Cargando…
Optimizing Color-Difference Formulas for 3D-Printed Objects
Based on previous visual assessments of 440 color pairs of 3D-printed samples, we tested the performance of eight color-difference formulas (CIELAB, CIEDE2000, CAM02-LCD, CAM02-SCD, CAM02-UCS, CAM16-LCD, CAM16-SCD, and CAM16-UCS) using the standardized residual sum of squares (STRESS) index. For the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9698626/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36433464 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22228869 |
_version_ | 1784838868040679424 |
---|---|
author | Huang, Min Gao, Xinyuan Pan, Jie Li, Xiu Hemingray, Caroline Xiao, Kaida Melgosa, Manuel |
author_facet | Huang, Min Gao, Xinyuan Pan, Jie Li, Xiu Hemingray, Caroline Xiao, Kaida Melgosa, Manuel |
author_sort | Huang, Min |
collection | PubMed |
description | Based on previous visual assessments of 440 color pairs of 3D-printed samples, we tested the performance of eight color-difference formulas (CIELAB, CIEDE2000, CAM02-LCD, CAM02-SCD, CAM02-UCS, CAM16-LCD, CAM16-SCD, and CAM16-UCS) using the standardized residual sum of squares (STRESS) index. For the whole set of 440 color pairs, the introduction of k(L) (lightness parametric factor), b (exponent in total color difference), and k(L) + b produced an average STRESS decrease of 2.6%, 26.9%, and 29.6%, respectively. In most cases, the CIELAB formula was significantly worse statistically than the remaining seven formulas, for which no statistically significant differences were found. Therefore, based on visual results using 3D-object colors with the specific shape, size, gloss, and magnitude of color differences considered here, we concluded that the CIEDE2000, CAM02-, and CAM16-based formulas were equivalent and thus cannot recommend only one of them. Disregarding CIELAB, the average STRESS decreases in the k(L) + b-optimized formulas from changes in each one of the four analyzed parametric factors were not statistically significant and had the following values: 6.2 units changing from color pairs with less to more than 5.0 CIELAB units; 2.9 units changing the shape of the samples (lowest STRESS values for cylinders); 0.7 units changing from nearly-matte to high-gloss samples; and 0.5 units changing from 4 cm to 2 cm samples. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9698626 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96986262022-11-26 Optimizing Color-Difference Formulas for 3D-Printed Objects Huang, Min Gao, Xinyuan Pan, Jie Li, Xiu Hemingray, Caroline Xiao, Kaida Melgosa, Manuel Sensors (Basel) Article Based on previous visual assessments of 440 color pairs of 3D-printed samples, we tested the performance of eight color-difference formulas (CIELAB, CIEDE2000, CAM02-LCD, CAM02-SCD, CAM02-UCS, CAM16-LCD, CAM16-SCD, and CAM16-UCS) using the standardized residual sum of squares (STRESS) index. For the whole set of 440 color pairs, the introduction of k(L) (lightness parametric factor), b (exponent in total color difference), and k(L) + b produced an average STRESS decrease of 2.6%, 26.9%, and 29.6%, respectively. In most cases, the CIELAB formula was significantly worse statistically than the remaining seven formulas, for which no statistically significant differences were found. Therefore, based on visual results using 3D-object colors with the specific shape, size, gloss, and magnitude of color differences considered here, we concluded that the CIEDE2000, CAM02-, and CAM16-based formulas were equivalent and thus cannot recommend only one of them. Disregarding CIELAB, the average STRESS decreases in the k(L) + b-optimized formulas from changes in each one of the four analyzed parametric factors were not statistically significant and had the following values: 6.2 units changing from color pairs with less to more than 5.0 CIELAB units; 2.9 units changing the shape of the samples (lowest STRESS values for cylinders); 0.7 units changing from nearly-matte to high-gloss samples; and 0.5 units changing from 4 cm to 2 cm samples. MDPI 2022-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9698626/ /pubmed/36433464 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22228869 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Huang, Min Gao, Xinyuan Pan, Jie Li, Xiu Hemingray, Caroline Xiao, Kaida Melgosa, Manuel Optimizing Color-Difference Formulas for 3D-Printed Objects |
title | Optimizing Color-Difference Formulas for 3D-Printed Objects |
title_full | Optimizing Color-Difference Formulas for 3D-Printed Objects |
title_fullStr | Optimizing Color-Difference Formulas for 3D-Printed Objects |
title_full_unstemmed | Optimizing Color-Difference Formulas for 3D-Printed Objects |
title_short | Optimizing Color-Difference Formulas for 3D-Printed Objects |
title_sort | optimizing color-difference formulas for 3d-printed objects |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9698626/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36433464 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22228869 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huangmin optimizingcolordifferenceformulasfor3dprintedobjects AT gaoxinyuan optimizingcolordifferenceformulasfor3dprintedobjects AT panjie optimizingcolordifferenceformulasfor3dprintedobjects AT lixiu optimizingcolordifferenceformulasfor3dprintedobjects AT hemingraycaroline optimizingcolordifferenceformulasfor3dprintedobjects AT xiaokaida optimizingcolordifferenceformulasfor3dprintedobjects AT melgosamanuel optimizingcolordifferenceformulasfor3dprintedobjects |