I have no freaking idea how to do it (all of the FAQs are extremely tedious) and I'm not going to shell out hundreds of dollars just so my picture can possibly look a little bit better.

I personally believe that if you get a TV with an awesome picture and you know how to use the settings, you don't need ISF calibration. I've known a couple people who were suckered into it and they said they felt cheated by it.

You should already have everything you need for a basic calibration in your dvd library,
On all dvds that have the THX logo on it have setup software on it and it can tell you how to get the best picture properly and enjoy any setup you have.

I just think that people are being brainwashed into thinking that they should hire somebody to calibrate their TV to have awesome picture quality. The fact is...they don't. Every TV I've ever owned has been calibrated by my own two eyes. I adjust each setting until the image looks better. Then I adjust it a bit more and a bit more. Sometimes it takes a couple weeks to really the get the image I want but I eventually get there. I end up with a picture that dwarfs the default settings by a mile.

If your set is a Pioneer Kuro and you have a great eye for detail, save yourself the money and do it yourself. You'll end up having a much bigger appreciation for image quality.

If you have someone that feels they were cheated in some way, then they should contact the calibrator and discuss it with them. A good one won't mind a followup. A calibration is definitely worth it if you find someone that knows what they're doing for the right price.

I do calibrations myself and they do make a huge difference if done right. It's not my day job and I do it in my spare time so I charge a fair price. I seriously doubt your friends would have felt cheated if I had done theirs.

It's all about finding the right person to do the job and getting the results you want. Also, ask as many questions as you can. The more you know, the more you'll appreciate the results. :-)

If you have someone that feels they were cheated in some way, then they should contact the calibrator and discuss it with them. A good one won't mind a followup. A calibration is definitely worth it if you find someone that knows what they're doing for the right price.

I do calibrations myself and they do make a huge difference if done right. It's not my day job and I do it in my spare time so I charge a fair price. I seriously doubt your friends would have felt cheated if I had done theirs.

It's all about finding the right person to do the job and getting the results you want. Also, ask as many questions as you can. The more you know, the more you'll appreciate the results. :-)

I'm not knocking your profession. When you guys get it right, you get it right. god bless ya for it....

I guess my point is that people shouldn't get the idea that calibrating a TV has to be rocket science and brain surgery all rolled into one. All it takes is a keen eye for detail and a lot of patience. Most people have neither so they shell out hundreds of dollars for somebody else to do it.

For me, I trust my own two eyes more than anything. I can see flaws and I know how to correct them by adjusting the remote settings. It's a lenghty task but it's also a rewarding one. Ever since I begin calibrating my own sets, my eye for detail has become even more discriminating (more than I had hoped, in some ways).

For me Rambone, I bought a great big DLP, 71" Sammy. I had the guys from Avical out since I knew they had lots of hrs logged in on these sets. I budgeted for the calibration when I bought the display. 3.5 hrs later he was done and i have been lovin the PQ ever since. I tried the disc (DVE) in the interim before my calibration, I never achieved the level of detail these guys were able to get. Of course having lots of experience and high end gear doesn't hurt either. I think for a big part of the population, doing it yourself is fine, not knocking anyone. I have never felt ripped off,or cheated...these guys are totally professional and really nice, and have been there to answer many a question before, during and after the service. If someone has had a bad experience...it happens...you just have to really do your homework when selecting a calibrator... I get complements on the PQ all the time. Did not mean to rant, sorry if it came across that way..... that is all.

You have to remember that a calibrator's job is not to give you a picture that suits your tastes. A calibrator's job is to bring your set as close to the prescribed standards as possible. There is some room for discretion on some items, and a calibrator will use his/her experience to gauge which items should be a compromise.

Whether or not you will like a picture that complies closely with standards is up to you. A lot of people don't like a calibrated image because they aren't used to it. It sounds like you have already answered your own question. If you are satisfied with setting things by eye, then calibration probably isnt for you. However, that doesn't mean its a ripoff...

Is paying for professional calibration necessary? I don't think so.
Can you do just as good a job "by eye" or using one of those calibration DVDs? Not in the slightest.

At the very least I would say that you need to use a colorimeter for a "proper" calibration. For a start, there are very few displays out there that have a colour temperature preset anywhere close to D65 - the majority of "warm" presets look awful. Getting your greyscale to D65 is a massive improvement in itself.

But it doesn't end there. Using a colorimeter can help you select which picture preset has the best gamma response (it isn't always the movie preset) can help you quickly set up colour/tint, properly adjust the colour management system if there's one available (Pioneer/Toshiba) etc.


If you don't want to take the time & effort to learn how to do this, then it would certainly be a lot easier to just pay someone to come round and do it for you. They'll have more knowledge about it, and their hardware will give more accurate results than doing it yourself.

If you think you're getting results even close to a proper calibration (on most displays at least) by making adjustments by eye then you're kidding yourself.

However, if you are happy with those adjustments you're making by eye, and think things look good then by all means, leave things as they are. Calibration will give you a more accurate image, but then a lot of people don't actually like an accurate image.

I know a lot of people that think HDTV should always look really bright, vivid and have super-saturated colours that pop out at you. Now some HD content is meant to look vivid & saturated, but certainly not all of it is. If that's how they want to watch TV though, who am I to say that they're doing it wrong? It's completely unwatchable to me, but it's what they like and in the end that's what matters to them.

I have had two of my TV’s calibrated. I, also my wife, (she couldn’t believe the difference) are so satisfied with the way our sets look. I have a 55” Mits. Diamond (family Room) that is about 7 years old, there was a lot I didn’t know about this TV until my calibrator showed up and started working on my set. I am having the same person come back and take care of my 73” Mits Diamond this Spring. See, I trust this person to give me the best picture quality I expect from my TV’s, and he does just that. Calibrating is not for everyone, but it sure isn’t a ripoff. :cool:

I have to agree with the two posters above. You seem to have already drawn your conclusion, so obviously for you, calibration probably is not a good choice. It's really a question of what you want from your TV. If you just want something that looks good to you, then the best way to accomplish that is with your eye. If you want something that is accurate (that is, will closely replicate what the artists intended), then the only way to do that is using instrumentation. Calibration is not a rip-off if you understand what you are getting. If you aren't interested in an accurate image, then calibration probably isn't for you--and you wouldn't be alone in that position, because many others just want a picture that is (overly) bright and saturated. I, however, have been thrilled with the improvement in my picture that has resulted from calibration and find myself disliking non-calibrated pictures now. It really is a matter of what you're looking for.

Is paying for professional calibration necessary? I don't think so.
Can you do just as good a job "by eye" or using one of those calibration DVDs? Not in the slightest.

If you think you're getting results even close to a proper calibration (on most displays at least) by making adjustments by eye then you're kidding yourself.

However, if you are happy with those adjustments you're making by eye, and think things look good then by all means, leave things as they are. Calibration will give you a more accurate image, but then a lot of people don't actually like an accurate image.

I know a lot of people that think HDTV should always look really bright, vivid and have super-saturated colours that pop out at you. Now some HD content is meant to look vivid & saturated, but certainly not all of it is. If that's how they want to watch TV though, who am I to say that they're doing it wrong? It's completely unwatchable to me, but it's what they like and in the end that's what matters to them.

Look...I'm VERY meticulous when I calibrate by eye. I strive for natural coloring rather than the overly fake "video" look. It IS possible to calibrate a TV by eye and have it look A LOT better than the expected picture. You don't need to get neck-deep in the technical minutia to truly understand how to bring out the best of the specs. Maybe I'm just extremely good at it....I'm not sure. All I'm saying is that people don't NEED professional calibration if they are willing to put the time in themselves to experiment with the settings.

Also, enough with this snobbish attitude towards anybody who doesn't get pro calibration. It's the same line over and over---"If you aren't interested in an accurate image, then calibration probably isn't for you--and you wouldn't be alone in that position, because many others just want a picture that is (overly) bright and saturated." I dislike the "overly bright and saturated look" so....

I'm not saying that you can't get a fairly natural looking image doing it by eye, but chances are very slim that you will have an accurate image making the adjustments by eye.

Rambone,

You need to understand what calibration is to begin with before you say it is not necessary. Calibration is done to get an accurate picture, not one that personally appeals to you (or anyone else for that matter). Calibration is adjusting the display to a known standard (what the original source actually looks like because of the conditions under which it was filmed, transferred to video, etc.). A set of standards are followed all along the production. You cannot adjust your display to those standards by eye.

A lot of us appreciate what that means and calibrate our displays. You obviously are not interested in doing that but instead want it to look good to you. No problem, enjoy your display to the max!:)

Just don't tell people who want an accurate picture that we don't know what we are doing, m'kay?:)

Look...I'm VERY meticulous when I calibrate by eye. I strive for natural coloring rather than the overly fake "video" look. It IS possible to calibrate a TV by eye and have it look A LOT better than the expected picture. You don't need to get neck-deep in the technical minutia to truly understand how to bring out the best of the specs. Maybe I'm just extremely good at it....I'm not sure. All I'm saying is that people don't NEED professional calibration if they are willing to put the time in themselves to experiment with the settings.

Also, enough with this snobbish attitude towards anybody who doesn't get pro calibration. It's the same line over and over---"If you aren't interested in an accurate image, then calibration probably isn't for you--and you wouldn't be alone in that position, because many others just want a picture that is (overly) bright and saturated." I dislike the "overly bright and saturated look" so....

Christ, where to start!

First, nobody NEEDS an HDTV or Surround Sound. But you are posting on AVS. The S stands for science!

Before you begin to bash ISF calibration, maybe you need to take the time to educate yourself on what it is. And by education, I do not mean listening to the monkies that work at Best Buy.

ISF Calibration is not about getting a realistic picture, or a picture that you may like. ISF calibration is about getting the picutre as close to possible to an industry wide standard. That way, you are seeing what the original creators of the program intended you to see. It's not about black levels, or color reproduction (though they are important) it is about a universal standard.

The added benefit by getting your set as close as possible to industry standard is that you begin to appreciate the artistic talent that goes into many movies and television shows.

I think what folks are trying to say "some harsher than others" is that by eye, you really can't get the picture to what it truly should be. You can definitely get it better, but it's practically impossible to get grays accurate without some type of meter. If you have a way of comparing the grays displayed with say a homemade comparitor, then you can make it better, but the human eye tends to want grays to look too bluish.

If you're happy with the pic you have, that's great. Most people I know are the same way. They won't pay for calibration and don't really care because they are happy with the pic. And those folks are welcome to be happy with it. I even have a coworker that I was only going to charge $50 to do his set (basically gas and food for me for the most part) and he said nah. So to each his own.

Most people don't have the time, patience, or knowledge to do it themselves, though. And while DVE is a great tool (have it myself), you can't get a good calibration with just that.

Oh, and you did't offend me with your earlier posts, calibrating isn't my actual profession. I'm a computer engineer. I do calibrations in my spare time because I enjoy doing it. I also do it for a cheaper fee than most because I want everyone to enjoy the benefits.

The idea behind proper calibration is to get the display as NEUTRAL as is possible, so you are not seeing the display "color" your image in any way.

Some people like to boost their subwoofer and surround speakers as well...

It's good for them, but it is not an accurate calibration.

There IS a difference.

LYou don't need to get neck-deep in the technical minutia to truly understand how to bring out the best of the specs.


The specs are technical, and very particular. You can't understand the specs without first understanding the "technical minutia." You have to have a fundamental understanding of color, how to use a CIE chart, etc., before the specs even make any real sense. And chances are if you have taken the time to understand all of these things, you will value the importance of calibration.

As others have stated, it is practically impossible to get an accurate image by eye, normally for two reasons:

1) Our eyes aren't very good at picking out a certain "shade" of color. You can talk about how good your eyes are all you want, but I guarantee you can't pick out D65 just by eyeballing it.

2) The only chance you would ever have at being able to "eyeball" it is if you had extensively viewed a calibrated set to begin with. Without doing that, you don't even have a reference for comparison. Even then, you won't see ISF techs (who watch calibrated sets 24/7) even attempt to eyeball it.

As everyone else has stated, calibration is not for everyone and it depends on what you want from your set. If you want an accurate picture, then get it calibrated. If you want it to look like you want it to, then calibration is a waste of money for you.

If you expected a different answer, then you came to the wrong forum :)

Rambone, you are right, maybe I came off a little harsh. I haven't seen your TV, so I can't say with any certainty that your TV is not natural-looking. I'm quite confident that you can get a pretty decent picture doing it by eye. With that said, the only way to be sure that the picture is calibrated correctly is to measure. Like most questions in this hobby, the answer to the question of "is calibration worth it" is "it depends." There are people who may not have liked their post-calibration settings, and they are absolutely entitled to change them, after all, it's their TV, but if you are mostly concerned with getting a picture that looks right to you, then you are the best person to judge it, not a calibrator. That's not what a calibrator does.

Look, guys...I'm not saying that my eyeballs are as technically accurate as a scientific color meter. I'm just saying that I have an unusually good eye for detail and I can spot different shades of grey and so on.

My general point about having your set pro-calibrated is that some people have been suckered into believing that their picture will just be so-so without it.

I'm confident in my system of doing things since it's tried and true. I make tweaks here and there then leave it like that for a few days and then I notice some contrast flaws so I correct them...so on and so forth.

This system may not the ultimate way of doing things but it...

1) doesn't cost money
2) helps me become more connected to how my set operates
3) still looks great. It doesn't produce a saturated, overly vivid artifical look. I'm a huge graphics whore so I don't like to settle for an WHOLLY inaccurate picture.

Look, guys...I'm not saying that my eyeballs are as technically accurate as a scientific color meter. I'm just saying that I have an unusually good eye for detail and I can spot different shades of grey and so on.

My general point about having your set pro-calibrated is that some people have been suckered into believing that their picture will just be so-so without it.

I'm confident in my system of doing things since it's tried and true. I make tweaks here and there then leave it like that for a few days and then I notice some contrast flaws so I correct them...so on and so forth.

This system may not the ultimate way of doing things but it...

1) doesn't cost money
2) helps me become more connected to how my set operates
3) still looks great. It doesn't produce a saturated, overly vivid artifical look. I'm a huge graphics whore so I don't like to settle for an WHOLLY inaccurate picture.

I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of doing it your way, or saying that calibration would be better for you. We are just trying to point out the reasons for calibration and the facts about it so that you can make an informed decision.

It really all boils down to one point: If you want an accurate picture, then calibrate it. If you want it to look good to you (your taste), then by all means save the money and set it the way you like it.

A good analogy of a calibration is to think of a window - your windshield, the dining room box window, etc. That window is filthy - or has tint applied to it(!).

Calibration "cleans" that filthy window and lets in all the real light and color the producer/camera/post-editor intended!

The difference is, the television window is more than just a pane or two of glass - it's a complicated device with eletronic this n' that packed behind and around the picture tube or the panel. That's where the Science in AVS comes in.

Another analogy: Using DVE or the newer AVIA or GetGray is like windexing both sides of your window. The picture will be *more* accurate than it was, and will pass more of the intended piece.

Getting ISF calibration does the windex part and then some: It would actually check that the glass lets in the full spectrum of light as specified by long-established standards in the industry. It would remove any artificially applied "tint"(illegal in some states!), allowing the window/display to be as TRANSPARENT as possible.

That's the key of calibration - transparency. The TV becomes a WINDOW to reality, fantasy, or any combination that fits your viewing interests.

Fortunately, calibration is flexible - you can go as far as you want or as short as you want. I personally believe in "milking the heck" out of the DVDs presently available. Once I turn off all the "gimmicks" in the user menus and get the 5 user controls properly adjusted, I go a little deeper and adjust the geometry as best as possible with the DVD patterns provided. Depending on the initial state of the set, that will take me at least 1/2 to 2/3 way toward that video nirvana.

Later on, when budget and my choice in technology dictate, I may go for ISF. I'm what consumer analysts call a "late adaptor" - I tend to wait a while, do research, and then decide what action to take. But I'm not closed off to ISF - I just want to wait until I have a device in my home that will truly benefit from it - and 24" direct-view tubes are not the case.

But at least, by using those DVDs(and a reputable brand DVD player!), you are most likely guaranteed of getting the right results for the controls most users have had access to for over 40 years - provided you are doing it in the right environment and are following the written/spoken instructions.

Anybody can hold their hands apart in front of them and approximate a 'foot', or a 'yard'. Put them in one room - and NO TWO of them will have their hands spread apart exactly the same distance! It's impossible!

But with a ruler/yardstick/measuring tape - a foot is 12" is a foot, and a yard is 36" is a yard - no disputing it! Calibration patterns and tools are the rulers and measuring tapes of this business - and they'll tell you exactly where you are on the calibration spectrum.

:D

Look, guys...I'm not saying that my eyeballs are as technically accurate as a scientific color meter. I'm just saying that I have an unusually good eye for detail and I can spot different shades of grey and so on.

...

I'm confident in my system of doing things since it's tried and true. I make tweaks here and there then leave it like that for a few days and then I notice some contrast flaws so I correct them...so on and so forth.

This system may not the ultimate way of doing things but it...

1) doesn't cost money
2) helps me become more connected to how my set operates
3) still looks great. It doesn't produce a saturated, overly vivid artifical look. I'm a huge graphics whore so I don't like to settle for an WHOLLY inaccurate picture.

But how do you KNOW you "have a good eye" and "it's tried and true" unless you compare it to a standard? Otherwise, it comes back to what people have already commented, it's just what looks good to you.

But how do you KNOW you "have a good eye" and "it's tried and true" unless you compare it to a standard? Otherwise, it comes back to what people have already commented, it's just what looks good to you.

My cousin and a friend of mine had their HDTV's calibrated. I know what the sets looked like before and after. There was an improvement but it didn't go from a "dirty window" to a "windexed clean window"---if I may use that analogy. I could tell a few details were sharpened but not so much as to justify the money.

As I said before, I've found that if your TV has excellent PQ to begin with...a keen eye to the smallest of details can go a very long way.

Calibration is necessary IMO... I suggest starting the process of learning to do it yourself if you don't want to spend the money (of even if you do have your Display Professional Calibrated). :)


-Shawn

My cousin and a friend of mine had their HDTV's calibrated. I know what the sets looked like before and after. There was an improvement but it didn't go from a "dirty window" to a "windexed clean window"---if I may use that analogy. I could tell a few details were sharpened but not so much as to justify the money.

As I said before, I've found that if your TV has excellent PQ to begin with...a keen eye to the smallest of details can go a very long way.

Rambone, did Best Buy try and shove ISF calibration down your throat? Please remember the source of your information before you make an uniformed decision.

I still don't think you understand the point of ISF Calibration. As an intellectual challenge, in your own words, describe what ISF calibration is and its main benefit.

Rambone, did Best Buy try and shove ISF calibration down your throat? Please remember the source of your information before you make an uniformed decision.

I still don't think you understand the point of ISF Calibration. As an intellectual challenge, in your own words, describe what ISF calibration is and its main benefit.

You seem to be offended that I dare exercise another option other than ISF calibration.

Best Buy? Who brought up Best Buy? I didn't bring up Best Buy. As to your second point...I know what ISF calibration is. What does it prove me telling you what it is if I could easily google it anyway? Plus, the previous posters in this thread summed it up already.

All I'm saying is that my eyes and stubborn refusal to settle for an imperfect picture have led me to calibrate on my own. It's proving successful for me.

My only problem with ISF calibration is that it's being exploited by some people to milk other people out of money. People are being tricked into the believeing the hype that ISF calibration is a 100% must. Hell...I was at another AV forum recently (I won't say the name), where one of the forum leaders was spreading misinformation and trying to sell services to naive HDTV owners.

If I have another problem with ISF calibration, it's not the calibration itself but some of the people who get emotional about it. They talk down to people such as myself who merely suggest that there is a less complicated alternative. Most of these people are ISF calibrators themselves. (Most ISF calibrators are much more level-headed than this but there are just enough of them to be poisonous.)

Yes, there are probably calibrators out there that are just in it for money and try to sell folks things they don't need. But there are more out there that don't. Also remember that 99% of the public have no clue how to calibrate a picture in the least. Most don't even know how to properly set brightness, contrast, tint, color, or any other basic setting. Most people don't own DVE or AVIA or even know what they are. Calibrations/Calibrators are there for those people. Those are the people that can mostly benefit from it and folks like yourself who are happy with their picture do not have to have it done if you don't feel it beneficial.

Just don't discount the value of calibrations in general because you feel like you are able to eyeball it to your liking. Also, as with any service, one should always research any calibrator before letting them touch your tv. Get reviews, talk to other customers, talk to them yourself. If you aren't comfortable with them, don't use them. Find someone else or forget about it altogether.

It is very worthwhile if you find someone you like, who knows what they're doing, is willing to share their knowledge, and is willing to do it for a fair price. Also, someone that's willing to backup their work. Myself, I always record default settings before I begin and if you're not satisfied, I set everything back to the way it was and do not charge for my visit. So far, that's not been an issue for me.

I think some may take exception with you using the term "calibration". Don't get me wrong...I understand your point completely and also believe that most consumers can adjust their TV by "eye" and attain acceptable results. But that isn't calibration in the true sense of the word.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines the word calibrate as "to standardize (as a measuring instrument) by determining the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors". What is your standard? In making adjustments to the screen, you are creating a picture more pleasing to your eye. This does not constitute calibration as your eyes and own personal preference are not a known standard.

I think some may take exception with you using the term "calibration". Don't get me wrong...I understand your point completely and also believe that most consumers can adjust their TV by "eye" and attain acceptable results. But that isn't calibration in the true sense of the word.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines the word calibrate as "to standardize (as a measuring instrument) by determining the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors". What is your standard? In making adjustments to the screen, you are creating a picture more pleasing to your eye. This does not constitute calibration as your eyes and own personal preference are not a known standard.

If you want to get into semantics then maybe "calibrate" isn't the appropriate term.

My strategy is to get my picture as close as I can to perfection. Not just for my eyes but for EVERYBODY who watches TV in my living room.
Though I concede I'm not there yet, it's a very healthy thing to work towards that lofty goal.

Even if you "calibrate" by eyeball, you still need a frame of reference. This is where the available calibration DVDs come in to play. While you can't get a "perfectly" calibrated display without instrumentation, the use of a calibration DVD, makes the eyeball adjusting of your display much easier and faster. These DVDs provide you with the correct, "standard", video reference (even if you don't have the instrumentation to measure it). If one is exceptionally picky, then an experienced, conscientious, (ISF accredited or not) calibrator, with the necessary measurement equipment, can get you that last 5% of video accuracy from your display.

Using a calibration DVD like AVIA, DVE, GetGray, etc. provide accurate video standards which can be used as a reference for basic adjustments. This reduces the trial & error approach and continual tweaking of the adjustments. Since the video (movies & TV shows) recorded on DVDs vary by what the producer intended (and encoding errors) and the video on TV broadcasts have a large variability, they are not a good, or reliable, frames of reference.

I think what most of the responders are saying is that any adjustment of a display still requires a standard, and accurate, frame of reference. Without that, anyone is just guessing (and relying on memory) as to what represents a correct image. It's not that one cannot get a pleasing image just by eyeballing the display, it just takes a lot longer and tends to vary by the program material being displayed.

I have been doing my own (eyeball) "calibrations" for over 25 years (and consider myself to be very discerning). I still find that my visual adjustments (although very pleasing) are always a little "off" after I run a calibration DVD to do the fine tuning. The resultant image is greatly improved after adjustment using an accurate reference standard.

Rambone -- BTW, thanks for starting this thread. It has provoked an interesting discussion.

My strategy is to get my picture as close as I can to perfection. Not just for my eyes but for EVERYBODY who watches TV in my living room.This sounds a lot like the no-standards, everybody's-right, never-ending-adjustment strategy.

I believe it's also referred to as "The Race to the Bottom."

This sounds a lot like the no-standards, everybody's-right, never-ending-adjustment strategy.

I believe it's also referred to as "The Race to the Bottom."

Aren't you the ISF calibrator on that other forum who was bullying and mocking anybody who disagreed with you???

I remember the guy's name was Doug and he advertised himself in his sig.

Aren't you the ISF calibrator on that other forum who was bullying and mocking anybody who disagreed with you???

I remember the guy's name was Doug and he advertised himself in his sig.I don't believe I am bullying you and I don't believe I am mocking you, unless the act of pointing out the impossibility of succeeding in your stated strategy is mockery.

If you have evidence that I have bullied or mocked someone, or otherwise acted inappropriately, I encourage you to bring it to the attention of the AVS moderators.

Otherwise, you should check your facts before making veiled accusations.

I'm just a guy with a spyder2.

I think in many ways you are right Rambone, but your tone is deffinetly wrong.

Calibration is an absolute must for someone looking for the last 5% maybe even 10%. I don't see this forum as being a you must get a professional. I see it as a repository of professional information. It's indepth and complex. You can try it yourself, with no test patterns, with a DVD, with a DVD and optical filters, with a colorimeter, with service menu access. These are all options available to the individual on here for free, $25 DVD, or $150 for a decent probe and a buckload of time.

For many well to do people they'd prefer not to understand the minutia of color correction, nor sped the time to learn calibration themselves. These people calibration is absolutely worth it.

This world is full of things that aren't needed to appreciate something and can easy be over or under valued based on your perception:
high-end audio gear
blu-ray v DVD
SUV v minivan
Lexus ES300 v camary
Nike v prowing
ect..

The fact of the matter is calibration makes your TV more accurate to standards and a professional with equipment will do a better job than anyone armed soley with a DVD.

If you are happy with your picture be happy.
If someone else feels like they won't be happy unless the know it's right, they pay someone.

Rambone obviously doesn't understand the purpose of ISF calibration. He keeps on talking about getting a good picture or a picture that is pleasing to his eyes. That is not the point of ISF calibration.

I am not mocking you or putting you down Rambone. I just don't think you get it.

Well to answer the question:
"Is calibration REALLY neccessary???"

The answer is definitely "no".

It's not necessary. If you don't get your TV calibrated, you still can have a beautiful looking picture. There's no doubt about it.

HOWEVER...
1. You obviously take the time to do your homework.

You take the time to calibrate it yourself. So in that sense, you already understand that Calibration is necessary. You choose not to pay someone to calibrate it, but you do get it calibrated. It may not be perfectly ISF calibrated, but it's still calibrated none-the-less. You've noticed a considerable difference between before and after your home calibration. So you obviously see the advantage of calibration.


2. You don't care about "perfection" or rather standards.

As you said, your TV is comparable to a professionally calibrated TV. But your TV IS Calibrated. It may not be calibrated to professional standards, but it's close enough for your enjoyment.


Basically, some people get theirs professionally calibrated because they don't want to take the time and effort to learn all about their TV and how to adjust it and what-not. They just want someone else to take care of it and be done with it. That's they're prerogative. It's yours to take the time and energy to do it yourself.

Some people are perfectionists and want it exactly right. You may not notice a huge difference, but there is a difference. It may not be worth $300ish, but to a perfectionist, it's worth every penny.

So basically, is it necessary? No. Is it worth it. That depends. To you. No. To others. Sure.


Personally, I'm doing a self calibration. I'm taking the time to learn all of the stuff. But that's because I enjoy doing that and I don't currently have the disposable income to warrant an ISF calibration. If I had the money, I'd probably actually end up going and buying all the pro equipment anyways and learning how to do it. But that's my personality.

So don't get your TV ISF calibrated, but don't knock those who do.

So where do we get the free DVD and the manual for the calibration?

So where do we get the free DVD and the manual for the calibration?

This forums has links to free DVDs and it IS the manual.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=852536

first post has some calibration DVDs
or if HD-DVD/blu-ray or just a PC
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=948496


Also any disc with a THX setting is better than nothing, you probably already own a couple.

-----

Siege hit the nail on the head.

The Original poster, says I calibrated my TV and it looks much better than out of the box. I care alot, spent alot of time to do it. Then says people don't need to calibrate TV's

TV's do need to get calibrated to produce the best picture, how calibrated it needs to be is compltetly at the users descretion.

Not to beat a dead horse or drag this thread down to semantics, but I REALLY wish people would understand that "best picture" is a complete misnomer. It is an accurate picture that you are after. Best is a subjective term while accurate is objective.

Not to beat a dead horse or drag this thread down to semantics, but I REALLY wish people would understand that "best picture" is a complete misnomer. It is an accurate picture that you are after. Best is a subjective term while accurate is objective.

The thing is...as you stated....the most accurate is not neccesarily the best looking PQ. To me and most other people....at the end of the day, the most excellent PQ is what matters. I've seen plenty of calibrated sets. Not a one of them look bad, to the contrary---they look great.

My point is that people have been tricked by misinformation that a calibrated set is the "best looking" picture that you can get. I'm not knocking calibration...and yes...I know what ISF calibration is, Eric. No need to imply that I'm some moron waxing poetic.

My point is that people have been tricked by misinformation that a calibrated set is the "best looking" picture that you can get.

I don't know that I would say that. You have to define "best looking." If you want it the way you want it, and don't care about the artistic intent of the people who made the material you are watching, then "best looking" is basically whatever suits your taste. No two sets will be the same, and no one will ever really see the artistic intent behind the material.

For most people who are fans of calibration, "best looking" means "transparent," in the sense that the TV is transparent to the viewing process. It shows exactly (as close as you can calibrate it) the artistic intent of the material. It doesn't add or take away anything from the original material. It is calibrated so that you see exactly what the creators intended for you to see.

If you don't calibrate, you are basically adding your own "flavor" to the original material. If that is "best looking" to you, then great, you are done. If "best looking" to you is seeing the material as it was intended, then you have to calibrate, and there really aren't any shortcuts no matter how much you don't want to spend the money or invest the time.

Every good professional ISFer explains these things up front to their customers. Most of them have enough experience to tell if a person wants a calibrated picture or not. I have seen many of them tell a person NOT to hire them, because they know that the person will not be satisfied. I don't know of any credible ISF tech that would try to mislead you like you seem to indicate.

The thing is...as you stated....the most accurate is not neccesarily the best looking PQ. To me and most other people....at the end of the day, the most excellent PQ is what matters. I've seen plenty of calibrated sets. Not a one of them look bad, to the contrary---they look great.

My point is that people have been tricked by misinformation that a calibrated set is the "best looking" picture that you can get. I'm not knocking calibration...and yes...I know what ISF calibration is, Eric. No need to imply that I'm some moron waxing poetic.

I am in no way at all calling you a moron.

I do believe though that you still haven't grasped what excellent PQ is or you don't have an understanding of artistic vision.

Lets say you go out and buy a print of a famous painting to put over your mantle in your living room. Once you get it home, you realize that the colors in the painting clash with your walls. However, you really love the painting. Do you do alter the painting to better suit your decour?

I also don't understand your point about people being tricked with misinformatio. Wouldn't you argue that leaving the artists vision as pure as possible is the best picture?

You're arguing strictly from the point of view of somebody who watches a lot of DVD movies, I assume. I fully understand your point. I have tons of appreciation for an artist's vision (in this case, the director and cinematographer). I've been a musician for 12 years so I understand how precious realizing the full spectrum of a creative project is.

I'm not arguing against ISF calibration or saying that TRUE ISF calibration is overrated...I'm just saying that the subject is much more complicated than it being 100% necessary or completely useless.

You're arguing strictly from the point of view of somebody who watches a lot of DVD movies, I assume. I fully understand your point. I have tons of appreciation for an artist's vision (in this case, the director and cinematographer). I've been a musician for 12 years so I understand how precious realizing the full spectrum of a creative project is.

I'm not arguing against ISF calibration or saying that TRUE ISF calibration is overrated...I'm just saying that the subject is much more complicated than it being 100% necessary or completely useless.

Who siad that it is necessary to enjoy watching a HDTV???!!! I never said that you had to get it done, I just said that if you want to get an accurate picture, it is necessary.

However, for the average person that is not necessary. Most people don't care and can't be bothered. For them, at home calibration is usually more than enough and can be overkill in some cases.

ISF calibration is only NECESSARY for somebody who wants to have a picture that is 100% accurate. I did it on my set because I am OCD when it comes to my home theater and I was never satisfied with the do-it-at-home way. I couldn't trust my eyes or the filters to get it accurate, I needed a professional with accurate tools.

Anybody who tells you that it is necessary to enjoy your tv is a moron and doesn't understand what the process means or entails.

Well...to be honest....I'm not sure that our opinions really differ that much.

They don't differ too much. I just want to know where you are hearing that you have to have your set ISF calibrated.

Well...to be honest....I'm not sure that our opinions really differ that much.
I think the confusion is really just in semantics.

Is ISF Calibration necessary to watch TV? Obviously not. I don't think a single person on these boards would say that.

Is it worth the price? Well, that's up to the individual. You and I both think it's not because we can "self-calibrate". It may not be "perfect" but it will look VERY nice and therefore not justify the cost. For others who A: Don't want to self-calibrate or B: Must have perfection, it's well worth it.

Is ISF Calibration better than stock? In almost every case, it's a resounding YES. Even you would agree.


The "worth the price" part is subjective. There is no "right" answer. It's up to you. But we all here agree that calibration is beneficial. It's just the cost/time where we differ.

Calibration is very important, but ISF calibration on a low end tv isn't worth it.
I think anyone who cares about picture quality should learn enough to do their own calibration.

However, if you have spent big $$$ for a great plasma it is a crime not to have it professionally calibrated.

There is, of course always the chance you will get a guy who doesn't perform the miracle calibration everyone talks about, and still charges $300.

I would venture a guess many pro-ifs calibration posters here are in fact ISF certified.

Just a guess....

The thing is...as you stated....the most accurate is not neccesarily the best looking PQ. To me and most other people....at the end of the day, the most excellent PQ is what matters. I've seen plenty of calibrated sets. Not a one of them look bad, to the contrary---they look great.


I completely disagree. If you want to use the term "best," in my opinion the ONLY way you can at all judge the image quality of an image reproduction system, is using a reference standard. Without a referent, it isn't an image reproduction system, and without that referent, there is no meaningful way to judge the quality of that system.

Consumer video systems are built around standards, which inherently are designed to standardize the resulting image. They are inherently reproduction systems, and the goal of any and all alignment of those systems is to match the reference as closely as possible, in order to have the most accurately reproduced image on your screen. As such, the ONLY way to judge picture quality in such a closed system, is in terms of accuracy.

There simply is no meaningful way to judge "picture quality" using any other metric. You can say it looks more goodlier, or you like the pretty colors, or you like the brightness, or whatever, but if "quality" is not referencing the original standard, then quality is just a word that is in some person's head that remains completely subjective and cannot be relied on by anyone else or any other system since it's just willy-nilly personal preference.


My point is that people have been tricked by misinformation that a calibrated set is the "best looking" picture that you can get.

Tricked? Professional video engineers are "tricking" people into aligning their display to standard so that they can view an accurately reproduced image? Really? That's interesting. Hey, but quite frankly, if that's the case, then I say we need a lot more "tricksters" because most people, such as yourself, are not yet convinced.

Secondly, I'd say that's absolutely correct. A "best looking" picture suggests quality. Again, we are talking about an image reproduction system. The only quality in such a system that has any meaning, is in terms of how closely the reproduced image approaches the originary. There is no such thing as quality without a referent.

I'm not knocking calibration...and yes...I know what ISF calibration is, Eric. No need to imply that I'm some moron waxing poetic.

But apparently, you do not care about image quality.

I spent over a year with my TV before calling in a professional. Since the day I bought it I'd be in the service menu weekly at the least, constantly tweaking and adjusting many of the countless settings with the help of some calibration discs and my own eyes. Like you, my efforts always yeilded an inifinitely superior image to that of the default settings. However, I was never quite completely satisfied, and eventually I bit the bullet and handed some of my hard earned cash over to a professional.

I figured I owed it to myself to try it at least once, and if it sucked, then I knew never to bother again.

The results were fantastic, and I will never again hesitate to have it done to each and every television that I buy in the future. The experience of the tech, the level of equipment he used and his vast knowledge of the service menu were completely beyond what I could have ever reasonably matched.

Now, there are a couple important things to keep in mind:

Some sets simply don't respond all that remarkably to a professional calibration. Either there aren't enough adjustments available within the user/service menus to make the necessary improvements, or the image processing abilities of the set may not make an accurate image possible. Do your research here. Every TV will benefit from a full calibration, but to what extent is the important question.

Equally impactful to whether or not you'll see a large return on your investment is the person you hire to do it. What sort of equipment do they use? How much experience do they have? How much do they know about your specific set? Do they know exactly what service menu adjustments do what? It can take weeks, months or even longer to fully "crack" a service menu. As such, someone who has never worked on your TV before is not going to be able to offer much to you beyond what you can do yourself with a calibration disc. Again, do your research.

I'll admit that I was not immediately wowed from the moment the tech left my house. Things looked better, for sure, but I wasn't picking my jaw up off of the floor right away. However, after a few days of getting used to things and taking in the finer details, the wow effect does jump out at you.

The truly telling moment was walking into an electronics store and marvelling at how completely awful and out of wack every single set suddenly looked, even the ultra high-end ones that I had drooled over mere weeks before.

I spent over a year with my TV before calling in a professional. Since the day I bought it I'd be in the service menu weekly at the least, constantly tweaking and adjusting many of the countless settings with the help of some calibration discs and my own eyes. Like you, my efforts always yeilded an inifinitely superior image to that of the default settings. However, I was never quite completely satisfied, and eventually I bit the bullet and handed some of my hard earned cash over to a professional.This phenomenon, where settings are in perpetual flux in search of the perfect picture, is not unusual.

It seem that TV owners generally fall into one of three categories: those who NEVER change the default settings (far and away the majority); those who regularly change the settings, based primarily on how different types of programming looks (the next-biggest segment); and those who opt for self- or paid calibration (a small, growing minority). If I had to guess how this breaks down, I'd say it's something like 70/20/10.

A significant portion of my own customers have told me they decided to pay for calibration so they would know their TV was as good as it can be, rather than "trying this and trying that" and being only momentarily satisfied.

One of my clients, at the end of his calibration session, made a comment that I think sums up this situation well: "I guess what it comes down to is that my TV should be a monitor, not a mood ring."

For those of you only familiar with the 1970s via VH-1 "Behind the Music" profiles, here's the Wikipedia reference for Mood Ring: :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_ring

I know the customer I had today's mood was good when I left. He said he saw colors in his favorite movie (Gladiator) that he'd never even seen before. I will say too, that with his set, it would be VERY hard to get it even remotely close by eye. It had to be adjusted in the service menu and instead of the normal cuts/drives for the grayscale, there were simply X/Y coordinates. Same for the CMS. With the meter/software, I was able to get it spot on using those settings, but it would be practically impossible to do it otherwise. For one, you have to know what each X/Y change does and how it affects everything else. Hard to do that with DVE and color filters. ;-)

Now that's not to say that someone might say it was "good enough" the way it was had you chosen this preset or that, but for this particular set, IMO, the only way to get an accurate (or even close to accurate) picture was through a real calibration.

Not all TVs are that way out of the box, but this one was. No doubt about it.

Aren't you the ISF calibrator on that other forum who was bullying and mocking anybody who disagreed with you???

I remember the guy's name was Doug and he advertised himself in his sig.

I wrestled with the idea of (not) bumping this thread with my comments, but the desire to make a comment about Doug got the better of me. First let me state that Doug did not ask me to comment, nor did he point me to this thread. I haven't spoken with Doug for a couple of months. Another point needs to be made that I am not commenting under the capacity of an AVS moderator.

That being said, my experiences with Doug as a fellow member are what swayed me to hire him to calibrate my last two projectors. I've always found Doug very helpful and patient with answering my questions and offering suggestions (before becoming a customer).

Over the years, I've used 5 different calibrators with various sets and projectors. Doug ranks up there with one of the industries' best in Kevin Miller (who swung through Kansas City on a calibration tour). Again, I'm not here to sell his services, but to say that I've found Doug to be a helpful AVS member and a terrific calibrationist.

Ron

I just think that people are being brainwashed into thinking that they should hire somebody to calibrate their TV to have awesome picture quality. The fact is...they don't. Every TV I've ever owned has been calibrated by my own two eyes. I adjust each setting until the image looks better. Then I adjust it a bit more and a bit more. Sometimes it takes a couple weeks to really the get the image I want but I eventually get there. I end up with a picture that dwarfs the default settings by a mile.
Rambone,

I tend to agree that calibration is not for everyone. I've shown a lot of friends what a more 'correct' image would look like on their small-ish TV sets and they prefer what they had before (typically oversaturated colours and contrast set too high). I'm sure what I did for them is probably close to what you're doing on your own set.

That being said, I'm just curious about something as the term "to calibrate" a set has so many different levels and meanings. What exactly have your done to your own display and what display is it (Just for sake of reference) and what resolution are you feeding it? Where are you doing the calibration in the signal chain?

Example: Are you sticking to playing with contrast/brightness and a few others things? Or are you adjusting gains/cutoffs for greyscale tracking? Applying a low level gamma boost for better black level details? Using an advanced video processor to adjust the primaries? Something else?

For what it's worth, my set's (a Barco Cine8 Onyx CRT projector) default 6500K setting looks like crap. When I plotted the greyscale I could see why - it's all over the place, but this is somewhat expected as few sets are near accurate, especially CRT projectors. After a few hours of careful adjustments of gain/cutoffs/midpoints/slopes/gamma, I now have something perfectly flat with increased light output, much greater contrast ratio, and more natural colours with primaries that are almost bang on in the HD standard.

Did I pay a calibrator? No way. And it's not about the money either. I wanted to do it myself and learn as I switch out stuff often. For only $70 or so you can get a Spyder2 colorimeter and use the free HCFR software together with the free AVS HD 709 calibration disc. I've spent enough time doing this over the years that it's gotten easier to spot greyscale problems even without a meter. Your eye can learn but it takes a lot of practice.

$70 isn't a lot to spend and you'll get a lot closer than you ever can by eye but more importantly, you'll learn a lot. Just my 2 cents.

Kal

I have a X-Rite DTP-94 colorimeter from my Photography hobby... worked out pretty nice since Im calibrating my photography computer and HTPC gear now. Worked out great. Its also one of the best colorimeters...

Do it yourself... its easy. Software is free.. colorimeter is your pick.

From my photography... which I calibrate every 30 days on both my LCD and CRT... it makes a WORLD of difference. I can hold a ICC profiled print to my CRT in D65 lighting and get accurate color. It’s pretty amazing when you print looks identical to your monitor.

When the studios recorded your DVD, you get to see what they see. Not "best picture" it’s the most accurate representation of the recording… which usually is the best picture assuming the studio & post production guys/gals did a good job haha.

Worth it is totally up to you tho. I had the gear already.. so it was a no brainer for me. Learning about this is also fun to do... if you like that sorta thing. With that said I also agree with the post above mine.

I have no freaking idea how to do it (all of the FAQs are extremely tedious) and I'm not going to shell out hundreds of dollars just so my picture can possibly look a little bit better.

I see this phenomenon all the time. It usually stems from a slippery-slope mentality that makes people assume that unless all the of the room is treated, audio is calibrated, and endless other things are done to make everything else "perfect" that calibrating a TV is a waste.

It also has to do sometimes with the feeling that TV calibration is an elitist thing that "rich people do", but that's an area of psychology I'm not going to tackle here.

.My point is that people have been tricked by misinformation that a calibrated set is the "best looking" picture that you can get. I'm not knocking calibration...and yes...I know what ISF calibration is, Eric. No need to imply that I'm some moron waxing poetic.

You always have the user adjustments available to tweak color intensity, etc (unless the adjustments get locked out like some sets). And yes, strictly speaking, calibrated is best, because it's more accurate to the source. What could be better than that? Same reason why lossless audio on a BR is better--it's a dupe of the master in many ways. If you don't like it, it's because you aren't used to it yet.

Aren't you the ISF calibrator on that other forum who was bullying and mocking anybody who disagreed with you???

I remember the guy's name was Doug and he advertised himself in his sig.

Classic.

Certain folks don't respond well to being told they're wrong in their approach. It isn't an attack on the person, it's an attack on the approach itself. Perhaps you have a hard time controlling your temper before calling someone out, but perhaps the better method is to lean into some much-needed education.

I personally believe that if you get a TV with an awesome picture and you know how to use the settings, you don't need ISF calibration. I've known a couple people who were suckered into it and they said they felt cheated by it.

Then they got some hack with a Spyder that they borrowed and screwed it up. It's always 20% tools, 80% craftsman.

Then they got some hack with a Spyder that they borrowed and screwed it up. It's always 20% tools, 80% craftsman.[/QUOTE]



Ill agree with that statement 100%. While having the best tools helps... but knowing how to use them is important.

Ive seen people with lesser tools than me on this forum make things I could not even make with top shelf tools.

Most top brand tv's have very accurate grayscale out the box. Sony-Pioneer. Calibrators act like they're doing magic entering the service menu and adjusting RGB with super expensive color analyzer tools. Most of the time just a few minor tweaks is all that's needed. I would say some calibrators probably dont know what a accurate pic really looks like, they have been trusting what their instruments and dvd's tell them that's accurate. I have seen isf screenshots that looked horrid on here. Anybody that's serious about video will calibrate and learn to adjust video themselves and know what needs to be improved. ONLY if they are not happy with the pic is calibration worth it if the person does not trust himself in the service menu.

Lets face it, true isf was worth it on rear projection crt's and crt projectors. Convergance, geometry, focus, is all eliminated with digitals. All you can do now is color accuracy, grayscale.

Paying a bundle for digitals is not worth it to a true videophile who knows how to adjust and get a accurate image.

Most top brand tv's have very accurate grayscale out the box.
Thanks for demonstrating your post's complete lack of credibility from the very first assertion. It only gets worse from there.

Thanks for demonstrating your post's complete lack of credibility from the very first assertion. It only gets worse from there.


Sorry but you would be wrong to think current XBR's and Elites are not accurate and need service menu adjustments. Prove me wrong.

I don't care to waste any more of my time.

There is a reason Zues is on my ignore list. How hilariously ignorant. He can't even spell his own user name properly.

Let's use the NASCAR approach to explain this. It isn't about what looks "better" to someone's eye. It's about conforming a display to a STANDARD. We want to get our displays to a point where they add or detract as little as possible to or from the picture. It's THAT simple!

In NASCAR, they have these large metal forms called "templates" that they place over the car at different angles to ensure that all competitors' cars are within a certain range of acceptable dimensions so as no competitor has any advantage, aerodynamic, engine output, or otherwise, over any other.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nascar-template.jpg

They also measure the thickness of hoses, fuel-lines, carburetor plates(restrictors) etc. to check for anything that will give a competitor an edge in terms of horsepower, braking, torque, etc, that could give them an unfair edge.

http://www.keymotorsports.us/images/TX2.JPG

Of course, tell that to Hendrick Motor Sports! :D

If your display, as delivered from the factory, were comparable to a Sprint Cup Car, it would be banned by NASCAR from the track until MAJOR changes were made according to the rules!!

'nuff said.

There is a reason Zues is on my ignore list. How hilariously ignorant.

No more ignorant than you. Tell me, have you had your projector ISF calibrated? You of all people? The most ignorant of the ignorant. No need to reply, we know the answer. And please, for the love of God, keep me on your ignore list as you are one of two on mine.

I personally would love to see how Rambone's display measures on test gear, after his adjustments.

RayJr

Most top brand tv's have very accurate grayscale out the box. Sony-Pioneer. Calibrators act like they're doing magic entering the service menu and adjusting RGB with super expensive color analyzer tools. Most of the time just a few minor tweaks is all that's needed. I would say some calibrators probably dont know what a accurate pic really looks like, they have been trusting what their instruments and dvd's tell them that's accurate.

Sound is different than picture. Different flavors of audio can be acceptable, but video actually has standards. It's right or it isn't.

This is an easy one Rambone:

Your eyes and what you believe to be "Good" are both subjective and inaccurate.

An ISF calibration is a scientific means to ensure you do infact have a "Good" picture and that you see all the details in different lighting conditions using professional grade equipment that judges where your TV's settings are against known values. You TV is then adjusted so it's respective marks are as close as possible to the known values.

You can do this also, just take the 2 day ISF course and then spend $15,000+ on the equipment. Short of that you are hard pressed to understand just how involved the calibration process is and how precise the overall outcome is.

You also will recoup the calibration expense in energy savings in a year or two. Over the long life of an LCD it is possible to have more in energy savings from an ISF calibration than the amount you paid for the TV.

Think of it like anything else that an amateur vs a pro can do.
Just becuas you can bake a cake does not mean you can pull off a massive wedding cake.

Funny this has come up. I actually took some measurements on a Pioneer Elite the other day and needless to say it was very off OTB. The owner did not want it calibrated so I did some base adjustments in user menu. Guess what. Still off.

Sorry but you would be wrong to think current XBR's and Elites are not accurate and need service menu adjustments. Prove me wrong.

Sound is different than picture. Different flavors of audio can be acceptable, but video actually has standards. It's right or it isn't.


I agree. And most of time from the screenshots i've seen on here is that a large percentage are not accurate. And some of these screens are comming from respected calibrators who shall remain nameless. Most of the time their images are oversaturated, color intensity too high, slight red push etc. I've seen one calibrator have to adjust his image that he achieved, just to compare to some other images that were obviously more accurate than his final calibration that he came up with. When you compare your so called accurate image to others of the same image and you clearly can see a problem, theirs no other explanation than the calibrator's image was wrong to begin with..

So who was the calibrator, what set was this, and where are the data from the calibration. Any calibration should be judged based on the pre and post data collected and the context of the set and installation. Sounds like a lot of vague supposition. How about some facts? Calibration should involve some real measurements and outcomes. What is right or wrong should be able to be determined in the data.

So who was the calibrator, what set was this, and where are the data from the calibration. Any calibration should be judged based on the pre and post data collected and the context of the set and installation. Sounds like a lot of vague supposition. How about some facts? Calibration should involve some real measurements and outcomes. What is right or wrong should be able to be determined in the data.


This is the point i'm trying to make. If you just go by data and measurments, i think chances are the final image might not be accurate. Proven by alot of crappy screenshots on here. Scientist calibrators dont want to hear that though. It's all numbers and data and test patterns for them. If the majority of calibrated images i've seen really did look accurate, i would believe different.

Utter nonsense!

Show us what you mean, Zeus. Show us a calibration that came out looking good "by the numbers" and has a bad image. Anyone can imagine a scenario.

The point is that you start with the measurements and some sets will adjust the way they should and some won't. If they do, the results are usually very good. There may be other variables in play, and if the numbers don't correlate with the image, those need to be figured out. A good calibrator will know how to interpret measurements as well as how to interpret what the image looks like. Again, give some specifics rather than assuming that your imagined scenario represents the work of all calibation specialists. There may be many out there that may be hand-waving and pretending, but some of us are profesisonals. Let's get the data and the individual outed and judge the facts. Or are you just blowing smoke? Show the data and describe what the set does that you think is not described in that data. Do you have some facts to share or not?

Show us what you mean, Zeus. Show us a calibration that came out looking good "by the numbers" and has a bad image. Anyone can imagine a scenario.

The point is that you start with the measurements and some sets will adjust the way they should and some won't. If they do, the results are usually very good. There may be other variables in play, and if the numbers don't correlate with the image, those need to be figured out. A good calibrator will know how to interpret measurements as well as how to interpret what the image looks like. Again, give some specifics rather than assuming that your imagined scenario represents the work of all calibation specialists. There may be many out there that may be hand-waving and pretending, but some of us are profesisonals. Let's get the data and the individual outed and judge the facts. Or are you just blowing smoke? Show the data and describe what the set does that you think is not dscribed in that data. Do you have some facts to share or not?

I'm only saying what i've seen on here. No facts just my opinion. I know their are professional calibrators who know what a accurate image looks like, but then again i think you would have to be naive to think they are all the same and all of their calibrations= accurate picture that can't be picked apart.

I'm only saying what i've seen on here. No facts just my opinion. I know their are professional calibrators who know what a accurate image looks like, but then again i think you would have to be naive to think they are all the same and all of their calibrations= accurate picture that can't be picked apart.

No one ever claimed that all calibrations are accurate, nor that all calibration specialists are the same. In fact, all of the credible ones that I know say just the contrary. Red herring arguments. If you have seen evidence "on here" just point to the thread so those interested can see who botched a job or that there is some context that you are missing, or obscuring to make your point. You see, those of us who are professionals can rest upon the data, as well as the satisfaction of our clients. If I, or any of the other couple of hundred reputable calibrators in the US has a client that is not satisfied with the results, we get to the bottom of the problem and rectify it. Anyone who leaves a client not happy with the results is simply not doing the job.

Now there is a grain of truth to some of what you have said. Some sets can approximate a good calibration with just a few of the correct user settings. They don't come OOB set that way but can be brought pretty close very easily. Some of the Sonys are a good example. Does that mean that there is nothing of value for a calibrator to do? No, it simply means that some people will be able, with doing a little homework, to get their sets very close without a pro. Many of those may still want to get it the rest of the way to as accurate as it can be. Either way is valid if the user is satisfied. These sets are by far the minority, BTW, and the OOB settings are simply garish.

Not that this is likely to sway anyone who's dead set on poo-pooing video calibration and the scientific/standards foundation for it, but this gripe that screenshots of calibrated sets prove that calibration is not worthwhile needs to be addressed.

A screenshot is relatively useless in terms of determining the quality of an image, calibrated or otherwise. There are simply too many uncontrolled variables in the journey from television screen, to camera, to computer file, to server, to computer display. There's a very good reason you don't see calibrators creating online collections of their finished work -- and now you know why.

Then again, if you're only watching movies that were camcorded at the local cinema and pirated via your street corner DVD tout, screenshots might just be the perfect method of image evaluation and adjustment. ;)

Second -- and this brings us back to the fundamental point -- even if a screenshot were the PERFECT means of image evaluation, how is it that someone who is without regular access to calibrated images is able to look at a randomly selected screenshot and know what it should look like and if/how the calibrated image falls short?

As someone noted in a thread here earlier in the week, there's a recurring theme among those who weigh in here against calibration. They don't want to spend the money to hire a professional or to buy the equipment for a DIY project, and instead they direct their considerable energy and limited knowledge into rationalizing all the ways that they're actually better off without it.

Look, video calibration is not for everyone. If you bought your television based on the competing images you saw in the store, and if you believe that that's really the picture that you're now looking at on the set delivered to your home, be happy.

But you're wasting your time attacking calibration, based on self-taught half-truths and biases. And you're seriously undermining the signal-to-noise ratio on this corner of AVS.

signal-to-noise ratio
Great analogy! Thanks.

This whole line of questioning and debate shouldn't even be allowed here. This is supposed to be the AV Science forum. Someone questioning whether calibration is right for them is just fine, but trying to paint the actual video science portion of this forum as "inaccurate" should be totally out of bounds. It wastes everyone's time refuting them and anyone that objects to scientific calibration doesn't belong in this forum anyway. It'd be nice if a mod would come in here and make a similar statement and put a stop to this debate.

No facts just my opinion.
Classic!:rolleyes:

...off topic...

"The solution to the world's energy challenges may just hit you like a BOLT OF LIGHTNING! . . ."

D-6500, that signature of yours is eye-straining.. :cool:

Time for calibration...

:D

You are likely viewing the forum in default mode. In the lower left corner is a drop down list with darker background options.

I never bothered to check if AVS allows us to change vBulletin Style Sets... thanks for pointing this out..

You are likely viewing the forum in default mode. In the lower left corner is a drop down list with darker background options.

Actually, I think that works only when you are logged in. Otherwise you see it in default mode(light gray blecch!!).

I needed something to emphasize lightning so I picked yellow.

I agree. And most of time from the screenshots i've seen on here is that a large percentage are not accurate. And some of these screens are comming from respected calibrators who shall remain nameless. Most of the time their images are oversaturated, color intensity too high, slight red push etc. I've seen one calibrator have to adjust his image that he achieved, just to compare to some other images that were obviously more accurate than his final calibration that he came up with. When you compare your so called accurate image to others of the same image and you clearly can see a problem, theirs no other explanation than the calibrator's image was wrong to begin with..

Well I suppose the first question is, under what standards was the image deemed inaccurate?

Second question is, who precisely did the calibrations? Be very careful before throwing someone under the bus here.

Well I figured what the heck I am going to have mine ISF Calibrated.
And lucky me I actually have a ISF certified technician in my area.
Its going to be a couple of weeks before they come out so when they finish I will be sure to follow up here.
Here is how to locate one in your area:
http://www.imagingscience.com/isf-trained.cfm
Home page:
http://www.imagingscience.com/

Or this: www.isfforum.com .