New perspectives to use Munsell color charts with electronic devices

Кириллова, Н. П.; Grauer-Gray, J.; Hartemink, Alfred E.; Sileova, T. M.; Artemyeva, Z. S.; Burova, E. K.

doi:10.1016/j.compag.2018.10.028

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kirillova and colleagues (2018) converted Munsell values for 415 MSCC chips into CIELAB values using reference illumination of D50 and assessed their difference. Using the difference formula ΔE ab * = ([L 1 * − L 2 *] 2 + [a 1 * − a 2 *] 2 + [b 1 * − b 2 *] 2 ) 1/2 , they determined that 196 of the color chips had at least one duplicate within the MSCC, which means that the differences between the two chips may not be perceptible to the human eye (ΔE ab * < 3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is It Better to Be Objectively Wrong or Subjectively Right?

Bloch

Hosen

Kracht

et al. 2021

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many years, archaeologists have relied on Munsell Soil Color Charts (MSCC) as tools for standardizing the recording of soil and sediment colors in the field and artifacts such as pottery in the lab. Users have identified multiple potential sources of discrepancy in results, such as differences in inter-operator perception, light source, or moisture content of samples. In recent years, researchers have developed inexpensive digital methods for color identification, but these typically cannot be done in real time. Now, a field-ready digital color-matching instrument is marketed to archaeologists as a replacement for MSCC, but the accuracy and overall suitability of this device for archaeological research has not been demonstrated. Through three separate field and laboratory trials, we found systematic mismatches in the results obtained via device, including variable accuracy against standardized MSCC chips, which should represent ideal samples. At the same time, the instrument was consistent in its readings. This leads us to question whether using the “subjective” human eye or the “objective” digital eye is preferable for data recording of color. We discuss how project goals and limitations should be considered when deciding which color-recording method to employ in field and laboratory settings, and we identify optimal procedures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is It Better to Be Objectively Wrong or Subjectively Right?

Bloch

Hosen

Kracht

et al. 2021

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The a* value of the white plate measured with SPAD-503 also decreased by 0.5 at 60 min after the start of the analysis. However, the overall fluctuations expressed as the difference from the measurement at time zero (ΔE ab *) were less than 2.0 for all instruments, suggesting that these drifts were barely recognizable visually (Kirillova et al 2018). It should be noted that Color Muse was much more stable during the analysis of 2-mm sieved samples with keeping the upright position constantly (ΔE ab * < 0.3), whereas the other low-cost colorimeters showed similar fluctuations (0.5 < ΔE ab * < 1.0) after measuring 2-mm sieved samples for about 50 min.…”

Section: Stability Of Instrumental Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…where ΔL*, Δa*, and Δb* are the difference of the measured color parameters from the corresponding ones at time zero (Kirillova et al 2018). When seemed necessary, recalibration was carried out for all instruments, except for Nix Pro which cannot be recalibrated by the end-user.…”

Section: Soil Pretreatments and Instrumental Color Analysis By The Cielab Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of visual and instrumental measurements of soil color with different low-cost colorimeters

Moritsuka

Kawamura

Tsujimoto

et al. 2019

Soil Science and Plant Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil color has been conventionally measured using a Munsell soil color chart. Recently launched colorimeters can also measure the color of an object at a reasonable cost. This study was undertaken to evaluate to what extent such low-cost colorimeters (< 500 USD) can be useful for soil color analysis in the laboratory as compared with conventional colorimeters (> 3000 USD) and a Munsell soil color chart (about 200 USD). Sixty two air-dried soil samples collected from rice fields in Madagascar were subjected to two pretreatments for homogenization (2-mm sieving or additional hand-grinding) and instrumental analysis using four low-cost colorimeters (CS-10, Cube, Nix Pro, and Color Muse) and four conventional colorimeters (SPAD-503, CR-20, CR-400, and CR-410). The color of 2-mm sieved samples was also measured visually using a color chart. The effects of pretreatments and the analytical conditions were evaluated by the repeatability and stability of the measurement, the comparability of the soil color data obtained, and the time required for analysis. Overall, instrumental measurement was much more repeatable than visual observation. Both the repeatability and stability of the low-cost colorimeters tended to be lower than those of the conventional colorimeters. Among the low-cost colorimeters examined, soil color parameters (L*, a*, and b*) obtained with Nix Pro were most comparable (r > 0.97 for all parameters of 2-mm sieved samples) with those obtained with SPAD-503, which is an instrument designed specifically for soil color analysis. Additional hand-grinding pretreatment improved the repeatability of the instrumental analysis and reduced the subsample weight to two grams. However, this pretreatment also increased the L* value (lightness) of the samples, decreased the comparability with the data from 2-mm sieved samples, and prolonged the time required to complete the whole analysis. Among the various methods tested, 2-mm sieving of air-dried samples followed by the color measurement with Nix Pro several times per sample was considered the most cost-effective approach for measuring soil color in the laboratory.

show abstract

“…The significance of color difference expressed as Δ E 00 in forensic soil comparisons is discussed below. Visualizations of the soil color differences as Δ E 00 are shown in .…”

Section: Suitability Of Instrumental Colorimetry For Forensic Soil Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table describes ranges in soil color difference, expressed as Δ E 00 , as they relate to levels of human perception and forensic soil color comparisons. These color difference categories are based on the Δ E 00 observed between soils in these few cases (Tables 7–9) and between adjacent chips in the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Table ) as well as studies relating Δ E 00 color difference to the limits of human visual perception . Munsell color differences in one chip refer to offsets in 1 value unit, 1 chroma unit, or 2.5 hue units.…”

Section: Color Difference In Forensic Soil Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengths, Limitations, and Recommendations for Instrumental Color Measurement in Forensic Soil Characterization

Dong

Webb

Bottrell

et al. 2019

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Color determination of soil evidence is often done by visual comparison to soil color charts. A handheld spectrophotometer was tested with representative materials for its suitability for forensic soil characterization. Instrumental colorimetry provides accurate colorimetry with ~10‐fold better precision than a soil color chart. The minimum sample size for accurate color determination was between 0.02 and 0.04 mg of fine soil for the specific instrument tested. Reporting colors in the L*a*b* space permits quantification of ΔE00, a measure of perceptible color difference, could enable objective quantification of small color differences and thresholds for forensic soil comparisons. A ΔE00 greater than ~ 3.5 to 6 likely indicates disparate soil sources in a forensic comparison, in the absence of confounding factors like sample alteration. Despite the superior precision of instrumental colorimetry, this approach is inappropriate for samples which are mottled at an inseparable scale, attached to a substrate, or too small for instrumental measurement.

show abstract

New perspectives to use Munsell color charts with electronic devices

Cited by 28 publications

References 19 publications

Is It Better to Be Objectively Wrong or Subjectively Right?

Is It Better to Be Objectively Wrong or Subjectively Right?

Comparison of visual and instrumental measurements of soil color with different low-cost colorimeters

Strengths, Limitations, and Recommendations for Instrumental Color Measurement in Forensic Soil Characterization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About