Is "Common LUT Format" an appropriate name for this specification?


(Greg Cotten) #1

There are mostly non-LUT color operators in the specification at the moment, and with the potential addition of even more non-LUT operators I think it’s possible “Common LUT Format” is no longer an appropriate name for the spec.


(Jim Houston) #2

The color operators in the spec at the moment are either LUTs or simple operators that are essential for color space manipulation ( MATRIX, RANGE ) along with a few extensions also part of color space work (e.g. GAMMA). This is not a general operator node-graph for color (it doesn’t have a Shake-style COLORX node) or have pre-baked color conversion math (e.g Y’C’C’) for the most part. So I think it is still essentially a LUT format and can be called that since it fills the purpose of LUTs in a workflow (even if someday the LUTs themselves are replaced with Look-up Functions :slight_smile: