PCS-to-device vs inverse device-to-PCS

[Nika]

Hello,

I’m a newbie when it comes to 3D LUTs and their generation.

I’m confused by the options in 3D LUT settings -> gamut mapping mode… Could anyone explain to me the difference between PCS-to-device and inverse device-to-PCS settings? If we invert device-to-PCS, won’t we just get PCS-to-device? Is the difference related to clipping in any way…? If not, what is it?

Sorry if this is an obvious question.

Many thanks,
Nika

[Florian Höch]

Hi,

I’m confused by the options in 3D LUT settings -> gamut mapping mode… Could anyone explain to me the difference between PCS-to-device and inverse device-to-PCS settings?

Inverse device-to-PCS gamut mapping inverts the device-to-PCS table on-the-fly, which guarantees a high quality accurate result but is also processing intensive. PCS-to-device gamut mapping uses the existing PCS-to-device table of a cLUT profile, which is a lot quicker but depending on the source of the profile or the parameters to generate it, may not be as accurate (for DisplayCAL-generated XYZ LUT profiles the difference should be small though).

[Author]

Posts