Hi,

Has anyone tried out the new high resolution capabilities of ColourSpace to generate a 256 step 1D LUT, profile with that in place and then generate a standard 33 point LUT?

I'm looking for real world examples of this process with 3D vs 1D + 3D as a comparison.

The process is intriguing from a theoretical perspective, and appeals to that pursuit of perfection, but I'm hesitant to spend the extra money on the required license upgrade to accomplish this.

Any real world feedback would be welcome.

Thanks!

I've not done separate 1D and 3D LUTs.
But the ability to profile with a smaller BBC cube size with a larger grey axis size with a larger LUT generation size definitely generates far superior results.
With the ASUS I use you can upload the 1D and 3D separately which improves the grey scale compared using 3D only as the 1D LUT is much larger than the 3D LUT.

ColorCal
Thanks for replying. If you do get a chance to test the 1D + 3D workflow on your Asus, if you're able to run reports on just the 3D you normally do, and then compare that with the new process, that would great to quantify the difference.

What ColorCal is saying is that the larger 3D LUT generated from the Body Centric Cube with a larger Grey Axis Size then generates a better and larger 3D LUT than with the 33^3 limits of the lower license levels (as was the original max of ColourSpace, and as is the max with all Calman licenses too).

When that is then uploaded into the the ASUS via the 1D+3D option the grey scale is improved as the 1D is more accurate as the 1D extracted form the 3D is far larger.

If you were to do a separate 1D and then a smaller 3D the result would likely be worse as the 1D would not have been made from a good large volumetric patch set.

Does that help?

Steve

Thanks Steve,

Appreciate the reply.

When I have the opportunity, I'm going to push the limits of my existing lower license level to see what a 33 point BCC to see what results I get with that compared to my existing workflow.

Already the dE is quite low, so will be curious to see what the result is.

The lower license levels have a maximum LUT & Profiling size of 33^3.
So while a 33^3 BCC based profile will be better than before, your question on 1D + 3D LUTs is not the same as the 1D will only be 33 points.
You will need a higher license level for that.

Steve

As for my post above using a higher license level with a BCC cube of size 17 (21^3 cube equivalent) with a 64 grey scale size generates a noticeable improvement in the calibration compared the same BCC 17 cube with default 33 grey scale size.
I used a LUT Generation Size of 128.
I loaded the 1D LUT separately from the 3D into my ASUS, so the 1D LUT was of higher prevision than the 3D LUT.

Yes, that is as expected.
Using a large LUT Generation Size, with a large Grey Scale Size, and then using the 1D and 3D components separately will in most cases generate a better result.
Most 3D LUT systems are 17^3 or 33^3, so limiting the grey scale component to the same number of points.
1D LUTs are usually far bigger - 128, 256, etc., steps, so separating the 1D out from the 3D when uploading will usually generate better results.

It is also worth noting that while a 17 BCC is approx. the same patch count as a 21^3 cube, it's ability to cover volumetric colour is actually closer to a 33^3 cube.
Using BCC patch sets really are a great improvement over standard cube based patch sets.

Steve

ColorCal
Thanks for providing the real world test results.