Premium
A non‐PC look at principal components
Author(s) -
Brill Michael H.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
color research and application
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.393
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1520-6378
pISSN - 0361-2317
DOI - 10.1002/col.10116
Subject(s) - subspace topology , principal component analysis , spectrum (functional analysis) , set (abstract data type) , zero (linguistics) , principal (computer security) , mathematics , argument (complex analysis) , data set , reflectivity , algorithm , computer science , artificial intelligence , pattern recognition (psychology) , statistics , optics , physics , philosophy , chemistry , linguistics , biochemistry , quantum mechanics , programming language , operating system
Two principal‐component methods are used in color science. For a given data set of spectra, one method finds the best‐fitting subspace about the mean spectrum, and the other finds the best‐fitting subspace about the zero spectrum. The first of these was originally developed for illuminants and the second for reflectance analysis. Yet there seems to be no strong argument for choosing one method over the other, in either case. Hence it is urged that each of us declares which one we are using, even if making that discrimination is considered “non‐PC” (i.e., not “politically correct”). © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Col Res Appl, 28, 69–71, 2003; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/col.