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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Min, Gao, Xinyuan, Pan, Jie, Li, Xiu, Hemingray, Caroline, Xiao, Kaida, Melgosa, Manuel
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