Notice of Meeting - CLF Spec / Code Review - 1/17/19 9am pst

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fa13137c628> #<Tag:0x00007fa13137c538>

Please mark your calendars and join us for the ‘kick-off’ meeting of the CLF Spec / Code Review VWG.

The meeting will be lead by working group Chairman JD Vandenberg, and will take place on

Thursday January 17th, 2019
9am - 10am pst (Los Angeles time)

We will use GoToMeeting (GTM) to allow you to connect using your computer, tablet or smartphone, or call-in using any phone.

Instructions for GTM are below and also on the VWG Document workspace which also provides relevant background documents for this group:

We look forward to your participation!

The ACES Team

Instructions for using GoToMeeting to join an ACES VWG Meeting

All Virtual Working Group Meetings will use GoToMeeting for their meeting calls. Check
ACESCentral for the specific time and date of each VWG’s next meeting.

You may join via computer/smartphone which will allow you to see any presentations or
documents that are shared or use a telephone which will be an audio only experience.
Please note that meetings are recorded 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


Reminding everyone in the ACES community that we’re kicking off our CLF Spec/Code Review Virtual Working Group this week on Thursday at 9am pst (Los Angeles) time. Please join - instructions above!

I am happy to announced that @bram Desmet from Flanders Scientific will join the call and share his thought on CLF from a hardware implementation point of view!

1 Like

Excellent! I look forward to his input.

Thank you, @jdvandenberg. Hope to be able to answer what is possible on current hardware as well as what is feasible on new hardware available this calendar year. If there are very specific questions anyone would like answers to maybe drop me a note before the meeting and I’ll do my best to look into those ahead of the meeting.

1 Like

The agenda for tomorrow’s meeting (1/17/19 @ 9am PST) has been added to the CLF VWG Workspace and, for convenience, is posted here:

Agenda CLF VWG 01-16-19.docx (19.2 KB)

Agenda, call-in information, and supplemental documents that might be referred to during the meeting are available on the workspace site.

1 Like

Great to talk to everybody in the meeting



Below is a link to the recording of the virtual working group meeting.
Recording of ACES CLF VWG Meeting - 2018.01.17

The chat is attached
Message Log Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 10:01:13 AM Pacific Standard Time.html (11.6 KB)


@Alexander_Forsythe: The recording does not load for me (I tried to sign-in too):

It did work immediately after @Alexander_Forsythe posted it. But doesn’t work for me now either.

Seems to be working again, thanks for the quick upload btw. !

Not sure what happen but it works for me. Maybe a bandwidth limitation or just a hiccup? Seems to be good now but I’ll keep an eye on it.

Thank you to all who participated in the first call re: CLF.

In my assessment, two “soft decisions” were reached on the first call:

  • The specification will remain XML.
    There is no compelling enough justification to redefine the specification. There is a thread for discussion here.

  • The specification should not contain optional parts.
    A “common LUT format” where implementations are not required to implement support for all parts of the format loses its commonality. Discussion started here.

Additionally, it was suggested that the specification be made simpler by removing integer encodings. Discussion is on-going here, but so far there appear to be many reasons in favor of this suggestion and few reasons against it.

Please continue to discuss these items if you have a reaction, but please state your case in the relevant discussion threads linked above (or start a new one specific to your question).

Details for the next call will be sent out shortly.

1 Like