Notice of Meeting - ACES Gamut Mapping VWG - Meeting #3 - 2/27/2020

ACES Gamut Mapping VWG Meeting #3

Thursday, February 27, 2020
5:00pm - 6:00pm PST (Los Angeles time / UTC-01:00am)

Please join us for the next meeting of this virtual working group (VWG). Future meeting dates include:

  • 3/5/2020: 9:30am
  • 3/12/2020: 5pm
  • 3/19/2020: 9:30am
  • 3/26/2020: 5pm

Dropbox Paper link for this group:

We will be using the same GoToMeeting url and phone numbers as in previous groups.
You may join via computer/smartphone (preferred) which will allow you to see any presentations or documents that are shared or you can join using a telephone which will be an audio only experience.

Please note that meetings are recorded and transcribed and open to the public. By participating you are agreeing to the ACESCentral Virtual Working Group Participation Guidelines

Audio + Video
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

First GoToMeeting? Let’s do a quick system check:

Audio Only
You can also dial in using your phone.
Dial the closest number to your location and then follow the prompts to enter the access code.
United States: +1 (669) 224-3319
Access Code: 241-798-885

More phone numbers
Australia: +61 2 8355 1038
Austria: +43 7 2081 5337
Belgium: +32 28 93 7002
Canada: +1 (647) 497-9379
Denmark: +45 32 72 03 69
Finland: +358 923 17 0556
France: +33 170 950 590
Germany: +49 692 5736 7300
Ireland: +353 15 360 756
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Netherlands: +31 207 941 375
New Zealand: +64 9 913 2226
Norway: +47 21 93 37 37
Spain: +34 932 75 1230
Sweden: +46 853 527 818
Switzerland: +41 225 4599 60
United Kingdom: +44 330 221 0097

1 Like


  • (10 mins) Recap of last Thursday’s meeting
  • (25 mins) Discussion of points made last Thursday for new attendees (could go longer)
  • (10 mins) Highlight a few ACES Central Posts for reading / thoughts
  • (15 mins) Logistics: Image collection & call for next meeting topics/presenters
1 Like

For completeness and something discussed on Slack with @carolalynn this morning, copy-pasted directly without doctoring:

thomas 6:36 AM

@Carol Payne : I think we should explicitly states the requirements for the desired algorithm


As I mentioned it during the second meeting, we need to define for example “energy”


Radiometric energy ain’t photometric energy


And what became clear yesterday, at least for me, during our meeting is that there are maybe conflicting requirements


E.g. we want an energy conserving algorithm which is camera agnostic

Carol Payne 6:44 AM

Agreed, Matthias and I talked about our next steps being twofold: 1. discuss the concept of the ‘confidence gamut’ which we start ed last night, and 2. decide on qualitative and then match with quantitative algorithm ‘ideals’

thomas 9:01 AM

I would probably start with the qualitative metric because that what will indicate if we really need energy conservation for example


If it looks good and produce plausible values, we are maybe good, without having to abide or be constrained by a requirement that might not be practical or possible at all to fulfill

1 Like

Starting with qualitative metrics makes good sense. They can also be thought of as the source for quantitative metrics (i.e., as their translation, expression) and chances are that no matter what set of quantitative metrics are defined they won’t fully capture the qualitative ones. This has certainly been the experience of color reproduction in photography and graphic arts and pretty much all attempts at putting quantitative metrics first have failed (either because of incompleteness or because of being over-restrictive, as you say). I’d also think of specific metrics/objectives as indications/guidance, rather than as absolute requirements …


For brevity, posting link to recording/transcript for easy viewing:

Thanks, glad to see we are thinking along the same lines! Hope to see you at the next meeting.