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

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.

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: