Notice of Meeting - ACES Implementation Technical Advisory Council – 11/19/20

Apologies for the late notice.

Please join us for the next meeting of the:
ACES Implementation Technical Advisory Council (ACES Implementation TAC)

The meeting will be led by the ACES Implementation TAC Chair/ACES Project Vice-Chair, Joachim Zell, and will take place on

Thursday, November 19, 2020
1pm - 2:30pm PT (Los Angeles time)

If you’re new to our meetings structure, please note the following:

TAC Meetings are open for observation by the general public on GoToMeeting (GTM)

TAC Meeting participation is for TAC members. Observer participation is at the discretion of the TAC Chair. (Please use the chat feature in GoToMeeting to log your comments)

Instructions for GTM. We look forward to your attendance!

The ACES Team

Instructions for using GoToMeeting to join an ACES TAC Meeting

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 for observation.

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

Link to the posts showing my CLF preview tier edge case issues, as brought up in the meeting, for those who are interested.

But just to emphasise that these results indicate that it is hard to empirically evaluate the quality of a baked 3D LUT vs multi-step ground truth. It does not suggest that it is hard to bake a complex CLF into a simple 3D LUT (indeed it’s pretty trivial) or that people should not do so for preview purposes. As @ptr mentioned, that works fine for the purposes for which it is intended.

Hi Nick,
I now remember seeing these posts previously, thanks.

So my upper bounds for errors would then be to separate this into two parts.

  1. Accuracy requirements for the sample points in the cube, these should be pretty tight as you are probably able to assume a software style processor to compute the samples.
  2. Between the points constrained within the sub-cube that the interpolant live within.

you may be able to refine the error for part 2 to something like less than half the distance between the bounds of the sub-cube, but I have not analysed it, just a gut feeling.

These may not be nice clean bounds but they are something.