For those who are interested,
I did a 10,000 pt. 3D LUT today and it took about 3.5 hrs with the Klein K10A with the low light handler ON, 1 read. The scans and the PQ looked fine. No apparent banding or artifacts that I could see. Not that they are not there, just none were obvious to me. I used 260 nit. luminance level because that's what my A1E is calibrated to and I wanted to do a side by side comparison. I also did a 3,000 pt. 3D LUT at the same luminance level and that looked fine as well. To my eyes the 3,000 pt. LUT looked just as good as the 10,000 pt. LUT with content. I'm sure there are differences but they weren't obvious when casually observing content. The one thing to be aware about is the panel tends to "drift" when taking that many reads over that length of time at this high luminance level because of heating effects, etc,. I'm sure running the same scan at 100-150 nits, closer to reference will give more consistent, better results. I ran this with a couple month old Dell laptop, no issues.
As far as the 16-235 vs the 16-255 question, Tyler got back to me with this answer:
"Video signals are allowed to go above white 235 In Blu-ray or streaming content. only broadcast signals are clamped to 235. The above white is usually referred to as super white or smpte plus range."
I'm still a little concerned becasue when looking at several LGs, some sets are linear over 235 and some, probably due to their powersupplys, are not so i'm not sure how noticable the extra range will be and how much content is displayed over 235 but here is "an" answer to this question. Best to try both ways an see if you see a difference on your specific set in my opinion.
Again, in order to see these subtle differences, you have to look at specific content that you are familiar with and take a critical look. For those who want to look at the raw LUT file, that's fine but i'm mainly concerned on what the PQ is presented to the user. Hope this helps