## 6 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Using the Pseudo-Coloring Method
### Objective Assessment-Analytical Assessment  
The R, G, and B channels correspond to the color values of the individual channels after pseudo-coloring the image using LUTs built on the basis of the exponential function. The obtained contrast values are presented in Table 7 and Figures 21-23.  
Figure 21: Course of normalized contrast values for the YUV model.  
Figure 20: Evaluation of the perceptibility of images obtained in the process of pseudo-coloring the image in Figure 10f for the “Hot” and “Radar” palettes and proposed by the authors (“Own”): (**a**) women, (**b**) men, (**c**) women and men.  
Visual evaluation of the obtained images after the pseudo-coloring process indicated a significant improvement in the perceptibility of the data contained in them. In addition,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Image**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Palette**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Hot**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Radar**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Own**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-8}  & & **I** & **II** & **III** & **I** & **II** & **III** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Figure 10a} & YUV & 0.0026512 & 0.0046064 & 0.0081283 & 0.0036653 & 0.0116501 & 0.0140982 & 0.0497592 \\  & CIE & 0.0063892 & 0.0117433 & 0.0249793 & 0.0065622 & 0.0196473 & 0.0098841 & 0.0926253 \\  & PAL/SECAM & 0.0042081 & 0.0076994 & 0.0167582 & 0.0051512 & 0.0155024 & 0.0117261 & 0.0708973 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Figure 10b} & YUV & 0.0001632 & 0.0004136 & 0.0005915 & 0.0001939 & 0.0004218 & 0.0021342 & 0.0586026 \\  & CIE & 0.0004163 & 0.0010312 & 0.0012912 & 0.0003012 & 0.0005783 & 0.0036233 & 0.1073866 \\  & PAL/SECAM & 0.0002643 & 0.0006762 & 0.0008860 & 0.0002453 & 0.0004874 & 0.0028314 & 0.0834581 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Figure 10c} & YUV & 0.0053963 & 0.0035169 & 0.0256489 & 0.0217748 & 0.0237056 & 0.0261622 & 0.0633578 \\  & CIE & 0.0123991 & 0.0132530 & 0.0287953 & 0.0376571 & 0.0223081 & 0.0090442 & 0.1292737 \\  & PAL/SECAM & 0.0082621 & 0.0082091 & 0.0259111 & 0.0300141 & 0.0231631 & 0.0141883 & 0.0949992 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Figure 10d} & YUV & 0.0360124 & 0.0485077 & 0.0812492 & 0.0553886 & 0.1386344 & 0.2628971 & 0.5413292 \\  & CIE & 0.0878611 & 0.1155711 & 0.2158331 & 0.1005231 & 0.2269552 & 0.2313213 & 0.6057037 \\  & PAL/SECAM & 0.0582031 & 0.0760741 & 0.1510181 & 0.0778012 & 0.1834874 & 0.2443833 & 0.5698482 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Figure 10e} & YUV & 0.0057972 & 0.0056191 & 0.0208911 & 0.0107352 & 0.0241296 & 0.0339188 & 0.0468369 \\  & CIE & 0.0143161 & 0.0127981 & 0.0542322 & 0.0200633 & 0.0401144 & 0.0147353 & 0.0605910 \\  & PAL/SECAM & 0.0094181 & 0.0084561 & 0.0371692 & 0.0153462 & 0.0323634 & 0.0218213 & 0.0530182 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Figure 10f} & YUV & 0.0049566 & 0.0035506 & 0.0456015 & 0.0209014 & 0.0226503 & 0.0206359 & 0.0612465 \\  & CIE & 0.0112421 & 0.013662 & 0.0603922 & 0.0357751 & 0.0196924 & 0.0070372 & 0.1363647 \\ \cline{1-1}  & PAL/SECAM & 0.0074881 & 0.0083671 & 0.0513624 & 0.0286464 & 0.0211414 & 0.0111823 & 0.0968642 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Values of contrasts for images after applying the pseudo-coloring process, calculated according to relationship (4).  
Figure 23: Course of normalized contrast values for the PAL/SECAM model.  
the RGB color scale images revealed graphical data that were hard to see or invisible (Figure 10b). The confirmation of subjective assessments are the contrast values calculated according to Equation (6). In this case, the contrast values for each image are much higher than for images subjected to pseudo-coloring using \"Hot\" or \"Radar\" palettes.