better way to apply LUT (pro-colorist approach) 

You don’t have to invert the image. That’s only to make sure that what we are trying to show is clearly visible after RU-vid compression. Apart from that, you’ll have to change the interpolation method before applying LUTs in your project.

Exactly my q

probably performance but honestly the difference cant be that drastic

Probably because it's kind of subjective. If you apply a neutral LUT that is meant to produce the same output as its input, tetrahedral interpolation will instead shift colors. So it's perceptually better, but not exactly mathematically correct (or desired).

This.

trilinear uses less cpu power. for slower computers

@@АнтонСавичев-й3р thanks

Allen do you have a minute to tell me some more info about what you mentioned on the differences between 17 to 65 cubes? Which is better to use if you need better accuracy and resolution and why? Many thanks in advance!

@@vfxd8372 It is just a different size. A cube can have a size of 3, 10, 30, 100. YOu can google it and find your answer. But one size is NOT better than another size. People saying bigger cube size is more accurate but that is not true. A cube size 17 is also accurate. And if you have 65 the "LUT designer" must be a professional. Because it is easier to make mistakes. A 17 cube can be "accurate", too. "Better" and "more accurate" are the wrong terms.

@@allenpayne9182 Thank you for your time, Allen. I understand what you're saying. We're talking about a different approach when choosing one of them. I'll google it and take a better look at the usage of each one of them. 🙏

The video doesn't say that a 17-Point cube is better than a 33-Point cube. I think you are working on too many wrong assumptions at this point. Here’s the excerpt from the script where we speak about 17-point cube LUT: “Why 17-point? It’s the least information LUT that Davinci can create. This means that when we apply this LUT back it’ll be a bigger challenge for the software to re-create our adjustments accurately using just the 17-Point LUT.” I think you are missing the entire point. It's an experiment designed to showcase how different interpolations work on a 2D image. It's very successful I must say, given that our target audience is the people who are creators with no intentions of becoming colorists. I say this because it’s not easy to showcase the effects of even a “bad” LUT on a 2D image. On a 3D cube, it's simple. But on a 2D image, it’s a matter of trial and error. That forces you to design a pipeline with certain assumptions and certain extreme starting points. And if anyone wants to take a deep dive into it, our blog links more such resources to go in-depth color science. It's not a good practice to come into a room full of newbies and try to be a know-it-all. You have to acknowledge the learning curve of someone who is a complete outsider to all these concepts. You cannot walk in here and write a careless comment with false assumptions and half-baked knowledge.

@@ColoristFoundry You say: "t’ll be a bigger challenge for the software to re-create our adjustments accurately using just the 17-Point LUT" This statement is wrong. Whyt d do you mean with "bigger challenge". If the LUT creator chooses 17 as size it is totaly fine. By wording it the way you say it in the video it seems that the "creator of the LUT" designed it for 33 or 65? But if you design it that way you should export it as 33 or 65. For the software itself is HARDER to interpolate a larger cube size. So "less challenging" for the software. Not "bigger" Sorry, but when it comes to LUTs I don't like simplifications. That is why people writing comments like: "what is better". But one size is not better or worse than other sizes. And "bigger challenge" statement is wrong.