I think it’s important for level-setting to start a very basic discussion of what CLF is and is not. Similar to asking what is out of scope, but a bit more on the “what are we trying to accomplish?” side of things…
To me, CLF should be exactly what it says - a Common LUT Format. It is designed to be interoperable across all software and hardware (when fully adopted). From the introduction in the current spec:
LUTs are in common usage for device calibration, bit depth conversion, print film simulation, color space transformations, and on-set look modification. With a large number of product developers providing software and hardware solutions for LUTs, there is an explosion of unique vendor-specific LUT file formats, which are often only trivially different from each other.
So the goal here is to to make a vendor-agnostic LUT format. Not an ACES LUT format. And certainly not a full-fledged ACES transform implementation. It is a format that should be “the future of LUTs” so that once all vendors support it, there is no need to convert between different vendor formats or worry about things like “oh, this LUT format does not support a shaper so what do i do now?”.
So although we are talking about finalizing CLF as a part of the ACESnext efforts. CLF is not ACES. CLF is a mechanism that could be used to encapsulate one or more ACES transforms, but it is much more than that too. It is just a LUT, but eventually hopefully it can be the LUT.
In an ideal world, whenever someone passes me a LUT, I will know what to do with it and have means to load it in whatever software/hardware I am using. Thinking even more grandiose, it could be an “archival” LUT (when archiving the real transforms for some reason isn’t possible/practical).
Reactions and thoughts?