Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T21:25:27.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Color-gamut mapping in the non-uniform CIE-1931 space with perceptual hue fidelity constraints for SMPTE ST.2094-40 standard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

Chang Su*
Affiliation:
Digital Media Solutions (DMS) Laboratory, Samsung Research America (SRA), 18500 Von Karmen Ave., Irvine, CA92612, USA
Li Tao
Affiliation:
Digital Media Solutions (DMS) Laboratory, Samsung Research America (SRA), 18500 Von Karmen Ave., Irvine, CA92612, USA
Yeong Taeg Kim
Affiliation:
Digital Media Solutions (DMS) Laboratory, Samsung Research America (SRA), 18500 Von Karmen Ave., Irvine, CA92612, USA
*
Corresponding author: Chang Su Email: changsu.01@samsung.com

Abstract

As high-dynamic range (HDR) and wide-color gamut (WCG) contents become more and more popular in multimedia markets, color mapping of the distributed contents to different rendering devices plays a pivotal role in HDR distribution eco-systems. The widely used and economic gamut-clipping (GC)-based techniques perform poorly in mapping WCG contents to narrow gamut devices; and high-performance color-appearance model (CAM)-based techniques are computationally expensive to commercial applications. In this paper, we propose a novel color gamut mapping (CGM) algorithm to solve the problem. By introducing a color transition/protection zone (TPZ) and a set of perceptual hue fidelity constraints into the CIE-1931 space, the proposed algorithm directly carries out CGM in the perceptually non-uniform space, thus greatly decreases the computational complexity. The proposed TPZ effectively achieves a reasonable compromise between saturation preserving and details protection in out-of-gamut colors. The proposed hue fidelity constraints reference the measurements of human subjects' visual responses, thus effectively preserve the perceptual hue of the original colors. Experimental results show that the proposed algorithm clearly outperforms the GC-CGM, and performs similarly or better than the expensive CAM-CGM. The proposed algorithm is real-time and hardware friendly. It is an important supplement of the SMPTE ST.2094-40 standard.

Information

Type
Industrial Technology Advances
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. published by Cambridge University Press in association with Asia Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The main diagram of the proposed CGM algorithm.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. An example of the sampled Rec.2020 gamut solid under the peak luminance 4000 nits (normalized to 0.4).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Examples of the constant hue loci at different luminance layers (green: Rec.2020; red: DCI-P3; cyan: constant hue loci). (a) l=0.06. (b) l=0.29. (c) l=0.75.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Examples of the linearized constant hue loci and CMC redundancy removal (Rec.2020 to DCI-P3, l=0.06). (a) Linearized segments of the constant hue loci. (b) CMC prediction.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Examples of the $\Omega _Z$ overlapped by CMC at different luminance layers (green: $\Omega _S$, red: $\Omega _T$, cyan: $\Omega _Z$, and “VTX” means vertex). (a) l=0.06. (b) l=0.415. (c) $l = 0.74$.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. An example of the hue sectors and the estimated constant hue loci of an arbitrary color c at layer l=0.06.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Examples of CGM comparison with DCI-P3 contents using Rec.2020 as a color container (from top to bottom: “Bistro”, “Fishing”, “Poker”, and “Show Girl”). (a) GC-CGM. (b) Azimi CGM. (c) Ours.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Examples of Rec.2020 to DCI-P3 CGM comparison with video ‘Light Show”. (a) GC-CGM. (b) Azimi CGM. (c) Ours.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Examples of Rec.2020 to DCI-P3 CGM comparison with video ‘Carousel”. (a) GC-CGM. (b) Azimi CGM. (c) Ours.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. Examples of Rec.2020 to DCI-P3 CGM comparison with video ‘Show Girl”. (a) GC-CGM. (b) Azimi CGM. (c) Ours.

Figure 10

Fig. 11. Examples of the contrast comparison between the proposed and the reference CGM algorithms. (a) GC-CGM. (b) Azimi CGM. (c) Ours.

Figure 11

Table 1. Relative efficiency comparisons of the three CGM algorithms.