- This topic has 368 replies, 63 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@mbze430 : This solution is excellent for a 4K60 workflow but for refresh rates above it isn’t that great. I bookmark it though, so thank you for this input ! 🙂
Edit : https://www.displaycalibrations.com/lut_boxes_comparisons.html
Most home theater enthusiast and even video production only cares up to 60hz. Even with the workflow, you can frame convert from 120/240fps down to production fps than color grade.
Only people that wants 120hz+ are gamers. That is why the Lumagen Artisan 8k only does 120hz with a license key, because most poeple wouldn’t need it.
To get 120hz “free”, DWMLUT would be the clear winner.
By the way : https://www.displaycalibrations.com/lut_boxes_comparisons.html
depending of display size and requirements (lag, contrast, etc) it’s cheaper to buy a Coloredge CS rather that rely on a bad display + $600 to $1000 and higher LUT3D, since these have very accurate grey out of the box so any ideal colrospace can be simulated with a 1dlut matrix inside them.
But as I said it depends on display requirements for your task… if you need a 65″ display you may need one of those boxes if 11/21-point grayscale on Display CMS (typical modern TV) canot provide required accuracy.
IDNK the displays owned by the posters in this thread. Also if some of them own a fast “gamer” display be it backlit or OLED, these boxes may have an unwanted lag.
I did not consider the lag into the equation. And SDI can’t go higher than 120 Hz. It would be very expensive too. As I have a 240 Hz monitor, I only can rely on DWM LUT. I’m worried about the 2026 big Windows 11 update.
I meant the LUT3D “layer” on PS, and its very limited usefulness since content colospace for PS could be whatever you want, like TIFFs in any colospace like sRGB, AdobeRGB, Prophoto and its variants (melissa prostar…), DisplayP3, eciRGBv2…
Yeah, the layer LUT is mostly for artistic changes, not precise color.
I was thinking about the complex LUTs inside the B2A* tags, which are independent of content color space.
Looking at this, you can get a good understanding of what’s missing from ICC and the need for 3D LUT.
https://lightillusion.com/what_is_wrong_with_iccs.html
For your reference.Looking at this, you can get a good understanding of what’s missing from ICC and the need for 3D LUT.
https://lightillusion.com/what_is_wrong_with_iccs.html
For your reference.That is a FUD and commercial propaganda.
ICCs can embed 3D LUTs, the article itself is also saying that:
This is why SpaceMan ICC generates v4 ICC profiles, as it effectively embeds the full 3D LUT into the ICC profile, via the LutAtoBType tag. This can then be used for highly accurate display calibration, with the ICC associated to the display for which the 3D LUT was generated, for example via ‘Windows Colour Management’.
This also works for v2 ICCs that DisplayCAL is generating, not only v4.
The limitations the article is hinting at are mostly:
- If you only use a 1D LUT + matrix you don’t have as much accuracy as a 3DLUT.
- Certain software might not support certain ICC features – not an issue with Photoshop.
- Higher chance of user error – using the wrong rendering intent (or even the wrong profile)
- Higher chance of having an improper ICC generated by some apps (like the wrong chromatic adaptation)
- Rounding errors. This I don’t agree with. 16 bit is plenty even for the 3D LUT. MadVR LUTs are also 16bit for example.
@Vincent : Thank you for pointing this out. I read this article and thought about the fact it wasn’t right. I read it again and I began to acknowledge it but the more I read the more it felt like a seller that wants to make me buy his product.
The only thing I love with 3D LUTs is its ability to set things properly. It has to be the case with ICC profiles but for a majority of software, it’s overlooked and interface elements aren’t properly rendered especially desaturated colors. 3D LUTs are static though, you have to know what you’re doing.
