Try Generating a LUT from the attached bcs (with target_luma_min = 0.100000000000). The Limit Luminance Min is displayed as 0.0000, instead than 0.1000 (as happening for the max luminance limit)

Attached file: SOFS9.1_10b_64-940(P)_VPG2.4.zip

When I load the Profile into LUT Generation, the Min value shows as 0.1000, and the Max as 112.6139...

Steve

Sorry, I have missed a step.
Tick and write a value in Limit Luminance Min.
Untick. It is not enough reselecting the destination gamut profile, as, to make it happening, you need to select before another profile.

For your info:
I have noted something of confusing. That happens when doing a LUT whose Min was 0.0000003 (displayed as 0, attached).
You have different LUT's with the same input displayed, i.e with Limit Luminance Min displayed as 0.0000.
1. Flag ticked, 0 manually written (LUT is shifted)
2. Flag ticked as result of of profile reselection, and then flag ticked back (the LUT is not not shifted).

Attached file: SOFS9.1_10b_64-940(P)_VPG2.4.zip

If you manually change the value, it will never re-set back to the profile default unless you re-load the profile.
(Same as with Gamma values, etc throughout ColourSpace.)
But 'unticking' the box will always use the default profile value, which means the LUT is ranged 0 to 1.

For your second 'info', I'll look into that.
There will be a difference, as one is targeting 0.0000003, the other 0.0000000.
But I need to verify the result.

Steve

Hum ... Yes, it was expected, but to achieve that I have had to load another profile and then reloading the profile.


Let me add that I have noted from the manual, 0.0000000 should not be a valid setting.

No, you just untick the enable box.
That way you can directly compare any user value with the default profile value.


Where is that stated?
Likely outdated info.
But what the User Guide info does say is:
"If used with display calibration, the Min value should not be smaller than the Min in the profile, and the Max not set higher..."
So what you have doe is not recommended.
(And no, we should not limit the vales, as they can be of use for technical LUTs, etc.)

Steve

Maybe I don't fully understand LUT's, but what I see (and verified - by the way, it was that that triggered my attention), is that, if 0.00000 is used the LUT is shifted (I have lost by OLED black)

As the Profile has a 0.0000003 black level, setting it below that will change the LUT generated, which is expected, and is why the User Guide says to not do that... unless you really know what you are trying to do.

Steve

Steve, you came to the conclusion there is not a bug. But there is something of inconsistent.
Have a look to this recording: https://1drv.ms/v/c/6b5b8bf23b77dd0a/ES3aD3h2p5VMm8sKyon6ABIB8P3qzH31MYHBzzWSu47m6A?e=0CdeeH
Starting from what I can control (i.e. the settings I can see), I have different LUT results.
How can I tell that the 0,0000 of the first launch of CS (which is indeed 0.00000003) is different from the 0,0000 of the second launch (which I am pretty sure is 0.00000000000)?
The right procedure looks being: each time I open LUT tools and I want generate a LUT from the destination gamut I see saved, if I find that field ticked, I should untick, select a different gamut destination, and then select back the original one.

PS: I have ticked that field accidentally generating a 2.4 gamma LUT. Then I closed LUT tools. As soon as I have verified, I regenerated it as I wanted 2.2 gamma. When verifying I wondered where is my black? Then I have reported hoping that my bad experience might avoid other users making the same mistake.

If the Limit Enable tick boxes are disabled, the Min/Max data from the profile is used.
If the boxes are enabled, the manually entered data is used.
As the box is 4 decimal places, when a profile is opened with the box ticked, it will be reading just the visible decimal places, so zero.

Steve

You don't have to tell me, I it took me some of my time, but I have understood.
So that's the right procedure to work correctly in the case I have shown:

It does not look at all user friendly, at least to me.

I'll make this a WIBNI post.

Steve