Is common to disable BrilliantColor to view movies in a ligh controlled room, but with my Planar 8150 I prefer the BrilliantColor enabled...I think BC gives a vivid image that I prefer...or am I wrong ?

How many of you DLP guys use BrilliantColor with movies, and if not why ?

Thank you.

i think it depends on the projector. Mine was ISF calibrated with BC off. Some projectors can be more difficult to calibrate to the industry standards with BC on. Regardless, if you prefer the image with BC on then you are the final word.

I think BC gives a vivid image that I prefer...or am I wrong ?


Only if you really don't prefer it. I is impossible for anyone else know what your experience of a color gamut is like or how that experience compares with their own. One can statistically analyze preferences and say, for example, that most people, or most art curators prefer x, but no real/objective value assignment is possible beyond that. Only you can determine what you like best, there is no "should" possible here.

Edit:

To be clear I'm speaking as an "artist" here.

Well I get double the lumens with my W5000 so I keep it on.

Well with my HD70 I can adjust the amount of BC from 1-9, I don't know if your pj is like this or on/off, but I keep my on because it does seem to add brightness, although with certain movies I can't stand it on and just turn it off. When it makes highlights glow and shimmer, it just doesn't look good, but I think its benifits outweight its cons, cause it does give the image more pop.

Well with my HD70 I can adjust the amount of BC from 1-9, I don't know if your pj is like this or on/off, but I keep my on because it does seem to add brightness, although with certain movies I can't stand it on and just turn it off. When it makes highlights glow and shimmer, it just doesn't look good, but I think its benifits outweight its cons, cause it does give the image more pop.

I use BC on my Infocus IN82 because I like the way it looks on the screen. With BC off, the picture colors looks more washed out.
BC has six colors instead of the usual 3 in LCD.

TI says:

"Color accuracy is paramount to a quality image. BrilliantColor™ not only improves color accuracy, it brightens secondary colors as well. This combination produces a new level of color performance that increases color brightness by up to 50% over other technologies and provides accurate true to life images".

I do not like the picuture as much when BC is turned off.

It makes no sense to brighten some of the colors - but not all of the colors. Your PJ is not brighter video - it is brighter whites and pastels. In comparison your saturated primary colors outside the secondary gamut will appear to be too dim. In video the brightness of CMYW is supposed to be the total brightness of the RGB colors it is composed with - it is not supposed to be any brighter! Thus video accuracy will always be determined by how bright your primaries can be - not your secondaries.

Of course when you own the crayon box - you can color whatever you want....but if you strive to reproducing the art of the movies - then you don't want to use hot pink instead of salmon.

I know of no calibrator that supports TI claims that BC improves overall color accuracy. What TI is referring to is being able to use the saturated RGB while still popping CMYW. In the past they had to use desaturated RGB to pop CMYW. But popping CMYW is not accurate to begin with so improvements towards that goal are not one of accuracy.

Marketers are not known for being video engineers. If you want to actually see how they misled you into thinking brighter was better - look at this RGMCMYW colorscales testpattern http://www.displaymate.com/dwscs.html (you need the actual full screen version - DisplayMate is reasonably inexpensive - but those talented can easily make their own version of this pattern)

It makes no sense to brighten some of the colors - but not all of the colors. Your PJ is not brighter video - it is brighter whites and pastels. In comparison your saturated primary colors outside the secondary gamut will appear to be too dim. In video the brightness of CMYW is supposed to be the total brightness of the RGB colors it is composed with - it is not supposed to be any brighter! Thus video accuracy will always be determined by how bright your primaries can be - not your secondaries.

Of course when you own the crayon box - you can color whatever you want....but if you strive to reproducing the art of the movies - then you don't want to use hot pink instead of salmon.

I know of no calibrator that supports TI claims that BC improves overall color accuracy. What TI is referring to is being able to use the saturated RGB while still popping CMYW. In the past they had to use desaturated RGB to pop CMYW. But popping CMYW is not accurate to begin with so improvements towards that goal are not one of accuracy.

Marketers are not known for being video engineers. If you want to actually see how they misled you into thinking brighter was better - look at this RGMCMYW colorscales testpattern http://www.displaymate.com/dwscs.html (you need the actual full screen version - DisplayMate is reasonably inexpensive - but those talented can easily make their own version of this pattern)
The color accuracy problem with turning off BC is most apparent with grass on a football field. The color of the grass with BC off not even remotely like the color of real grass. The green is more pale than real grass and looks more like the grass is sick or dying.

Every thing I have seen with BC on tells me Infocus and TI got it right with BC. They spent the time and money optimizing the image quality for DLP projectors. I am not convinced that calibrators have it right from the rules they follow or any research they have or have not done.

Greetings

Since when is professional calibration about making things look real?

If you think this, then you don't understand what the aim is at all.

regards

Accurate to whats in the source yes. (artistic intent) Real? No. Not unless the artistic intent was meant to be that way.

Video is about reproduction of what is in the media - not about reproduction of real life. The fact is that video is a lossy capture of real life, just as a digital photo is a lossy capture of real life. And your eyeballs are a lossy capture of the energy spectrum - unable to see ultra violet or infra-red - a fact that astronomers deal with every day with false color mapping to deal with this lossy media and lossy eyes.

A Van Gogh is hardly a realistic reproduction of real life - but everyone who reprints it in other media does their best to reproduce it to the best capabilities of that media. Except for the "Starry Night" faux canvas I paid big money for in which they "forgot" to print M out of the CMYK process - I wonder if that was someones idea of "art" - it sure was not mine! Took me a while to realize I had been cheated because I at first admired the faux brush strokes and the fake gold leaf antiqued frame and proudly displayed it above the mantel rather than hide it in storage.

It is a simple fact that if you turn on BC it is simply making some of the colors brighter - not all of them. Last I looked even real life is not like that! You are confusing "more colorful" with "just brighter" There is a reason that the IN83 defaults BC to off - the video engineers designed the defaults for most accurate video reproduction.

ISF embraces SMPTE standards which specifically defines the RGBW color "limitations" inherent in the REC709 video reproduction - and defines how CMY is simply a summation of the others. That does not mean CMY must be obtained thru optical summation of RGB - if a PJ design is more efficient to use optical CMY they certainly can - they must just get the same result any other PJ does using RGB summation. Anything else is purely to inflate the specified lumens and has nothing to do with accurate video reproduction.

So again there has not been any BC implementation whose goal was to improve VIDEO accuracy of ALL the colors that calibrators are aware of.

If you want to be artistic - it is your crayon box. Just don't claim your work is a reproduction. Feel free to use the graphic equalizer on your car stereo in the smiley face curve because that makes you happy too - that is what they put it there for.

And you clearly don't need more colors to generate more colors - what a bunch of hype! The JVC RSxx series is noted for exceeding REC709 by great measure and more closely having a gamut closer to Digital Cinema (great if you have access to that media and can get it into the PJ - but surely are not reproducing Digital Cinema when watching a BlueRay!). Somehow they managed to do more colors with fewer colors! Last I looked they only had RGB panels inside the thing without going to the expense of adding CMY panels. Your eye itself only sees 2 lower bandwidth colors layering them on top of the picture brightness - same as video compression! The eye is incapable of distinguishing the variant source spectra from one another that the brain maps to the same color.

Video is about reproduction of what is in the media - not about reproduction of real life. The fact is that video is a lossy capture of real life, just as a digital photo is a lossy capture of real life. And your eyeballs are a lossy capture of the energy spectrum - unable to see ultra violet or infra-red - a fact that astronomers deal with every day with false color mapping to deal with this lossy media and lossy eyes.

A Van Gogh is hardly a realistic reproduction of real life - but everyone who reprints it in other media does their best to reproduce it to the best capabilities of that media. Except for the "Starry Night" faux canvas I paid big money for in which they "forgot" to print M out of the CMYK process - I wonder if that was someones idea of "art" - it sure was not mine! Took me a while to realize I had been cheated because I at first admired the faux brush strokes and the fake gold leaf antiqued frame and proudly displayed it above the mantel rather than hide it in storage.

It is a simple fact that if you turn on BC it is simply making some of the colors brighter - not all of them. Last I looked even real life is not like that! You are confusing "more colorful" with "just brighter" There is a reason that the IN83 defaults BC to off - the video engineers designed the defaults for most accurate video reproduction.

ISF embraces SMPTE standards which specifically defines the RGBW color "limitations" inherent in the REC709 video reproduction - and defines how CMY is simply a summation of the others. That does not mean CMY must be obtained thru optical summation of RGB - if a PJ design is more efficient to use optical CMY they certainly can - they must just get the same result any other PJ does using RGB summation. Anything else is purely to inflate the specified lumens and has nothing to do with accurate video reproduction.

So again there has not been any BC implementation whose goal was to improve VIDEO accuracy of ALL the colors that calibrators are aware of.

If you want to be artistic - it is your crayon box. Just don't claim your work is a reproduction. Feel free to use the graphic equalizer on your car stereo in the smiley face curve because that makes you happy too - that is what they put it there for.

And you clearly don't need more colors to generate more colors - what a bunch of hype! The JVC RSxx series is noted for exceeding REC709 by great measure and more closely having a gamut closer to Digital Cinema (great if you have access to that media and can get it into the PJ - but surely are not reproducing Digital Cinema when watching a BlueRay!). Somehow they managed to do more colors with fewer colors! Last I looked they only had RGB panels inside the thing without going to the expense of adding CMY panels. Your eye itself only sees 2 lower bandwidth colors layering them on top of the picture brightness - same as video compression! The eye is incapable of distinguishing the variant source spectra from one another that the brain maps to the same color.
I repeat along with others that BC looks better than no BC. What you are saying is that video professionals are putting out color that is not as good as what people like to see with BC turned on.

Most projector now have BC as a click box to turn on like many other things for the projector. Just because the manufacturer does not click the box means nothing especially since the resonses in this thread clearly indicate people like BC.

You certainly have convinced me that I never want to use a professional to calibrate my projector because they will not set it up to produce a picture that is most enjoyable for me to watch. You seem to have all kinds of theories that seem to lead to a more boring picture.

I repeat along with others that BC looks better than no BC. What you are saying is that video professionals are putting out color that is not as good as what people like to see with BC turned on.

Most projector now have BC as a click box to turn on like many other things for the projector. Just because the manufacturer does not click the box means nothing especially since the resonses in this thread clearly indicate people like BC.

You certainly have convinced me that I never want to use a professional to calibrate my projector because they will not set it up to produce a picture that is most enjoyable for me to watch. You seem to have all kinds of theories that seem to lead to a more boring picture.

There have only been a few responses in this thread about BC preferences. I for one prefer it off. I've had 2 projectors with BC and I've preferred both of them with it off. it does seem to add a little 'pop', which is really just brightness. For me it just didn't look right, can't explain it in techical terms but it is something you know when you see it. It either looks right or it doesn't. If you've had a projector proffesionally calibrated you might not feel the same. My current projector has the HDMI input professionally calibrated and the component input is not. No matter what I do to the component input(including turning BC on), I cannot get contrast and colors to look anywhere near the same as the calibrated input. I am now even more in a hurry to get a good HDMI switching processor so I have to only use one input on my projector.

Jack...

I think you are missing the point.

Audio and video engineers endeavor to provide a "flat" response to the way sound & image are presented by a speaker or display.

When a soundtrack or film are being mastered, they use expensive monitors with a FLAT response, calibrated to the kinds of standards Kras is talking about.

The artist/director spend many hours getting the content to look & sound they we they want. By extension, the idea is to have a HT presentation that reproduces the same FLAT response according to the technical standards.

As Kras has suggested, you can dial in the response curve of the sound or image any way you want, but you must except this is not what was intended by the artist/director.

I suggest you make sure your non-BC color gamut is properly calibrated. Many displays have poor primary & secondary color tracking out of the box, which when properly calibrated offer a significant improvement.

If after you have excellent tracking of color and white balance you still prefer BC, that is you aesthetic choice. But it is not what the artist/director has intended.

I repeat along with others that BC looks better than no BC. What you are saying is that video professionals are putting out color that is not as good as what people like to see with BC turned on.

Most projector now have BC as a click box to turn on like many other things for the projector. Just because the manufacturer does not click the box means nothing especially since the resonses in this thread clearly indicate people like BC.

You certainly have convinced me that I never want to use a professional to calibrate my projector because they will not set it up to produce a picture that is most enjoyable for me to watch. You seem to have all kinds of theories that seem to lead to a more boring picture.

What krasmuzik and Michael are trying to explain is that, as you have observed, there IS a difference between real life and the standards used in mastering video. Take a look at the SMPTE-C or REC 709 gamuts used to master HD material - they're significantly smaller than what the human eye is capable of observing. Even film's larger gamutstill chops off a large part of what we're capable of seeing. The recent advent of xvYcc offers all of the colors visible the human eye, but it is only currently used on certain handheld camcorders. There's a reason that all common gamuts are limited, and I'm sure someone like Michael or GeorgeAB (or Cam Man on the film side) could chime in and educate us as to why that is.

Regardless of the why, the people who master the material we watch on disc do so on displays that are constantly checked for adherance to D65 and SMPTE-C (or possibly REC 709). When they're making artistic decisions on how they want that material to appear to the end user, they're doing it based on the image they see on those calibrated displays. So if you want to see what they saw and intend for you to see, using BC isn't an option because it causes a display to deviate from those standards.

As the end user its your choice to paint the canvas as you find most pleasing, and if that means turning on BC and watching pastel colors because they're prettier or offer more light output, that is certainly your choice. However, if you are a purist (like myself and others here) and want to see what the director wanted you to see, obtaining a proper calibration and keeping BC off is your only option.

With stuff like sports or broadcast TV where the use of those standards is a little more ambiguous and less important, using BC is a lot more acceptable, especially if you're looking for that extra light output (or more realistic grass, etc. per your tastes).

I've played around with BC on my HD72, and although I use it for gaming, I prefer to keep it off when watching movies since it can have a noticable and negative effect on the matieral. If I get a chance I'll take some measurements with BC on and off and post graphs here so you can see exactly what's happening to your picture when you use it.

I read in another thread the Planar 8150 have a new improved version of BrilliantColor and maybe this is the reason that I dont see real innacuracies of colors with BC on...maybe with instruments you can.

But in the end I think our eyes are the most important and for me the BC gives a pop in image that is addictive and is difficult to live without it.

Regardless of the why, the people who master the material we watch on disc do so on displays that are constantly checked for adherance to D65 and SMPTE-C (or possibly REC 709). When they're making artistic decisions on how they want that material to appear to the end user, they're doing it based on the image they see on those calibrated displays. So if you want to see what they saw and intend for you to see, using BC isn't an option because it causes a display to deviate from those standards.


I think you might be conflating two different issues. Working to a calibrated standard is necessary to present the same sensory input to every viewer or listener which is the goal of virtually every media professional. But sensory input does not map unmediated to perception. Sensory input is not seeing/hearing. If one wanted a professional or quasi professional relation with film then one would be well advised to carefully study the calibrated image and learn its properties within the context of one's perception. Quite possibly one could learn to prefer it even if it was not what one "naturally" preferred. But the OP seemed to be about simple viewer preference. For a non-would-be-professional if BC is what is preferred, that deserves no criticism whatever.

You seem to have all kinds of theories that seem to lead to a more boring picture.
This BC issue is really very simple. If you want image fidelity (faithfulness to the original program intent), don't use picture options like brilliant color that over-emphasize, diminish, or distort the image. If you want to guess about what the picture was intended to look like, or just prefer to make things look like some image in your brain, do whatever you like.

Many picture control options and features can be useful to make an image more enjoyable in less than ideal lighting conditions. Video displays have always worked best in controlled viewing environment conditions.

There is no single color of grass! Different varieties of grass have varying coloration. Time of day, atmospheric conditions, water content of the soil, amount of time since it was last fertilized, sunlight or artificial light, how the engineer has adjusted the signal, etc., etc., can determine what shade of green is in the actual program. What if the grass is actually Astro Turf that has been on the field a while and has had the color bleached by the sun? The only way to insure that you will see the correct color of grass in a program is to have your display calibrated according to the same industry standards used to adjust the broadcast monitors.

You get to decide how you prefer to view video programs. Most consumers don't realize they have the option to see the picture as it was intended to look. This is not theory, its the way the video industry works. You may find image fidelity boring and image distortion preferable. Clarity is often sufficient in the face of legitimate difference of preference. This post may help clarify this issue further: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021933 .

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and scienc of electronic imaging"

Im going to be honest I have been a projector user for a long time and I always would rather trust me eyes then scientific reproduction when it comes to color (not contrast and brightness)

I know that calibration is a science and there is a way to make it accurate to the film, but I still go by what my eyes like and what I see when it comes to color. Not everyones eyes are the same, especially when it comes to viewing color. Everyones eyes are different interperting colors.

For a non-would-be-professional if BC is what is preferred, that deserves no criticism whatever.

As we said that is what they put the control there for it is your crayon box. TI or AVSers making claims that they are more accurate with BC is simply incorrect. It is a simple fact that brighter colors appear more colorful - but the standards define the brightness of colors so by definition of the feature it cannot make it more accurate when BC does not make ALL of the colors brighter.

I know that calibration is a science and there is a way to make it accurate to the film, but I still go by what my eyes like and what I see when it comes to color.
If you can acknowledge that cinema is art, to be consistent, you would only appreciate fine paintings if you had the option of altering their colors.
Not everyones eyes are the same, especially when it comes to viewing color. Everyones eyes are different interperting colors.
The reference color chip chart used to align video systems should look the same to you on the program originator's monitor and your own TV, if you have both calibrated to industry standards. Deviate from imaging standards on your TV (which Brilliant Color does) and it would no longer match the color you saw on the originator's monitor. This works this way, regardless of any variation in personal color perception.

The problem is there are to many variables. Red on my projector is not the same hue or saturation on my plasma. If every display produced the same exact color there would be no need to upgrade or purchase new sets, colors do vary, look at projector reviews, and art calibrates all his machines (or has someone calibrate them) the colors are different on each one he does comparison pictures for.

Again everyones eyes are also different, I have often argued with people if something is purple or blue.

The exact science you guys get xyz still depends on how the machine produces colors and how our eyes view those colors.

This part of the exact science that can never be an exact science. Every display is different, and everyones eyes are as well.

If you can acknowledge that cinema is art, to be consistent, you would only appreciate fine paintings if you had the option of altering their colors.

The reference color chip chart used to align video systems should look the same to you on the program originator's monitor and your own TV, if you have both calibrated to industry standards. Deviate from imaging standards on your TV (which Brilliant Color does) and it would no longer match the color you saw on the originator's monitor. This works this way, regardless of any variation in personal color perception.

The industry standard is a smaller triangle color space than BC color space triangle.

The BC is an expanded size triangle surrounding the traditional color triangle of the standard. That is why the picture looks better, not because our eyes are different as explained in the BC white paper at:

http://dlp.com/downloads/white_papers/168_BrilliantColor_white_paper.pdf

Calibrating to the industry standard appears to be a poor choice for setting up a projector compared to BC.

BC is a combination of the bulb color spectrum and the color table. BC corrects for color variations of different bulbs. Professional calibrators may do the same thing.

Comments from the paper say the BC approach is:

"In this case, the yellow, magenta, and cyan color points lie within the gamut triangle defined by the red, green, and blue filter color points (since this color is created by combining two colors within the gamut). This is slightly different from a multi-primary color wheel system which adds new color points outside of the triangle."

"BrilliantColor™ technology can be configured to process the spoke regions as a secondary color (e.g. the green/red spoke would be processed as yellow). The color processor is able to use the yellow, cyan, and magenta light to improve the brightness of the display which allows the use of more saturated primaries"

I use BC on my Infocus IN82 because I like the way it looks on the screen. With BC off, the picture colors looks more washed out.


I have the same projector and see a noticeable shift in image noise when BC is activated, especially with a higher quality feed such as bluray. The only times I ever use BC are when playing video games or an occasional animated movie...to each their own.

My sharp 20000 is the only projector I have owned that utilizes BC very effectivly. It just makes the image pop with no side effects what so ever IMO. Sharp really hit the ball out of the park with there implementation on this particular model.

The color processor is able to use the yellow, cyan, and magenta light to improve the brightness of the display which allows the use of more saturated primaries"

Why are you bothering trying to tell calibrators how it works - we know how it works - you apparently do not understand this is NOT an improvement to video accuracy. Simply admit you like the pop it gives to SOME of the colors even knowing this is a reproduction ERROR! If you do not respect the gamut and brightness that the source was encoded for - then nothing is the same color it was signed off on for the home video release - nor is it the same color it was in the movie theater - it is simply the wrong color.

Pastel colors within the yellow, cyan and magenta secondary gamut will be brighter compared to the dimmer saturated colors near red, green, blue IS exactly what they are saying without admitting it. It may even lead to PJs chosen with dimmer deeper RGB knowing they can use the CMY enhancement to keep the specified W lumens up - at the cost of RGB being dimmer deeper than they should.

However because it is not a simple optical addition to get secondaries from primaries using BC - the secondary colors will be too bright and appear to be glowing compared to the more saturated primaries (or conversely the primaries will appear too dim). w.r.t. to a properly calibrated display you will notice it - but ignorance is bliss.

All someone needs to do is produce measured decoder results of a BC on PJ to prove this - which is why calibrators turn it off!


In the case of Infocus and Planar they did work on BC only being a "slight" punch to the secondaries and whites - the lumen specs are already brite enough to not need a large punch - but for Day mode a little punch can help since accurate reproduction is not possible when the ambient is washing out darker colors anyways.. BC does not pop RGB brightness - it only pops CMY - this is it's very design. It cannot pop the entire image - only pops some of the pastel colors - this is why it is a video reproduction error.

I am sure watercolor paintings would like a lot more colorful if rendered in acrylic paints instead - but that is not reproduction of art, that is colorizing art.

There would be no need for BC to even exist if they instead implemented the HDMI1.3 color features alowing the formerly out of gamut/brightness combinations to be displayed at the command of the mastering engineer (you know the enhancement you bought your latest PJ for even though there is no source media for it?) So if you really want your colors to pop - demand your HDMI1.3 sources to exist so you don't have to artificially color pop. Calibrators would be all for deeper and brighter colors on displays being accurately used.

Kras, here's the principle at work here:

Law Of Logical Argument- Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.:)

OK, that was rude. Please disregard.

Kras, here's the principle at work here:

Law Of Logical Argument- Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.:)

As you are invoking logical argument I feel justified in pointing out this

If you can acknowledge that cinema is art, to be consistent, you would only appreciate fine paintings if you had the option of altering their colors.

is a false analogy as no one has argued that they had to use BC to appreciate film (or have I missed that post). Only that they prefer it (which position is unassailable) or that it is more accurate, for which I will take your word as to its error (not that I have a formal understanding here) because it is hard to understand how a reproduction mechanism can meaningfully be more accurate than the standard to which the media produced for the mechanism was matched/calibrated/judged by it creator. Does that make any sense? LOL

The point is, if your goal is image fidelity from a video display, BC is counterproductive. If your goal is manipulating the video image to appeal to personal preference, without regard to artistic integrity, BC may help. Is that more clear? Image fidelity and artistic integrity in video programs can only be preserved and communicated if the display is calibrated to the same standards used by the program production community.

Something to consider regarding BC/No BC...

My out of the box HW10 also has the illusion of wide/BC color mode looking like it has better color reproduction the normal/no BC mode.

I did an informal RGBCMY color adjustment on my Sony SXRD HW10 tonight.

I was able to dial in a perfect CIE chart under NORMAL color mode. When comparing the Factory RGBCMY, my RGBCMY tweaks and the WIDE color mode on the factory RGBCMY settings... My RGBCMY color adjustment provided more pop than the poorly calibrated factory settings, but without the inaccuracies of the WIDE color mode.

I also tried running the WIDE mode on my RGBCMY settings, but the tracking was not evenly spread away from the D65 HD706 triangle, rather it was still shifted to the right & up toward blue and green.

The point is... proper RGBCMY CIE tracking will add "pop" and enhance the color reproduction of a poorly calibrated display, without reproducing color in an unintended manner.

The industry standard is a smaller triangle color space than BC color space triangle.

Not true. BC is intended to maximise brightness, it can be used with a wide variety of color spaces. Infocus has projectors with smaller colorspace than rec.709, even with BC on. Turning BC off on a projector with BC, does not change the color space, it changes the brightness of certain colours.

The basic principle behind BC, regardless of what marketing may tell you, is that when you usually filter out some of the light to create a certain color, you lose light output. BC is basically an advanced way of turning up the color control, in a way so that you gain light output as you mess up the color.

I fully acknowledge that a lot of people are fine with messed-up color, but you cannot argue that you will never get accurate color with BC turned on.


Calibrating to the industry standard appears to be a poor choice for setting up a projector compared to BC.

Why?

Please note that Sim2 has used the BC principle to gain higher lumen output without sacrificing color fidelity, by using the 6-primary color wheel principle without the overly bright secondaries. The principle behind BC is good. The use of it in practice is bad.

Im going to be honest I have been a projector user for a long time and I always would rather trust me eyes then scientific reproduction when it comes to color (not contrast and brightness)

I know that calibration is a science and there is a way to make it accurate to the film, but I still go by what my eyes like and what I see when it comes to color. Not everyones eyes are the same, especially when it comes to viewing color. Everyones eyes are different interperting colors.

I firmly believe that statements like these are made by people who have never actually seen an accurate picture (not just a calibrated picture, but an accurate picture). I have done demos for thousands of people, once again this weekend. I have _never_ had a single person put up his hand and say the picture looked dull, or boring. Not once. Just this weekend, me and a colleague set up a C3x, tightly calibrated (123" ST130, 17 fL). _Everyone_ who walked in the booth stated that it was the best picture they'd ever seen. And the room wasn't even completely dark (but close). Not a single person claimed that they wanted "more color". Not even in the local internet debate afterwards.

An accurate picture looks exciting, because it allows you to get excited about the work the film-maker was doing to the film, instead of being excited about the colors. Yes, calibration is science, but the reasoning behind that science is the art. We want you to look at movies, not color. The more accurate the color is, the less you have to worry about it. When we want you to have your picture calibrated to industry standards, it's NOT because we want to decide how your pictures should look. It's because we want the film-maker to decide how your pictures should look. If you want to decide over the film-maker, be my guest - but not a single person that have seen an actual demonstration of what happens to movies when they are presented accurately, have had that need. The only reason people feel they need to change the colors themselves, over what the film-maker did, is that they never saw what the film-maker did in the first place. The reason you want to be able to decide the colors yourself, is BECAUSE it is not accurate. So you are correct in wanting to change the colors, if they don't look right, so why not make them look right, instead of another version of wrong?

I will make one caveat though: Too low light output is also wrong. A dim picture with accurate color isn't necsessarily more accurate than a bright picture with wrong color. You have to hit the right balance (unless you can get both right). So, in some setups, yes it may be better to live with inaccurate color to get the brightness high enough, but in that case you are choosing between two inaccurate choices, not between an accurate and an inaccurate choice. I suspect a lot of people who think they have seen accurate pictures and didn't like it, have seen accurate color but way too low brightness. That is equally bad. So the correct answer to the BC debate may be: If you have ample brightness without BC, it should never be used. However, if brightness isn't satisfying, sacrificing color fidelity may or may not be a wise choice.

I further expanded my point below you should read that. And yes i have seen professionally calibrated system, and yes it looks very nice and natural infact, but I still enjoy bc better, the light output is the main reason.

Please consult my other post as well, not all system reproduce color the same, infact no system reproduces the same color add to that everyones eyes interpert color differently. Calibrators say they reproduce what the director intended but again every display and everyones eyes are different they all handle and view colors differently. Again art at projector reviews calibrates all his machines and colors on each system at d65 all look very different. So which machines at d65 are reproducing what the director intended, there all calibrated to the same point there colors are still very different.

And by the way i own a benq w5000 with accurate cms and cca I have used accurate color values tested by others. It should be spot on, if I had more light output I might not use bc, but Im not sure.

I have even seen people in that thread do perfect calibration in the cca, and some still like the benefits of bc when it comes to light output and vividness.

Peoples eyes and prefrences are all different. I dont know how you can deny that. The people who do perfect calibration are videophiles who want to pay for it. Of course your clients like it better, but again there a small niche, not many people are videophiles and want to spend X amount for accurate color that is accurate based on a color triangle. The vast majority of people like me trust what looks good to mey eyes.

As always nobody can tell me what looks better except my own eyes, and when it comes to color I make the image and skin tones look natural to me and adjust the picture to how i enjoy it.

Infact on some systems like the 1080ub I found colors to cartoonish at d65 once colors were desaturated and I enjoyed it more and looks more natural to me. Again your a calibrator your priority is different, but I like what my eyes like.

I enjoy its additional light output most of all.

I have come to the conclusion that "accurate" color is generally a good thing and and that I prefer it myself. However, I wish that its proponents would stop spreading this "filmmaker's intent" fiction and find some other argument to support its use.

Fact: What is on a DVD or bluray is in most cases what someone other than the filmmaker intended and will in fact never be what was shown in the theater.

I wish that its proponents would stop spreading this "director's intent" fiction and find some other argument to support its use.
.

Yea, remember all the brouhahahahaha this created back in 80s

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/3045904769_bb3e004753_o.jpg

And how many of us really want to see all those ancient Greek and Roman statues in their original polychromed glory?

Personally I prefer a calibrated system but sans art pureists. Those types never approved of Dupre's performances of Bach at St. Sulpice--so scr*w them LOL

I think you might be conflating two different issues. Working to a calibrated standard is necessary to present the same sensory input to every viewer or listener which is the goal of virtually every media professional. But sensory input does not map unmediated to perception. Sensory input is not seeing/hearing. If one wanted a professional or quasi professional relation with film then one would be well advised to carefully study the calibrated image and learn its properties within the context of one's perception. Quite possibly one could learn to prefer it even if it was not what one "naturally" preferred. But the OP seemed to be about simple viewer preference. For a non-would-be-professional if BC is what is preferred, that deserves no criticism whatever.

I said:

As the end user its your choice to paint the canvas as you find most pleasing, and if that means turning on BC and watching pastel colors because they're prettier or offer more light output, that is certainly your choice. However, if you are a purist (like myself and others here) and want to see what the director wanted you to see, obtaining a proper calibration and keeping BC off is your only option.

How is that in conflict with what you said? I didn't criticize anyone's choice.

Yea, remember all the brouhahahahaha this created back in 80s

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/3045904769_bb3e004753_o.jpg

And how many of us really want to see all those ancient Greek and Roman statues in their original polychromed glory?


What you say is pretty much exactly right.

Striving for color accuracy at best reproduces what some telecine colorist determined the correct colors to be. Whether that is something that we all should be striving to emulate is the real question. I think it benefits us to get close to what was intended there. Reasonable people may disagree.

It is intellectually dishonest in my opinion to talk about "filmmaker's intent" when that can never be reproduced with the sources and displays available to us right now.

I said:
How is that in conflict with what you said? I didn't criticize anyone's choice.

I question if it is generally true that the director wants you to see something in particular as opposed to experience something in particular. Subjective responses to color are quite varied and it does not seem unreasonable to me that a viewer might well come closer to the auteur's intent by modifying the color than leaving it as is. I don't see how that can be other than a subjective call.

That's what I thought you might be conflating, sensory data and the response to it. These are complex issues and it's difficult to do them justice in short posts so I will cut you slack if you will do the same for me. :)

I question if it is generally true that the director wants you to see something in particular as opposed to experience something in particular. Subjective responses to color are quite varied and it does not seem unreasonable to me that a viewer might well come closer to the auteur's intent by modifying the color than leaving it as is. I don't see how that can be other than a subjective call.

That's what I thought you might be conflating, sensory data and the response to it. These are complex issues and it's difficult to do them justice in short posts so I will cut you slack if you will do the same for me. :)

Well let me put it this way - with the variables that you list, do you think it helps to add one more variable in by having a TV that doesn't adhere to established standards that were used in the process of creating the material being viewed? That is, if someone's looking for accuracy vs. eye candy.

Well let me put it this way - with the variables that you list, do you think it helps to add one more variable in by having a TV that doesn't adhere to established standards that were used in the process of creating the material being viewed? That is, if someone's looking for accuracy vs. eye candy.

I'm planning on buying an EyeOne first of next year, does that tell you something?

Still, though I have no sympathy with post-modernist art theory, phrases like eye candy sound unnecessarily pejorative and smell like art snobbery.

I have come to the conclusion that "accurate" color is generally a good thing and and that I prefer it myself. However, I wish that its proponents would stop spreading this "filmmaker's intent" fiction and find some other argument to support its use.
Thus saith the Lawguy.

http://www.jkpi.net/allen_daviau.php - so says an award winning cinematographer.

It's OK to prefer self-imposed distortion. It's also OK to prefer an accurate display and authentic images. The first preference will be unique to each individual viewer. The second preference will be standardized. Neither preference is wrong for that individual, just different. If a viewer has a desire to see what the program originator approved on his/her calibrated professional monitor, that requires a display calibrated to the same imaging industry standards and recommended practices. In most cases, guesswork won't get you there.

Thus saith the Lawguy.

http://www.jkpi.net/allen_daviau.php - so says an award winning cinematographer.

It's OK to prefer self-imposed distortion. It's also OK to prefer an accurate display and authentic images. The first preference will be unique to each individual viewer. The second preference will be standardized. Neither preference is wrong for that individual, just different. If a viewer has a desire to see what the program originator approved on his/her calibrated professional monitor, that requires a display calibrated to the same imaging industry standards and recommended practices. In most cases, guesswork won't get you there.

Please explain to me then how a cinematographer (who works in a broader color space than any used in DVD or bluray) can have his intent transferred to a media that inherently can't capture it?


I would love to hear the answer to this question.

Again, I don't question that, at least for me, displays look better color calibrated. I do question this "filmmaker's intent" fiction.

I have come to the conclusion that "accurate" color is generally a good thing and and that I prefer it myself. However, I wish that its proponents would stop spreading this "filmmaker's intent" fiction and find some other argument to support its use.

Fact: What is on a DVD or bluray is in most cases what someone other than the filmmaker intended and will in fact never be what was shown in the theater.

Fine. An accurately calibrated image is the closest you will get to film-makers intent, given the source material that we have available. Just because some bonehead made the material worse at some point in the chain, doesn't mean that you should take it even further. The source material is what we have at hand. You MAY argue that it is an advantage to be able to adjust for material of varying quality, but if you want one setup to use for all movies, I firmly believe a setup accurate to the source is what gets closest for the most movies.

Is what is shown in the theater necsessarily "film-makers intent"? If the filmmaker could make use of better systems than what is used in the cinemas, don't you think they would?

Fine. An accurately calibrated image is the closest you will get to film-makers intent, given the source material that we have available. Just because some bonehead made the material worse at some point in the chain, doesn't mean that you should take it even further. The source material is what we have at hand. You MAY argue that it is an advantage to be able to adjust for material of varying quality, but if you want one setup to use for all movies, I firmly believe a setup accurate to the source is what gets closest for the most movies.

Is what is shown in the theater necsessarily "film-makers intent"? If the filmmaker could make use of better systems than what is used in the cinemas, don't you think they would?


I agree with all of this. Every word.

My sole point is that it is "inaccurrate" (:D) to use the terms "filmaker's intent" or "director's intent" in describing what we are seeing with a calibrated display.

Please explain to me then how a cinematographer (who works in a broader color space than any used in DVD or bluray) can have his intent transferred to a media that inherently can't capture it?


I would love to hear the answer to this question.

He can't. But he can make it as close as that media allows. And if some inherently different way of displaying that media in practice allows for a more accurate representation, then that difference would be (or should have been) applied to the standard. If the cinematographer wants you to use a wider colorspace when playing back HD, then all power to him, all he needs to do is put the coordinates that we should use on the back of the cover. It may be an issue in reality to change coordinates for each movie though, that's why the cinematographer lives with the difference, and if he's interested in delivering a good quality HD or DVD experience, he will remaster the film to look as close as it can using that particular colorspace. Once he has done that, the possibility of utilizing a wide color space is lost forever. Playing such a source back within a wide colorspace does not get you back to the original colorspace, it just gives you a different shade of wrong. The difference between these two shades of wrong, is that the filmmaker actually has control over one of them. So just as the filmmaker is limited to the capabilities of 35mm in the cinema, he is limited to the capabilities of blu-ray, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't deliver the best possible experience within that particular format.

I agree with all of this. Every word.

My sole point is that it is "inaccurrate" (:D) to use the terms "filmaker's intent" or "director's intent" in describing what we are seeing with a calibrated display.

Sorry for crossing posts here... But I don't agree, not fully at least. No, we cannot fully reach "filmmakers intent", but we can get as close as possible within the limits of that particular format. Even if we can't get all the way, shouldn't we try to get as close as possible?

Please explain to me then how a cinematographer (who works in a broader color space than any used in DVD or bluray) can have his intent transferred to a media that inherently can't capture it?


I would love to hear the answer to this question.

Again, I don't question that, at least for me, displays look better color calibrated. I do question this "filmmaker's intent" fiction.
Because film makers frequently participate in and approve the transfer to video for disc and broadcast distribution. Case in point: the recent remastering of 'The Godfather' trilogy for Blu-ray was personally supervised by Francis Coppola and others involved with the films. Allen Daviau has also participated in telecine transfers of his film work and knows full well what he's talking about.

He can't. But he can make it as close as that media allows. And if some inherently different way of displaying that media in practice allows for a more accurate representation, then that difference would be (or should have been) applied to the standard. If the cinematographer wants you to use a wider colorspace when playing back HD, then all power to him, all he needs to do is put the coordinates that we should use on the back of the cover. It may be an issue in reality to change coordinates for each movie though, that's why the cinematographer lives with the difference, and if he's interested in delivering a good quality HD or DVD experience, he will remaster the film to look as close as it can using that particular colorspace. Once he has done that, the possibility of utilizing a wide color space is lost forever. Playing such a source back within a wide colorspace does not get you back to the original colorspace, it just gives you a different shade of wrong. The difference between these two shades of wrong, is that the filmmaker actually has control over one of them. So just as the filmmaker is limited to the capabilities of 35mm in the cinema, he is limited to the capabilities of blu-ray, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't deliver the best possible experience within that particular format.

I don't disagree with this either.

Perhaps I am suggesting that a good calibration has to take into account the limitations of the particular display and perhaps of the source material as well.

You posted earlier that sometimes compromises have to be made. Your example of using brilliant color in a dim display at the expense of color accuracy as being a good tradeoff is an example of this. My point is that sometimes we need to be pragmatic.

I would much rather have someone like you calibrate my display who might be willing to make some sacrifices in order to get an enjoyable picture than someone who simply takes measurements, sets to standards and then calls it a day, even though the picture has not benefited from it.

IMO, relying on terms like "filmmaker's intent" is an obstacle toward the kind of pragmatism that you seem prepared to accept.

Please note that Sim2 has used the BC principle to gain higher lumen output without sacrificing color fidelity, by using the 6-primary color wheel principle without the overly bright secondaries. The principle behind BC is good. The use of it in practice is bad.

Are you quoting mfg claims of accuracy - or do you have calibrator experience on this? Please provide calibrated measurements of SIM2 with BC on measuring the xyY values on a standard colorbars (75% & 100%), as well as sequential colorfields. You would actually need to do 25%, 50% colors as well to prove BC did no harm - this requires a video generator as this is not available on DVD. Compare same to BC off (recalibrate)

In theory you could create a color wheel in which the brightness of yellow is filtered down to equal the brightness of red + green. However this means that you have less red and green on the wheel for the simple reason of space to make room for the yellow, thus the red and green are less bright than they could be - and the yellow needs turned down further to match. You would have been better off using a RGB wheel than a RGBCMY wheel in terms of calibrated brightness! So the only real reason to do RGBCMY wheels is to pop the brightness of the CMY gamut, There is another possibility of hex RGBCMY gamut to cover print gamuts - but this is not applicable to video reproduction - only to graphic arts with calibrated monitor/print systems.

So at that point you can say since the eye cannot tell a proper yellow if it came together as red+green vs. yellow - what advantage is gained?

This Sim2 also has the lamp pulsing technology to increase the brightness of each colorwheel segment optically since single chip DLP is sequential color. However if the colorwheel is already optomized for the brightness of the standard - there would be no need for this feature!

So really the only reason to have RGBCMY wheels would be making some colors optically brighter and/or deeper than the standard - which then need to be fixed digitally (or with lamp pulsing) to get to the standard. How is this any better brightness than a colorwheel that is optomized to the standard to begin with?

Because film makers frequently participate in and approve the transfer to video for disc and broadcast distribution. Case in point: the recent remastering of 'The Godfather' trilogy for Blu-ray was personally supervised by Francis Coppola and others involved with the films. Allen Daviau has also participated in telecine transfers of his film work and knows full well what he's talking about.


Please pay a visit to the bluray or dvd forums on this site and see what the videophiles here have to say about the quality of most of the transfers! In theory what you say could be true. In practice it seems not to work out most of the time.

Human error occurs in every sphere of activity that involves humans, especially in internet forums. Most of the DVDs and BDs I take the time to watch look wonderful.

I further expanded my point below you should read that. And yes i have seen professionally calibrated system, and yes it looks very nice and natural infact, but I still enjoy bc better, the light output is the main reason.

We may be misunderstanding eachother a little bit here, but: Then it's a matter of light output, not about the effect that BC does to the picture. Your choice is quite valid, you would rather sacrifice a bit of color fidelity that sacrifice light output. As I said, both are wrong, so the choice is yours. But if you look at BC exclusively, it does in fact skew the colors. I don't think your statement means that you like BC over no BC, it means that you like to have the light output high enough. That is a very important part of "accurate images", just like color. So your choice doesn't mean that you don't like accurate color, just that you probably don't get it no matter what.

Please consult my other post as well, not all system reproduce color the same, infact no system reproduces the same color add to that everyones eyes interpert color differently. Calibrators say they reproduce what the director intended but again every display and everyones eyes are different they all handle and view colors differently. Again art at projector reviews calibrates all his machines and colors on each system at d65 all look very different. So which machines at d65 are reproducing what the director intended, there all calibrated to the same point there colors are still very different.

This is a very important matter, so important perhaps that we should have a different thread for it entirely! There are more to "accurate color" than D65. A lot, in fact. If two projectors have D65 whites, but different color spaces, they will certainly look different, but at least one will not be accurate, even though white may be at D65. If color looks obviously different on two projectors, at least one is not accurate, period. It just may be that it is inaccurate in a way that you didn't measure. If two projectors deliver the same light output, the same gamma (both can have an impact on percieved color...), the same colorspace, the same white balance, the same decoding, no clipping, the same saturation at different IRE levels (linearity) plus whatever I forgot to mention, they WILL look very similar with regards to color. If they look different, but the measurements are the same, then you forgot to measure something. No reviewer I have ever seen, not even Greg Rogers, delivers every possible color measurement (it would be quite overwhelming and not very informative to most people anyway). Greg and others does evaluate the performance in these areas though, even though not always delivering the measurements.

Please make the distinction here between a calibrated display and an accurate display. A display may be calibrated the best it can be, and still not be accurate. That depends of the abilities of the display. So, you're right in saying that two calibrated displays may very well look quite different, but then both are not accurate.


And by the way i own a benq w5000 with accurate cms and cca I have used accurate color values tested by others.

Take my word for it, that does not mean that you have accurate color. You may be close though (until you turn BC on that is... ;-) )


Peoples eyes and prefrences are all different. I dont know how you can deny that. The people who do perfect calibration are videophiles who want to pay for it. Of course your clients like it better, but again there a small niche, not many people are videophiles and want to spend X amount for accurate color that is accurate based on a color triangle. The vast majority of people like me trust what looks good to mey eyes.

Actually most of my clients aren't videophiles at all, on the contrary - they are normal people who are so scared of the controls that they pay people to do it for them.

Whether people's eyes are physically different, doesn't matter. If your eyes makes a green sofa look red, then it still needs to be an accurate "red" to your eyes, to look accurate. Preferences? Maybe so, but as I said, I have never met a single person who didn't like the look of a close to accurate set. I have met a few that didn't like the post-calibrated picture, but those were cases where the set still wasn't close to accurate. I simply don't believe the argument that people's preferences are different. Some people just don't know better (and yes, that is a bold statement that will get some people off, but that is my actual, real life experience from dealing with customers of all kinds).

As always nobody can tell me what looks better except my own eyes, and when it comes to color I make the image and skin tones look natural to me and adjust the picture to how i enjoy it.[/QUOTE]

Everyone is free to do whatever they want. I just don't understand why you want to change the movie. I can understand why you want the color to look better, but I don't WANT to look at color, I want to look at movies. In my opinion, the irony of this discussion is that those who don't approve of the thought of accurate imaging, are the ones who are focusing too much on picture quality, and not the content. They (you?) very often argue that all that calibration mumbo-jumbo is just technical jibberish that "normal people" shouldn't have to worry about, and only freakish videophiles care about. You just want to watch movies, without worrying about all that BS. Well, if you want to see the movie, then you WANT an accurate image...

But, as I said in the beginning of this post, accurate imaging is about more than color.

Again art at projector reviews calibrates all his machines and colors on each system at d65 all look very different. So which machines at d65 are reproducing what the director intended, there all calibrated to the same point there colors are still very different.


Not true - art stopped calibrating for his reviews as he admits he is not good at it - he hires a local calibrator to do this now - who probably only does greyscale because color calibration takes too much time - and many PJ do not have sufficient controls for it. There is a very short list of PJ with 3D CMS controls that function properly in the display calibration forum.

However your point about D65 shows you are not following this conversation. We are talking about color calibration - not about greyscale calibration. Color calibration fixes the video decoding and the display gamut such that the xyY values of RGBCMY conform to REC709 or SMPTE-C standards.

The reason arts pic look different even "calibrated" is that 3D CMS color calibration was not done. If something has the same xyY value - color theory and psychovisual science tells you that humans can see no differences in color regardless of what filtered lamp spectra was used to get that color.

So really the only reason to have RGBCMY wheels would be making some colors optically brighter and/or deeper than the standard - which then need to be fixed digitally (or with lamp pulsing) to get to the standard. How is this any better brightness than a colorwheel that is optomized to the standard to begin with?

I was citing manufacturer claims, and I may be wrong. Rather, I think I left a lot out, and then the argument don't make sense. As I understand it, the RGBCMY wheel (which I was referring to as "BC principle", which may be an inaccurate term), is what makes the lamp pulsing effective. Sorry if I confused things.

I don't disagree with this either.

Perhaps I am suggesting that a good calibration has to take into account the limitations of the particular display and perhaps of the source material as well.

You posted earlier that sometimes compromises have to be made. Your example of using brilliant color in a dim display at the expense of color accuracy as being a good tradeoff is an example of this. My point is that sometimes we need to be pragmatic.

Most definately. A good calibration is not just putting up your meter, hitting D65, and writing a cheque. Compromises almost always have to be made.

A friend of mine is a carpenter, and he once said: When working on old, skewed houses, you have to remind yourself that the important thing isn't making things BE straight, but making them LOOK straight...

I would much rather have someone like you calibrate my display who might be willing to make some sacrifices in order to get an enjoyable picture than someone who simply takes measurements, sets to standards and then calls it a day, even though the picture has not benefited from it. IMO, relying on terms like "filmmaker's intent" is an obstacle toward the kind of pragmatism that you seem prepared to accept.

I think, based on my experience from talking to other calibrators, that most experienced calibrators, even those that are quite hard-set on "filmmakers intent" when it comes to these discussion, actually very much do acknowledge the fact that in reality you often can't reach all goals, so you have to compromise. In fact, most experienced calibrators would call someone who just takes the measurements and do whatever the instruments tell them to, a very bad calibrator. While we're on the subject of being pragmatic, I believe most of these discussions are based on people misunderstanding each other's arguments.

One point I'd like to make, though, is that I don't consider my job to be adjusting the set to whatever you like. If that's what you want, you don't need me. What I do is deliver a qualified shot at how close the set can get to accurate, all things considered, all necessary sacrifices made, and then educate you that this is what it should look like, under the circumstances. If I did a good job, you will agree.

(BTW, compared to some of the guys in this forum, I would not call myself an experienced calibrator at all!)

I will make one caveat though: Too low light output is also wrong. A dim picture with accurate color isn't necsessarily more accurate than a bright picture with wrong color. You have to hit the right balance (unless you can get both right). So, in some setups, yes it may be better to live with inaccurate color to get the brightness high enough, but in that case you are choosing between two inaccurate choices, not between an accurate and an inaccurate choice. I suspect a lot of people who think they have seen accurate pictures and didn't like it, have seen accurate color but way too low brightness. That is equally bad. So the correct answer to the BC debate may be: If you have ample brightness without BC, it should never be used. However, if brightness isn't satisfying, sacrificing color fidelity may or may not be a wise choice.

Very well put - I agree with this. That's the beauty of having our own home theaters though - in the end we get to do whatever we want that pleases us !!

Otto J,

What would you suggest as a minimum brightness for a projection set up?

Thanks.

What would you suggest as a minimum brightness for a projection set up?

For me its 12 FL mnimum, and I prefer 16 - 18 FL. Last I checked with a light meter I was at around 18 FL. Nice and bright. And no, I don't have Brilliant Color on my projector.

Based on a national survey conducted by SMPTE in a recent year, the average commercial cinema screen is between 8 and 10 fL peak white. An Academy screening room is supposed to deliver around 14 fL. Professional video monitors in controlled viewing conditions are recommended to deliver 35 fL, or no less than 30 fL. Compromised viewing conditions with even moderate ambient light would require more screen brightness that those figures.

I'm planning on buying an EyeOne first of next year, does that tell you something?

Still, though I have no sympathy with post-modernist art theory, phrases like eye candy sound unnecessarily pejorative and smell like art snobbery.

You're assuming emotional intent where there is none - I use the term eye candy in the literal sense. BC often creates neon pastels where they would otherwise not exist in matieral.

BC often creates neon pastels where they would otherwise not exist in matieral.

Exactly - I think I said that but I will say it again - BC makes SOME of your picture brighter - namely pastels (including white) within the secondary CMY gamut. If you need a brighter picture - then you are much better off going with a smaller and/or gain screen - that will make ALL of your picture brighter - all of the colors at all of the brightness levels. Either that or get a PJ that has sufficient calibrated lumens for your screen without using BC.

You're assuming emotional intent where there is none - I use the term eye candy in the literal sense. BC often creates neon pastels where they would otherwise not exist in matieral.



I had hoped my words would convey my doubt. Obviously I don't' know you and if my sentences gave any offence I apologize that I was not as careful with my words as I should have been.

Not true - art stopped calibrating for his reviews as he admits he is not good at it - he hires a local calibrator to do this now - who probably only does greyscale because color calibration takes too much time - and many PJ do not have sufficient controls for it. There is a very short list of PJ with 3D CMS controls that function properly in the display calibration forum.

However your point about D65 shows you are not following this conversation. We are talking about color calibration - not about greyscale calibration. Color calibration fixes the video decoding and the display gamut such that the xyY values of RGBCMY conform to REC709 or SMPTE-C standards.

The reason arts pic look different even "calibrated" is that 3D CMS color calibration was not done. If something has the same xyY value - color theory and psychovisual science tells you that humans can see no differences in color regardless of what filtered lamp spectra was used to get that color.


Your not following what I said, notice I metioned art gets someone to do his.

Still art gets someone to calibrate his systems, and they all look very different.

Dont try to convince me every machine properly calibrated is going to look the same! Then there would be no reason for consumers to upgrade or consider color when upgrading there machine. Argue all you want. Every machine calibrated properly is still going to look different! Also how many machines have accurate cms values I know the benq was broken for some time, even less machines have it and implemented properly.

And your last statement is absurd. I was just arguing with my wife again watching the projector about something being purple and she said no way thats more blue. What about people who are color blind to cenrtain colors I have two freinds who are, again you guys try to generalize to an exact science, you cant make the differences between machines and peoples eyes an exact science, how can you argue with this?

I havent even mentioned variances when transfering film to blue ray, francis might oversee his transfers but I can tell you scorsese especially on gangs of new york did not bother.

I just think its egotistical when calibrators claim they portray what the director intended. Your calibrating as close as you can given variances to what they intended.

Murilo-

As kraz said, if a projector has a fixed gamut - i.e. no 3D CMS - that is different from REC709 or SMPTE-C, then of course it will look different from another projector with a different fixed gamut that also doesn't adhere to a standard. Most of the projectors that Art reviews do not have CMSs, and this is a major reason why they'll look different in side-by-side comparisons.

You also pointed out the differences in display technology - assuming there's no color decoder errors like red push in the processing - then of course this is also going to make a difference between displays. Black levels and light output play a large role in how we percieve color saturation the the "vividness" of images. No one who is a major proponent of calibrating displays thinks that a calibration will render such differences null and void - that would be absurd.

I'm not sure what either of the above topics have to do with the use of BC.

Regarding your disagreement with your wife about the hue of a color, that doesn't really apply to side-by-side display comparisons either. The human eye/mind is a rather poor instruments for detecting absolutes in a vacuum - it is designed to detect deltas. It's easy to disagree on the the hue of a color on a single display, but in a large group of people with a side-by-side display comparison, most people will always agree on whether one display shows a more magenta-ish or green-ish blue than the other.

The ultimate goal of calibration is to get any given display to adhere to standards as closely as possible within the limitations of the display technology, thus eliminating the display as a possible variable in futher skewing accurate reproduction of the material. I think it's safe to say that 99% of the time, a calibrated display will stay truer to the original matieral than a non-calibrated display will.

Murilo-

As kraz said, if a projector has a fixed gamut - i.e. no 3D CMS - that is different from REC709 or SMPTE-C, then of course it will look different from another projector with a different fixed gamut that also doesn't adhere to a standard. Most of the projectors that Art reviews do not have CMSs, and this is a major reason why they'll look different in side-by-side comparisons.

You also pointed out the differences in display technology - assuming there's no color decoder errors like red push in the processing - then of course this is also going to make a difference between displays. Black levels and light output play a large role in how we percieve color saturation the the "vividness" of images. No one who is a major proponent of calibrating displays thinks that a calibration will render such differences null and void - that would be absurd.

I'm not sure what either of the above topics have to do with the use of BC.

Regarding your disagreement with your wife about the hue of a color, that doesn't really apply to side-by-side display comparisons either. The human eye/mind is a rather poor instruments for detecting absolutes in a vacuum - it is designed to detect deltas. It's easy to disagree on the the hue of a color on a single display, but in a large group of people with a side-by-side display comparison, most people will always agree on whether one display shows a more magenta-ish or green-ish blue than the other.

The ultimate goal of calibration is to get any given display to adhere to standards as closely as possible within the limitations of the display technology, thus eliminating the display as a possible variable in futher skewing accurate reproduction of the material. I think it's safe to say that 99% of the time, a calibrated display will stay truer to the original matieral than a non-calibrated display will.

Jesus i hate to get mad but this is the whole point. Director intent!

Calibrators claim they pinpoint director intent with there calibration but it does not work so easy, there is to many other variables!!!!!

How hard is it for you guys to understand, displays, human eyes, all vary. You will never see what the director intended unless he is sitting there with his eyes calibrating the display and oversees the transfer.

Art reviews all projectors! Top of the line to bottem of the line! ALl projectors are different, fewer have proper cms cca, at least my benq does! Do these calibrators even have proper cms and cca working! Very few machines have both! Again just admitt there will be color differences amongst all machines!

Furthermore bc looks brighter to me more vibrant, and more realistic. Even alan the owner mentioned 3chip brightness looks more realistic in the past. The extra brightness provides a picture i find more realsitic and some do.

IM just tired of the cocky attitude calibrators have claiming they show what directors intended!

No you show as close as you can to what the director intended, but there are a ton of variables!

This is where your post gets funny and again is absurd

"The human eye/mind is a rather poor instruments for detecting absolutes in a vacuum - it is designed to detect deltas. It's easy to disagree on the the hue of a color on a single display, but in a large group of people with a side-by-side display comparison, most people will always agree on whether one display shows a more magenta-ish or green-ish blue than the other.:"

Everyones eyes are different do I have to get my ****ing optomitrist to make a post on here! My point is again everyones eyes are different!!!


Then you mention the human eye is a poor judge! THis is the entire point. THe eyes are what everyone see's through and everyones eyes are different! Admitt it! Get a group togetherr and you may have some majority agree on color, but what about those who cant perceive color like others, whose correct? Again stop trying to justify the impossible, all our eyes are different!


My last post on this.

Calibratros do a great job of gamma, contrast, brightness, ect.. But when it comes to colors you either have a calibrator try to calibrate to what they think the director intended given a ton of variables as mentioned! Or you calibrate to what you like best.

You seem to understand the root reason for calibrating display - trying to eliminate a variable that would cause someone to experience other than what was intended - yet you scoff at calibrators and say that they're trying to deliver what they "think" is directors intent, when this couldn't be further off the mark.

There are certain standards - namely D65 for white balance and SMPTE-C or REC 709 for gamut - that are almost universally used when transferring material to the discs that you watch. The displays that we use to watch that material often grossly deviate from those standards for any number of reasons. Maybe it looks prettier, maybe the manufacturer is trying to squeeze more light out of a FP, maybe it's so they can market that they have "better" colors than the competition. Regardless, the end result is that people end up watching materials on displays that crush whites and blacks, wildly deviate from D65 (usually on the cool side), show orange when they should show red - amongst a myriad of other problems.

You can argue differences in vision and perception all you want - but in the end no director (or anyone else in the creative process) can ever compensate for that, so it really becomes a moot point with respect to display accuracy. The best that we can hope for is to make our displays as accurate as possible (within their abilities), thus eliminating one major variable in the chain between the filmmaker and the viewer.

If you don't find that experience pleasing and you want to use your own brush on the canvas because you're looking for more realism (not the goal of film) or a more pleasing image, that is your decision. But don't harp on calibrators because they're stating the obvious - that displays are a variable in the equation that CAN be eliminated through calibration to known standards - just because you don't personally like the end results.

**Edit: I didn't say our eyes are poor judges, I said our eyes are poor absolute instruments when trying to judge things in a vacuum. They're great at comparing things and observing deltas, but when it comes to display calibration that makes them very inaccurate instruments unless they have a measured/accepted reference to compare to. That's certainly not an excuse to accept color that deviates from the standard if your goal is accurate reproduction. The whole "variation in human senses" argument shouldn't be used to excuse calibration; indeed, it should be a solid example of why we need our displays calibrated!

kicking this particular troll back under the bridge to play with his crayonbox....

I finally did it I think. I turned bc off. After watching hdnet and seeing a glowing face I had to turn it off.

I opened up the iris all the way to make up for the lumens somewhat.

Still its much more natural with it off.

Everyones eyes are different do I have to get my ****ing optomitrist to make a post on here! My point is again everyones eyes are different!!!
This poor soul appears to be close to blowing a gasket over an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. We are ignoring the universal fact that humans have slight variation in color perception because it's axiomatic and goes without saying. Every standards body involved in imaging knows this all too well. It's at the very foundation of why imaging industry standards are necessary and desirable.
You will never see what the director intended unless he is sitting there with his eyes calibrating the display and oversees the transfer.
Again, the poster reveals his cluelessness and confusion. Generally speaking, directors don't calibrate monitors. The engineer or technician responsible for maintaining the studio's hardware doesn't calibrate the mastering monitor used by the director/cinematographer/colorist/etc. by eye! Mastering monitors are calibrated with instruments and standardized test signals, just like professional calibrators use on consumer TVs and projectors.

The only hope we have of seeing what a video program originator intended for his audience to see, is by maintaining imaging industry standards, engineering guidelines, and recommended practices. We encounter loss of fidelity, and compromise to artistic integrity, in the proportion and to the degree that reference standards are deviated from. Each individual audience member's color perception has utterly NOTHING to do with delivering a correct image via a display. Just as theoretically in commercial cinema, the individual audience member's eyesight is IRRELEVANT to the quality and character of the image on the screen. The quality of the image on the screen is determined by the adherence to standards.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

The only hope we have of seeing what a video program originator intended for his audience to see, is by ...

Thanks for a very clear explanation, I could only be happier if you had said

"The only hope we have of presenting what visual sensory data a video program originator intended for his audience is by ..."

as it would eliminate some semantic and philosophical issues that are concomitant with the word seeing.

visual sensory data
We are discussing video images here, aren't we? Please stay in context!:rolleyes:

I understand what is being said about BC, and I choose to turn it off. But it was mentioned during the discussion that using a higher gain screen was an alternative solution to increasing brightness. I tried out a sample of Dalite HP and found the image to be almost neon looking, and different seats in the viewing area receive a significantly different image. How do those of you who are looking for an accurate image feel about these experiences?

Otto J,

What would you suggest as a minimum brightness for a projection set up?

Thanks.

To give a short, definitive answer would be to counter the pragmatic point of view I just stated... However, rule of thumb I shoot for 12-16 fL whenever possible, the newer the lamp the higher the output needed (to compensate for lamp aging). I rarely find myself in a situation with too much light @ accurate colors. Anything above 8 I find is a decent compromise, I wouldn't turn on BC if I can get 8 without it - depending on the room, projector at hand at the use of the system, if I got 6 without BC and 10-12 with BC (likely situation with a W5000), I would create a "night" setting with as high brightness as I can get without BC, and then create a "day" setting with BC, and explain to the customer that to get the brightness needed for the "day" setting, the color must be compromised. Then it's up to him to decide which setting he prefers in actual use. This is an example of a case where "calibration" is as much about educating the customer, as it is about creating a good picture.

Basically, I guess that's what I would do in practice for most setups, unless the customer specifically states that all he wants is one setting to use all the time, and says that he always darkens the room.

I have visited LCD owners with pre-calibration brightness of as low as 3 fL. More than once, I have left a customer without doing the calibration because sacrificing light output to get accurate color just wasn't a viable option. I don't want customers telling their friends they have a picture that Otto calibrated, if it has a brightness of 2.5 fL...

I understand what is being said about BC, and I choose to turn it off. But it was mentioned during the discussion that using a higher gain screen was an alternative solution to increasing brightness. I tried out a sample of Dalite HP and found the image to be almost neon looking, and different seats in the viewing area receive a significantly different image. How do those of you who are looking for an accurate image feel about these experiences?

Answering that question will create a huge debate over screen choices and compromises, so if you want an answer to that, perhaps you should start another thread in the screen section. The obvious answer here though, is just like what I stated about BC: There are advantages and disadvantages, and in reality you have to weigh those against each other.

Your not following what I said, notice I metioned art gets someone to do his.

Still art gets someone to calibrate his systems, and they all look very different.

Dont try to convince me every machine properly calibrated is going to look the same!


We're NOT trying to convince you of that, actually we both tried to explain you the exact opposite! You obviously didn't understand the point we were trying to make: A calibrated display isn't necessarily accurate. It is only as accurate as the hardware allows. If two calibrated projectors look different (wrt. color), it is because at least one couldn't be calibrated to exactly match the standards. We already told you twice, but read again: Calibration is about more that D65 white balance. If you have exactly D65 white, you can still have errors in red, green and blue saturation, color brightness etc, and just like you said, very few projectors are capable of accurate color in every way. But please do understand, that if you have two projectors that are both capable of perfect color trigonometry in every way, they WILL look very similar. When Art sees differences between different, calibrated projectors, it is because they do NOT measure the same, even after calibration. If they measure the same, they look the same. If they don't look the same, but measure the same, you didn't measure enough variables to point out the difference.

We don't calibrate to get the filmmakers intent. We calibrate to get _as close to_ filmmakers intent as we can, with the hardware at hand. A calibrated display does not guarantee you filmmakers intent. It guarantees that you are as close as you can be with that particular setup. Please understand this difference before going further with this discussion.

I really understand what the ISF calibrators explain here. And I tried hard to put BC off, but I come always turn on BC because I really like the extra vividness and brightness.

And to be honest I dont see any shift to colors...the reds really are reds, the greens seems to me green...in the end I dont see any trade offs in turn the BC on.

I understand the measure instruments can see shifts in colors, but my eyes (and maybe 90% of all eyes) dont see innaccuracies in colors, at least with the BC of my Planar...I dont know with other projectors...and I ve read in some reviews the Planar´s BC dont have problems compared against others implementations of thit "trick" like calibrators like to call.

Greetings

Remember that in no way does one say you can't use the BC. That's the furthest from the truth here.

It is simply inconsistent when one purports to want as accurate an image as possible and then uses this feature. If accuracy is not your goal ... then by all means use this feature and which ever other feature you would like. It then simply becomes all about what you like ... and that's okay too.

Just don't pretend that the enhancement features make the image more accurate when that is not happening at all.

As you mentioned ... it is perfectly fine to join the other 99% of people other there that simply don't care about image calibration or image fidelity.

regards

And to be honest I dont see any shift to colors...the reds really are reds, the greens seems to me green...in the end I dont see any trade offs in turn the BC on.

at least with the BC of my Planar...

Calibrators are always happy to educate those willing to learn what they should look for.The Planar and Infocus are bright enough so the BC pop is very small but if you know what to look for you will see it. Once you do see it you will not want it on again. We know you can see the brightness increase - so you want to look for what colors did NOT pop - and you already saw it as you say greens are green, reds are red - as they should be because BC did not adjust their brightness.

BC does not shift the color gamut (the color of color) - it only increases the brightness of pastel colors which includes white. This enables the marketed brightness to be increased adequately such that some PJ's will use the oversaturated primary color gamuts which are darker and thus otherwise limit the marketing spec.

While this is marketed as an improvement - it is not accurate - because now you have dim primary colors near RGB and overly bright pastels. And turning BC off to fix the pastels means PJ is much dimmer than marketed - time to fix your install.

According to -> Murilo himself <- it is easy to see in faces - caucasian skin is a light pink - a pastel. Just turn it on and notice it got brighter when more saturated colors like a stop sign did not. If all you watch is 80's Miami Vice it may appear the entire picture got brighter - but watch something else you will realize only the pastels did.

My favorite test is the scene in Monsters Inc. in which they watch themselves on TV - look at the darker backgrounds and notice they don't change as much as the monsters themselves. Notice that the yellow and cyan in the monsters texture maps glows a bit with BC on - but the green and deep blue purple does not. This is what good calibrators do - they educate their customers on what they have been missing as well as the limitations of certain displays they should avoid on upgrades - all for <10% of the PJ cost!

Earlier in the thread I also posted a Displaymate test pattern that can easily show what BC does - look at that first.

I understand what is being said about BC, and I choose to turn it off. But it was mentioned during the discussion that using a higher gain screen was an alternative solution to increasing brightness. I tried out a sample of Dalite HP and found the image to be almost neon looking, and different seats in the viewing area receive a significantly different image. How do those of you who are looking for an accurate image feel about these experiences?


This is true of HighPower only if the PJ is at the head angle. Many people use it with ceiling mount PJ which reduces the gain by half (still a nice 1.4x) and increases the viewing angle. Other choices such as SilverStar have wider viewing angles.

If the screen is fixed then calibrators will increase the lamp power, open the fixed iris, insist on more freqent lamp upgrades, kill ambient light sources, or if all else fails insist on a smaller screen! These are the only solutions that guarantee a brighter PJ for 1) everyone in the audience 2) over the entire image. Head mounted HighPower fails #1, BC fails #2.

If one feels they need BC to get sufficient brightness - then they need to rethink their install so the entire images brightness can be increased.

Thank you for responding Krasmuzik. I agree with your list of acceptable solutions for increasing brightness. But I have seen many AVS posters here have sophisticated setups with calibrated, high cost PJs, but then choose HP for screen material. Doesn't HP introduce more (to colors?) than just increase brightness?

The only way that is possible is if the screen itself is colored....

Those calibrated high cost PJ's just happen to be dim on the larger screen they wanted is all so they needed the HP, and it has the advantages of no shadows of the waves in the screen. Further info found in the screen forum...

All this discussion is positive and last night I had time to play with BC and High Lamp mode with my Planar.

In the end I come with 2 conclusions (with GetGray and DVE Essentials HD, without any instruments like EyeOne):

1. BC off with High Power Lamp mode have the best picture by a far margin
2. Economy Lamp mode is best with BC on.

I will keep High Power Lamp mode and BC off.

1. BC off with High Power Lamp mode have the best picture by a far margin
2. Economy Lamp mode is best with BC on.

I will keep High Power Lamp mode and BC off.

Very consistent with the point I was trying to make: If you can get the needed percieved brightness in (almost) any other way than turning on BC, that is preferrable. To get into the HP debate anyway, even though certain people won't admit it using a HP is a tradeoff too, just not a tradeoff in color. I for one do not like the HP, but I can understand why it is used in some setups, as I also don't like dim pictures. So, using a HP with BC off would by most people be considered better than using a unity gain screen with BC on, because the effect the HP has on the picture (glare, risk of hotspot etc), would by most people be considered less objectionable than changing the color.

Once again, in a perfect world no "tricks" such as BC, HP, DI etc should ever be used - but the world is not perfect, so in reality sometimes the advantages of these tricks outweighs the disadvantages (but I do consider BC to be absolutely last resort, and equal to "giving up").

My screen is a 110" unity gain from Screen Research and I thought the Economy Lamp mode of the Planar was enough, but after the test of last night, the High Power Lamp mode is much much better.

DiV_GAMER,

I'm beginning to wonder what your viewing environment conditions are. After going back through the thread, I noticed no mention of room characteristics. What colors are your room surfaces and how controlled is the lighting? A unity gain screen does not reject reflections from light colored room surfaces.

Good question and good point GeorgeAB.

I did a service call for another product recently and noted a projector in a room with a color on the walls that seemed to glow a light magenta with just the illumination from the screen. It made it very hard to watch IMO, and I noticed that the user tended to oversaturate the colors to overcome the bias.

I have a very dark grey backwall and partially ceiling (about 60 cm).

The others walls and ceiling are white.

I have complete control of light in the room...no problem here.

You have poor control of light in the room. The white walls will reflect the illumination from the screen and elevate the ambient light in the room. This will compromise contrast, black level, shadow detail and color saturation to some degree. Perhaps this is why you have the challenges you have described.