&F
Mean %A
70.8
41.2
45.9
50.5
1.08
2.29
1.75
1.74
1.08
2.32
1.77
1.77
Mean
ΔE
1.08
2.34
1.71
1.74
HGY
1.10
2.48
1.64
1.48
ACV
1.11
2.40
1.70
1.67
1.57
2.05
1.66
1.75
1.55
2.09
1.65
1.78
ΔE50
1.55
2.08
1.63
1.75
HGY
1.61
2.20
1.56
1.49
ACV
1.61
2.15
1.61
1.68
1.10
1.50
1.23
1.35
ΔE70
1.10
1.56
1.23
1.37
1.09
1.49
1.20
1.35
HGY
1.12
1.56
1.18
1.18
ACV
1.13
1.60
1. 19
1.30
Tables (18)
Table I
Acceptability of Colors, First and Second Groups of Patternsa
Number of patterns: a, assessed; b
accepted on less than 50% of occasions; c accepted on
5–95% of occasions.
One pattern per color omitted because of instrument/computer errors.
Not included in correlations (Sect. IV) for reasons discussed there:
omitting this set reduces the total for industrial c to
234.
Table II
Acceptability of Colors, Third Group of Patterns (HATRA-560) and Selected
Plain-Knita
Third,
HATRA-560 group
Selected
HATRA plain-knit group
Sets
Color
a
b
c
c Plain
c Ripple
Sets
c
c1
c2
c3
c4
(11)–(16)
blue
120
79
91
47
44
(3,4,11,12,15)
84
25
12
27
20
(17)–(22)
red
120
66
91
46
45
(6,7,17,18,21)
82
19
11
23
29
(23)–(24)
yellow
40
24
34
34
—
(10,23,24)
53
22
5
7
19
(25)–(32)
green
160
89
125
86
39
(25)–(29)
86
25
22
23
16
(33)–(38)
brown
120
67
94
50
44
(33)–(35)
50
16
12
14
8
Total
560
325
435
263
172
355
107
62
94
92
Number of patterns: a assessed, b
accepted on less than 50% of occasions, c on 5–95% of
occasions; c1 acceptability 5–25%;
c2 > 25–50%;
c3 > 50–75%;
c4 > 75–95%.
k values used: ACV, , 42; , 41.86; now recommended: 40.
Table VII
Percentage of Wrong Decisions with Various Formulas and Two Colorimeters,
Based on a 50% Acceptability Criterion
Formula
Harrison
Colormaster
ACV
5
14
SH
7
15
C64
7
15
JH
9
16
IR
10
14
FMC
11
19
Mean
8
16
Table VIII
Correlation Coefficients, ×(−100), Between Visual Acceptability (%A) and
Calculated Color Difference (ΔE) with Various
Color-Difference Formulas for the First Two Groups of Patternsa
Vertical lines join formulas or values not significantly different at the
5 % level according to the z test.
Blues include pale blue and navy, reds include light and deep
fuchsia.
Table IX
Significance of the Superiority of the Best Formulas (Hotelling) for the
First Two Groups of Patterns
Group
%
Levels:
5 or
(4.5)
4 or
(2.5)
2 or (1)
5×
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−6
10−8
Ze2
sig.
( )
HGY
C64
better
HGY, DH
JH
C64
HATRA-185
than
( )
(HGY)
C64
ACV
( )
(HGY)
DH
JH
C64
G64
sig.
, Ze2
ACV, HGY
C64
Ind.-234
better
Ze2
ACV, HGY
C64
Ze2
than
C64
ACV
C64
C64
sig.
Ze2
ACV,
HGY
C64
Combined-419
better
ACV
HGY
C64
Ze2
than
( )
HGY
C64
ACV
HGY
C64
C64
Table X
Hotelling t Significance Lines for the First Two Groups of
Patterns, for the Best Formulas that Do Not Differ Significantly by the z
Testa
Vertical lines join correlation coefficients, r, ×
(−100) between visual acceptability (%A) and color difference
(ΔE) not significantly different at the 5 %
level.
Table XI
Correlation Coefficients, ×(−100), Between Visual Acceptability (%A) and
Calculated Color Difference (ΔE) with 13 Color Difference
Formulas Involving the Third Group of Patternsa
Vertical lines join values not significantly different at the 5% level
according to the z test.
Table XII
Significance Levels of Differences in Correlation Coefficient between Visual
Acceptability and Color Difference (Hotelling) HATRA-435 Groupa
5×
%
levels:
4
2
1
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
10−6 or (−7)
10−8
CDR
sig.
JH, Fkk
ACV
Ze2-FMC
JH
better
ACV
Ze2
HGf-FMC
Fkk
than
ACV
Ze2
HGf, HGY
Ze5
C64, FMC
ACV
FMC
(HGf)
Ze2, Ze5
C64, HGY
ACV, FMC
Ze2
Ze5, C64
HGf
HGY
FMC
C64
ACV, Ze2
HGY
HGf, Ze5
ACV
FMC
Ze2
Ze5, C64
HGf
HGY
Ze2
FMC
Ze5
C64
HGf
HGY
HGf and formulas below did not differ significantly from one another.
Table XIII
Some Color-Difference Intercorrelation Coefficients Between Different
Formulas, r0, for the HATRA-435 Group
Formula
a
Fkk(−0.66)
0.79
0.81
0.95
0.96
Correlation coefficients (%A/ΔE) in parentheses.
Table XIV
z and Hotelling t Significance Lines for 5%
Compared for the HATRA-435 Groupa
Horizontal lines join formulas not significantly different.
indicates the significant (Hotelling) superiority of to and .
Table XV
Correlation Coefficients, ×(−100), Between Visual Acceptability (%A) and
Calculated Color Difference (ΔE) with Eleven Formulas for
the Combined-589, D&F-186, and Overall-775 Groupsa
Vertical lines join values not significantly different at the 5% level
according to the z test.
Table XVI
Significance Levels of Differences in Correlation Coefficient According to
the Hotelling t Test for the D&F-186 Group (Davidson
and Friede Carpet Data Between 5% and 95% Visual Acceptability)
% levels
5 or
(4.5)
4
3.5
3
2
1.5
1
0.5
0.05
0.0005
JH
Ze2
ACV, , C64
FMC
HGY
Fkk
sig.
C64, FMC
HGY
ACV
CDR
better
HGY, FMC
Ze2
than
ACV
, FMC
HGY
FMC
HGY
(ACV)
HGY
ACV
HGY
HGY
Table XVII
Industrial-234 Group: Color Difference (ΔE) Tolerance Limits
for Different Severity Levels According to the Morton Cube Root Formula
(k = 42) for Different Assessor Groups, Based on
Regression with %A Independent, and for All Assessors, Based on Regressions
with %A and with ΔE Independent
ΔE50
ΔE60
ΔE70
Independent
Different
1.8
1.6
1.3
%A
assessor
2.0
1.7
1.4
%A
groups
2.5
2.1
1.8
%A
All
2.1
1.7
1.5
%A
assessors
1.8
1.3
0.8
ΔE
Table XVIII
Variations Between Groups of Patterns in Mean %A, Mean ΔE,
ΔE50, and
ΔE70