CIELAB is Icky! Do we have any other choice? 

Yes. I have done exactly that in a few papers already. :)

@@JohnSeymourTheMathGuy could you do a video on those papers? maybe you have and I missed it

@@con_sci Thanks for your interest. I can point you to a few resources: First, this video is a takeoff on an earlier video: Called "Six things you should not do with CIELAB": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aWrI0esSRUM.html . The full paper can be found on Researchgate. www.researchgate.net/publication/362680431_Six_Things_You_Should_Not_Do_With_CIELAB Second, I have two other papers that I have uploaded. "Why does the CIELAB a* axis point toward magenta instead of red?" This is largely a history lesson, but I introduced my first version of ConeLab in this paper, to show that if CIELAB were based on cones, then red would have a proper hue angle of 0 degrees instead of ~25. "Color inconstancy in CIELAB: A red herring?" In this paper, I look at the color change in CIELAB coordinates when you change the light source. You would think that it would accurately predict the perceptual color change, but that's not the case. Most of the change in L*a*b* is due to the use of the Standard Observer rather than the cone functions. I provided a second version of ConeLab that is based on the cones, but which mimics CIELAB to demonstrate this. Both of these versions of ConeLab were designed for the specific purpose in the paper, that is, to demonstrate that the choice of Standard Observer had very specific problems. As such, in both cases, I scaled the color spaces to best match CIELAB. This automatically disqualifies them from being a good replacement for CIELAB, since the scaling on CIELAB is another issue that should be fixed. I think that ConeLab is a step in the right direction. It just needs to be tweaked to have better agreement with color difference data. I have not tried this, and I don't know how well it would fair against other new color spaces.