Munsell values for RAF wartime colors

[Rolls-Royce]

45 minutes ago, JackG said:

Absolutely to the immediate above.  Also at the mercy of whoever  wrote the program that converts Munsell to sRGB.  Note on the web page for the converter, one of the sources is wikipedia.

 

 

regards,

Jack

The writer probably used Wikipedia as a source for the conversion maths. That kind of stuff causes my eyes to glaze over when I see it on the page. I can usually figure out the whys and wherefores after a little experimentation with the program, but the equations involved make me shudder!

Edited December 20, 2019 by Rolls-Royce

[Ed Russell]

12 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

If it's of any interest, I own 2 copies of the RAF museum chips from different editions / different covers on the book etc. The chips are all practical matches for one another - there's no apparent difference between them.

When I reviewed a commercially produced copy of these chips i was able to compare five copies of the MAP book of what appeared to be different ages and conditions. The colours were identical (Grade 1 matches) between all of them.

Incidentally, the commercial chips were rubbish.

[Phantome]

On 12/19/2019 at 4:09 PM, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

It's not clear what the OP wants with Munsell values exactly and it's none of my business really - but the reason you'll get different quoted Munsell references for the same colour is because Munsell introduces a large degree of subjectivity by inviting the observer, who's eyes stand a good chance of being defective anyway given the demographic we have here (aging males, mostly), viewed in unspecified lighting conditions and then to guesstimate an interpolation between swatches. For anyone to then use the Munsell reference multiplies the potential error by requiring them to do all the same in reverse from a value that likely already has error built in.

 

Personally I absolutely loathe Munsell, and it would be my joint last resort along with Methuen. I'd never use it if I had an alternative and even then would treat a Munsell reference as indicative at best.

Munsell values can be taken from a color chip, an aged color chip, a paint sample on metal, a paint sample on fabric, etc. Hence the difference.

 

And they are calculated with spectrometers not eyeballs, thankfully!

 

The point of a Munsell value is to have a generally agreed on color that anyone can reference and replicate vs what my scanner's color balance and my monitor's gamma settings think it is. Hence why many color standards come with official Munsell values with them. As I mentioned earlier, I already ran the Munsells for all the ANA colors on the RGB converter and the results were better than any online reference I've seen so far.

 

As for the original purpose of this... you'll all know soon enough

 

 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

3 minutes ago, Phantome said:

And they are calculated with spectrometers not eyeballs, thankfully!

 

They sometimes are nowadays, but historically (dating back to 1905) it was visual - that's why it was called the Munsell Book of Color rather than just being a colourspace coordinate model and why buying a new copy is so mind-bendingly expensive. My point stands that one needs to know where the Munsell references came from. Nobody is going to guesstimate CIELAB coordinates so you can be fairly sure they came from a spectrophotometer.

 

Munsell values? They could be either...

[Phantome]

On 12/20/2019 at 12:14 PM, JackG said:

Absolutely to the immediate above.  Also at the mercy of whoever  wrote the program that converts Munsell to sRGB.  Note on the web page for the converter, one of the sources is wikipedia.

 

 

regards,

Jack

Why is there an assumption that everything on Wikipedia is wrong? The mathematical formula for converting Munsell to RGB is there and there are extensive professional references in it. 

 

If it is what I suspect, the reason why chroma values are given in .5 increments is because the calculation is exponentially time consuming for every extra decimal for only a tiny improvement in accuracy (as someone else has thankfully shown!). It already takes a few seconds to work out as it is.

[Phantome]

4 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

They sometimes are nowadays, but historically (dating back to 1905) it was visual - that's why it was called the Munsell Book of Color rather than just being a colourspace coordinate model and why buying a new copy is so mind-bendingly expensive. My point stands that one needs to know where the Munsell references came from. Nobody is going to guesstimate CIELAB coordinates so you can be fairly sure they came from a spectrophotometer.

 

Munsell values? They could be either...

 Yes I agree that the source matters. I think everyone here will agree Nick Millmann has an excellent reputation in this regard and he definitely does not use eyeball.

[Rolls-Royce]

2 hours ago, Phantome said:

If it is what I suspect, the reason why chroma values are given in .5 increments is because the calculation is exponentially time consuming for every extra decimal for only a tiny improvement in accuracy (as someone else has thankfully shown!). It already takes a few seconds to work out as it is.

Sadly, that tiny improvement is probably necessary when we are talking about shades such as RLM02 and the Zero's Amber Gray, both of which inhabit that murky area of fairly low chroma and borderline hue that is more dependent than usual upon both lighting conditions and observer physiology for perceived color.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Rolls-Royce

[Nobby Clarke]

On 12/23/2019 at 7:16 AM, Phantome said:

Munsell values can be taken from a color chip, an aged color chip, a paint sample on metal, a paint sample on fabric, etc. Hence the difference.

 

And they are calculated with spectrometers not eyeballs, thankfully!

 

The point of a Munsell value is to have a generally agreed on color that anyone can reference and replicate vs what my scanner's color balance and my monitor's gamma settings think it is. Hence why many color standards come with official Munsell values with them. As I mentioned earlier, I already ran the Munsells for all the ANA colors on the RGB converter and the results were better than any online reference I've seen so far.

 

As for the original purpose of this... you'll all know soon enough

 

 

When are you going to let us all know the purpose of this post?

[Rolls-Royce]

More fuel for the fire! I just finished measuring 5 colors that are probably the most commonly used in the two RAF WWII European fighter schemes: Dark Earth, Dark Green, Sky, Ocean Grey, and Medium Sea Grey. I measured the color chips in the RAF Museum book, followed by the corresponding colors for three brands of acrylic paint I have on hand. The paint brands are Mission Models, XtraCrylic, and Vallejo. No enamels or lacquers (sorry, guys). Petroleum-based paints are getting harder to source, especially with the pandemic.  

In the following list, I'll give the color name and Munsell and SRGB numbers for the chips in my copy of the RAF Museum book, followed by the brand name, dE2000 (difference from the reference), and SRGB numbers for the equivalents. Remember that the lower the dE number, the closer the match to the reference, with 2.0 and below being nearly identical.

 

Dark Earth: 9.9YR 4.1/2.8 (117, 95, 70).  Vallejo, 2.03 (115, 98, 75).  XtraCrylic, 5.86 (98, 84, 64).  Mission Models, 3.39 (112, 97, 77). 

Dark Green: 2.8GY 3.4/1.3 (81, 84, 70). Vallejo, 4.80 (74, 79, 55).  XtraCrylic, 4.91 (66, 65, 55). Mission Models, 4.04 (79, 86, 79). 

Sky: 6.1GY 7.4/1.8 (178,188,162).  Vallejo, 7.03 (158,163,139).  XtraCrylic, 4.26 (166,182,148). Mission Models, 1.31 (177,185,163).

Ocean Grey: 2.3B 4.4/1.1.  Vallejo, 2.97 (97,110,118). XtraCrylic, 3.98 (106,118,124). Mission Models, 5.78 (114,121,125).

Medium Sea Grey: 1.3PB 5.8/1.3.  Vallejo, 3.55 (126,136,139).  XtraCrylic, none available West of the Pond, so I couldn't test it.  Mission Models, 2.12 (139,147,150).

 

For me, there were some surprises here. I rather expected XtraCrylic to come out on top (British colors, British company, right?). Sadly, this was not the case. Vallejo took top spot for both Dark Earth and Ocean Grey. This was unexpected given their reputation - deserved or not - for poor color matches. Finally, Mission Models paints measured best for Dark Green, Sky, and Medium Sea Grey. 

 

I'm donning my flame-retardant suit now...

Edited June 21, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[ptarmigan]

1 hour ago, Rolls-Royce said:

I rather expected XtraCrylic to come out on top (British colors, British company, right?).

Wrong 😉 Xtracrylix are actually Agama acrylic paints, rebranded and sold by Hannants. And Agama is a Czech company. 

 

Xtracrylix may not be perfect, but at least they are not completely wrong (e.g. Vallejo Sky). I use them for some harder to get colours. And for Luftwaffe my current favourite in water-based acrylics are MRP Aqua colours

[Rolls-Royce]

5 hours ago, ptarmigan said:

Wrong 😉 Xtracrylix are actually Agama acrylic paints, rebranded and sold by Hannants. And Agama is a Czech company. 

 

Xtracrylix may not be perfect, but at least they are not completely wrong (e.g. Vallejo Sky). I use them for some harder to get colours. And for Luftwaffe my current favourite in water-based acrylics are MRP Aqua colours

Ah. I wasn't aware they weren't made in England. Thanks!

Edited June 22, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[JackG]

Vallejo redid many of their WW2 British aircraft (as well as Luftwaffe) paints.  They had originally been released as a 16 bottle set that combined both RAF and FAA colours together - the box had a clear cellophane window on the front.  Now they have smaller and more numerous specific sets.    Mind you, I've yet to come across  a comparison of the old and new that would indicate any improvements.   The identifying number, and where necessary the proper paint name, have been changed.  For example, they now have Sky Type S #71.302,  while earlier they had instructed to use a Luftwaffe colour, RLM 84 #71.103.

 

That is interesting about Agama and Xtracrylic. thank you for the revelation.

 

 

regards,

Jack

Edited June 22, 2020 by JackG

[Rolls-Royce]

It appears that Dark Green is a tough color to get right. None of the contenders I have managed under a dE of 4. I wish I could get my hands on some of Jamie's Colourcoats, but they are exceptionally scarce here, with only one vendor. I'll have to look into ptarmigan's MRP Aqua colors.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[alt-92]

It would be interesting to see the results for Tamiya's XF81 Dark Green 2, and for that matter XF-82 Ocean Grey and XF-83 MSG.

Those are the more recent additions to the line-up.

[Avereda]

IModelKit gives Munsell values for all the BS381c colours. I have no idea how they’re derived but here are a few of the popular ones:

 

BS104 Azure Blue 0.7PB 3.6/4.6

BS110 Roundel Blue 4.9PB 3.3/4.6

BS210 Sky 2.7GY 7.1/2.3

BS241 Dark Green 1.4GY 3.6/1.5

BS362 Middle Stone 8.9YR 5.7/6.8

BS450 Dark Earth 0.9Y 4/2.9

BS637 Medium Sea Grey 6.7G 6/0.9

BS629 Ocean Grey 4.2BG 5.1/0.9 (listed as Dark camouflage grey)

BS537 Signal Red 7.8R 4.4/11.6

[Rolls-Royce]

9 hours ago, alt-92 said:

It would be interesting to see the results for Tamiya's XF81 Dark Green 2, and for that matter XF-82 Ocean Grey and XF-83 MSG.

Those are the more recent additions to the line-up.

OK, I can get those from a LHS about 100 miles away. They're on order now, and I should have them at the end of the week. I also ordered the Model Master Acryl RAF Dark Green (I know, I know) just for S&G.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[Rolls-Royce]

I have an update. I just finished measuring alt-92's suggested Tamiya colors, with the following results. Again, these are in comparison to the color swatches in my personal copy of the RAF Museum book from 1976. As before, the dE is given followed by sRGB codes:

Tamiya RAF Dark Green 2 (XF-81) 3.02 dE (76,76,63)

Tamiya RAF Ocean Gray 2 (XF-82) 3.05 dE (96,110,119)

Tamiya RAF Medium Sea Gray 2 (XF-83) 4.68 dE (128,136,135)

I also measured the Model Master Acrylics RAF Dark Green at 4.24 dE (85,89,82). It beat out both the Vallejo and XtraCrylix versions to land in third place behind the Tamiya and Mission Models efforts.

I hope this info has been useful.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[Clifton]

On 6/21/2020 at 2:07 PM, Nobby Clarke said:

When are you going to let us all know the purpose of this post?

@Nobby Clarke—I think @Phantome used it for his excellent military color section on his World Wars site.  Scroll down to the Military Colours and Camouflage section and choose one of the topics:

 

http://www.theworldwars.net/resources/

Edited June 28, 2020 by Clifton

[Nobby Clarke]

On 6/28/2020 at 1:21 PM, Clifton said:

@Nobby Clarke—I think @Phantome used it for his excellent military color section on his World Wars site.  Scroll down to the Military Colours and Camouflage section and choose one of the topics:

 

http://www.theworldwars.net/resources/

That's very interesting. I have watched this website add more content on WWII colors over the past twelve months. It's well worth the read. Nice work @Phantome.

[Clifton]

On 6/30/2020 at 11:11 PM, Nobby Clarke said:

That's very interesting. I have watched this website add more content on WWII colors over the past twelve months. It's well worth the read. Nice work @Phantome.

Yes, the amount of work he’s put into that is pretty jaw-dropping.

[Harry Lime]

On 6/22/2020 at 4:56 PM, Avereda said:

BS629 Ocean Grey 4.2BG 5.1/0.9 (listed as Dark camouflage grey)

A few notes of caution for this little entry. Ocean Grey was a wartime only colour and was not carried over into the BS381c range. Dark Camo Grey was introduced with the two tone grey camo scheme that was brought in during the mid/late 90's. Any similarity to Ocean Grey would appear to be just that, a similarity.

 

Mark.

[Rolls-Royce]

Forum member Nobby Clarke recently sent me a number of excellent sample swatches (thanks, Nobby!) for measurement, and I thought I'd share some of the better matches. Most of these should be easily available to just about everyone here either from an LHS or online.

For RAF Dark Earth:

Vallejo Model Color 70.921 English Uniform 1.87 dE,  sRGB (116,96,67)

Model Master Acryl 4708 Field Drab 2.24 dE, sRGB (109,92,69)

Vallejo Model Color 70.873 US Field Drab 2.48 dE, sRGB (122,101,78)

 

For RAF Dark Green:

Vallejo Model Color 70.892 Yellow Olive 1.64 dE, sRGB (76,82,70)

 

He sent a number of swatches of different colors, but these were the only ones with a dE under 3.

 

As always, these were in comparison to the swatches in my personal copy of the 1976 RAF Museum British Aviation Colours of World War Two. No comparison to any other sources was made or implied.

  

Edited August 5, 2020 by Rolls-Royce
To correct RGB codes for Vallejo 70.921