My Hitachi 57F600 CRT RP HDTV was ISF calibrated upon delivery so I never really had a chance to judge a non-calibrated HD image in my environment... In January I purchased a new 67" Samsung LED DLP television and noticed the reviewer recommended out of the box setting to get close to 6500k color would be Movie Mode - with Color temp set to Warm 2... My television is in a large family room with three large windows (lots of ambinet light during the day, dark at night) I can not control the ambient light during the day and repainting, etc.. is out of the question.

My wife, children and I have found we prefer the Standard mode using Normal color temp setting on this set, which Samsung told me is closer the 9300k standard (through research I've also discovered 9300k is the broadcast standard in many Asian countries including: Japan, China and Korea, which I add just because I thought it was interesting).

Movie Mode - Warm 2 is very dark for our environment... In scenarios such as mine would you really recommend an ISF calibration? I've called a few ISF calibrators in my area and after hearing my environment and preferences they said they would not recommend it (one even said in situations where ambinet light levels are high and could not be lowered he would not recommend calibrating to the 6500k standard).

Would like thoughts from pro calibrators here on this.

If you place a high value on image fidelity when watching important programs in the evening (when you can control ambient light better), calibration is essential. No display made will perform to its ultimate potential without being thoroughly calibrated. Display calibration is not for everyone, or most likely not even a majority of TV owners. Anyone interested in the benefits of display calibration should get clear on the fundamental purpose for such work. There is no end of misinformation available in the entertainment media and on forums such as this one concerning this topic. Please refer to the opening post in this "sticky" thread at the top of this section of the forum: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021933 .

The bottom line is this...rmz76 believes that the 6500k standard is incorrect. He has mentioned it many times before and that is where he is coming from. He hasn't mentioned it in this thread yet, but that's where this conversation is heading.

Individual viewer preference has absolutely nothing to do with display calibration. It can enter in after calibration if the calibrator or viewer deems it appropriate.

Individual viewer preference has absolutely nothing to do with display calibration. It can enter in after calibration if the calibrator or viewer deems it appropriate.

To make sure I understand what you're saying: If I were to get my set calibrated, after doing so I could adjust brightness, contrast, gamma, etc... to my hearts content and still be viewing a properly calibrated image?

The bottom line is this...rmz76 believes that the 6500k standard is incorrect. He has mentioned it many times before and that is where he is coming from. He hasn't mentioned it in this thread yet, but that's where this conversation is heading.

Excuse me, but I think it's unfair for you to hijack this thread....

To make sure I understand what you're saying: If I were to get my set calibrated, after doing so I could adjust brightness, contrast, gamma, etc... to my hearts content and still be viewing a properly calibrated image?
Surely you jest.

To make sure I understand what you're saying: If I were to get my set calibrated, after doing so I could adjust brightness, contrast, gamma, etc... to my hearts content and still be viewing a properly calibrated image?

No, but there can be certain things that may be flexible, such as overall light output (preferably set by an iris, not by the contrast control which ideally should be optimized for maximum contrast ratio).
If you adjust things to whatever tickles your fancy then you will not have a calibrated image any more. You may still have a grayscale close to D6500, but that doesn't mean the pic is properly calibrated overall.
Compensating for very poor looking TV shows may be OK very occasionally, but you are then making your TV inaccurate to compensate for an inaccurate program.

If you place a high value on image fidelity when watching important programs in the evening (when you can control ambient light better), calibration is essential. No display made will perform to its ultimate potential without being thoroughly calibrated.


'By ultimate potential' I assume you mean in terms of 'high fidelity'.... Can 'high fidelity' be achieved with the 6500k standard in environments where there is an abundance of ambinet light?


Display calibration is not for everyone, or most likely not even a majority of TV owners. Anyone interested in the benefits of display calibration should get clear on the fundamental purpose for such work.


I think with this you've answered my question. I like to use edge enhancements and prefer to watch television in Standard mode mode with my set these things seem to work best....

BTW I stil have my ISF calibrated Hitachi out in my man cave... From sunset on it looks perfect, but during the day it's so dark it's an eye strain.... One local calibator told me he in some bright environments he would not sacrifice brightness and contrast to achieve D65 color accuracy. Some AVS Forum members (who are hobbyst, I don't believe there is a single ISF certified calibrator in that fourm) have suggested this was poor advice.

It seems like common sense advise to me, but I am seeking pro opinions. I would prefer the hobbyist (regardless of experience level) not pipe in on this one.
[/QUOTE]

No, but there can be certain things that may be flexible, such as overall light output (preferably set by an iris, not by the contrast control which ideally should be optimized for maximum contrast ratio).
If you adjust things to whatever tickles your fancy then you will not have a calibrated image any more. You may still have a grayscale close to D6500, but that doesn't mean the pic is properly calibrated overall.
Compensating for very poor looking TV shows may be OK very occasionally, but you are then making your TV inaccurate to compensate for an inaccurate program.

Thanks for your reply Chad... So help me bottom line this: I have my HDTV in a family room, lots of windows... My wife is home during the day watching TV and the thought of adjusting the lighting to conform to the TV set repulses her (a dim image also repulses her)... As a family we do most of our TV watching at night where the lighting can be controlled more, but we prefer to have lamps on (sometimes overhead light even, again it's a family room- very open).... For us would ISF calibration be appropriate- I guess specifically the color calibration aspect?

Have you ever done a TV calibration in a similar environment and ended up with an unhappy customer afterward?

My wife is home during the day watching TV...As a family we do most of our TV watching at night

You're aware of ISF Day and ISF Night?

Excuse me, but I think it's unfair for you to hijack this thread....
I just think everyone should be aware of your motives.

My Hitachi 57F600 CRT RP HDTV was ISF calibrated upon delivery so I never really had a chance to judge a non-calibrated HD image in my environment... In January I purchased a new 67" Samsung LED DLP television and noticed the reviewer recommended out of the box setting to get close to 6500k color would be Movie Mode - with Color temp set to Warm 2... My television is in a large family room with three large windows (lots of ambinet light during the day, dark at night) I can not control the ambient light during the day and repainting, etc.. is out of the question.

My wife, children and I have found we prefer the Standard mode using Normal color temp setting on this set, which Samsung told me is closer the 9300k standard (through research I've also discovered 9300k is the broadcast standard in many Asian countries including: Japan, China and Korea, which I add just because I thought it was interesting).

Movie Mode - Warm 2 is very dark for our environment... In scenarios such as mine would you really recommend an ISF calibration? I've called a few ISF calibrators in my area and after hearing my environment and preferences they said they would not recommend it (one even said in situations where ambinet light levels are high and could not be lowered he would not recommend calibrating to the 6500k standard).

Would like thoughts from pro calibrators here on this.

It has been said many times in other threads that you can watch your set using any settings that you choose. It has also been said that most professional calibrators will qualify their clients carefully and most will not recommend calibration to someone who prefers to watch an uncalibrated image. If you are happier with the settings that deviate from the accepted standards, then use them. Why is there even a discussion here? The answer to your question seems completely obvious and it has been discussed in other threads where you have participated. What is your purpose here?

It has been said many times in other threads that you can watch your set using any settings that you choose. It has also been said that most professional calibrators will qualify their clients carefully and most will not recommend calibration to someone who prefers to watch an uncalibrated image.

What fascinates me seems to be a discussion too big, perhaps a kinder word would be inappropriate for this forum (although being Audio Video Science form one would think otherwise). We know human vision will adapt color and has quite a variance... but we also know on a show room floor manufactures compete by pushing brightness at the cost of color accuracy (color accuracy being relative, in this case the US broadcast 6500k standard). Even in darker environments why do most people gravitate towards the Cooler out-of-the-box color temps? Are they doing this because they grew up watching analog CRT televisions that were closer to the 9300k standard? Or is their eye telling them the picture on these cooler screens is closer to real-live? Putting aide what we know is fact about 'the standard' and just asking Why isn't calibration for everyone?

This whole discussion reminds me a bit of the high- fidelity audiophile's quest for perfection. There is a large group who continue to argue to this day that phonograph records provide higher fidelity than Audio CDs... If you listen to their arguments they are actually pretty strong, but they disregard the advantages CDs bring which includes a perceived clearer sound (these days people are listening to lossy digital music more than anything else which is even much lower fidelity than CDs).


I believe with any audio or video technology there is an acceptable range of fidelity and trade offs seems to occur. Of course it's an entirely different ball of wax in some regards, but here is where I think tey relate: With video I see that debate not between analog and digital, but between color temperatures selection and image enhancement technology found in modern displays. By
altering these settings the majority may like what they see, but the high-fidelity purist is horrified.

Is there a point where mutual respect can be reached?

What fascinates me seems to be a discussion too big, perhaps a kinder word would be inappropriate for this forum (although being Audio Video Science form one would think otherwise). We know human vision will adapt color and has quite a variance... but we also know on a show room floor manufactures compete by pushing brightness at the cost of color accuracy (color accuracy being relative, in this case the US broadcast 6500k standard). Even in darker environments why do most people gravitate towards the Cooler out-of-the-box color temps? Are they doing this because they grew up watching analog CRT televisions that were closer to the 9300k standard? Or is their eye telling them the picture on these cooler screens is closer to real-live? Putting aide what we know is fact about 'the standard' and just asking Why isn't calibration for everyone?

This whole discussion reminds me a bit of the high- fidelity audiophile's quest for perfection. There is a large group who continue to argue to this day that phonograph records provide higher fidelity than Audio CDs... If you listen to their arguments they are actually pretty strong, but they disregard the advantages CDs bring which includes a perceived clearer sound (these days people are listening to lossy digital music more than anything else which is even much lower fidelity than CDs).


I believe with any audio or video technology there is an acceptable range of fidelity and trade offs seems to occur. Of course it's an entirely different ball of wax in some regards, but here is where I think tey relate: With video I see that debate not between analog and digital, but between color temperatures selection and image enhancement technology found in modern displays. By
altering these settings the majority may like what they see, but the high-fidelity purist is horrified.

Is there a point where mutual respect can be reached?

I see no disrespect in telling you that you are welcome to watch your displays in the manner that you choose. I believe that professional calibrators show great respect for possible clients for whom calibration is not likely to be satisfying by recommending that they not pay for their services. Further, those same calibration specialists are often willing to give their time for free to explain what calibration is all about and to inform people about how to get the most out of their displays without spending the money on their services. Certainly, there are some who are condescending and inflexible. There seems to be more disrespect coming from those who seem to want to argue against calibration and many who spend a great deal of their time and effort educating and explaining things over and over do get a bit frustrated at having to make the same points repeatedly.

While it is true that most people will, in a display environment, or in a brief comparison, choose as preferable a higher color temperature, there is more to the story. What experienced calibrators find with rare exception, is that a large majority of clients who experience a calibrated display over time choose not to go back to the OOB settings. Yes, we are conditioned to the higher color temps and exaggerated contrast ratios that TV vendors have pursued over the past 30 years or so. It is quite clear that the initial comparison between displays is dominated by impressions of contrast and saturation at the expense of detail and realism. It is also true that after viewing for a while many question what they are seeing and prefer more accurate colors and to see as much of the picture information as can be displayed.

As for color adaptation and the ability to compromise, these are well known perceptual and psychological advantages that we possess. There are limits to the adaptation, however, and it is common for many to question what they are seeing. When someone asks me about calibration or marvels at why a calibrated display looks so good, I often point to the greater realism that is being noted. I use the example of sports teams and their colors, or the color of grass and sky on a golf course, or the appearance of skin tones frequently. These are often not compromised by adaptation as much as other scenes because we have so many points of reference. We see grass that looks like grass all the time, and the same with the sky. We see the variety of skin color and know it well, along with the way that makeup is typically applied. People have sports jerseys and helmets, or attend games where they see what those colors are supposed to look like. The OOB settings which use very high color temps skew these colors. Gator orange looks too pink. Grass looks to much like artificial turf. Jackonville teal looks to much like Miami aqua. LSU purple looks too much like Gator blue. People look like they have too much makeup on their faces or tend to look too pink where they should look more olive in skin tone.

What calibration pros know is that the vast majority of people will actually prefer the calibrated display once they understand it and experience it. They also know that some will not care, some will have a different preference, and some will simply wish to not employ their service. This is perfectly OK with most professionals. Some get very frustrated with the constant refrain of misinformation that is promoted, and some are just pretentious *******s. They are in the minority to the far greater number for whom the mission is simply to provide the best viewing experience possible for their clients and to educate the larger public.

Take a look sometimes at the numbers of posts that many professionals here make and think about how many times they have had to say the same things and dispell the same uninformed information that gets passed on by a consumer base that is not simply mis-informed by the industry, but actively confused regarding image quality. Think about how much of their time is given to educating. Think about how little most would know and how unlikely it would be that anyone would be viewing a display with the kind of quality that we have today if image quality crusaders like Joe Kane and Joel Silver never existed.

There is nothing wrong with you watching a display adjusted to a bluer white point than D65. There is also no disprespect in telling you that it is likely to yield color that is a less accurate representation of what was recorded or filmed in most material that you view. There is frustration in beating a dead horse. Watch your display as you choose.

What fascinates me seems to be a discussion too big, perhaps a kinder word would be inappropriate for this forum (although being Audio Video Science form one would think otherwise). We know human vision will adapt color and has quite a variance... but we also know on a show room floor manufactures compete by pushing brightness at the cost of color accuracy (color accuracy being relative, in this case the US broadcast 6500k standard). Even in darker environments why do most people gravitate towards the Cooler out-of-the-box color temps? Are they doing this because they grew up watching analog CRT televisions that were closer to the 9300k standard? Or is their eye telling them the picture on these cooler screens is closer to real-live? Putting aide what we know is fact about 'the standard' and just asking Why isn't calibration for everyone?
You need to understand that there are technical reasons for calibration.
1.) Gray scale - How can you expect your display to produce any image accurately that looks natural (ignoring the color temp) without having accurate color balance? If your red, green, and blue colors don't add up evenly across your grayscale you will see an unnatual and inaccurate image. Think of a teddy bear on the display, part of the teddy bear may appear too green, because, perhaps there is too much green in the lower gray scale levels. Then perhaps part of the teddy bear is too blue because the mid part of the grayscale is too blue...etc.
2.) Contrast, brightness, gamma... and so on - If they are miscalibrated (and oob settings almost always are), you will lose out on detail in the picture. You can very easily lose details in whites (think clouds...etc) with a miscalibrated contrast. You can very easily lose detail in the darker areas (think night scenes, or even day scenes with darker content) with miscalibrated brightness and gamma. You can very easily get either a perceived lack of detail (black crush) with an incorrect gamma curve, or a washed out image with an incorrect gamma curve.
3.) Primary and secondary colors - If your display offers a full set of cms controls, or even some of the basics which can still help (like tint and saturation), you will be able to get a more accurate image. How can you expect your display to produce colors correctly if they're oversaturated (which causes loss of detail) and the secondaries are off? You will get an unnatural image, and you will lose out on detail.
4.) Color temp - This seems to be where you disagree the most... However, no one is here to brainwash you. If you prefer a higher or lower color temp, use it! No one here can argue against preference. Whereas there are rather negative repercussions for miscalibration on the other items, a wrong color temp will only produce a wrong color temp image. However, if you want to display your movie or show accurately, to what the masters had seen, you should go for 6500.


This whole discussion reminds me a bit of the high- fidelity audiophile's quest for perfection. There is a large group who continue to argue to this day that phonograph records provide higher fidelity than Audio CDs... If you listen to their arguments they are actually pretty strong, but they disregard the advantages CDs bring which includes a perceived clearer sound (these days people are listening to lossy digital music more than anything else which is even much lower fidelity than CDs).

Please don't lump audiophiles with the lp movement. Without getting too off topic, you only believe the lp side if you completely lack all scientific and technical knowledge on how both work. Now, you may have a preference for lp, and that is absolutely perfectly fine. But arguing lp's are technically better than cd's is just absurd.

What fascinates me seems to be a discussion too big, perhaps a kinder word would be inappropriate for this forum (although being Audio Video Science form one would think otherwise). We know human vision will adapt color and has quite a variance... but we also know on a show room floor manufactures compete by pushing brightness at the cost of color accuracy (color accuracy being relative, in this case the US broadcast 6500k standard). Even in darker environments why do most people gravitate towards the Cooler out-of-the-box color temps? Are they doing this because they grew up watching analog CRT televisions that were closer to the 9300k standard? Or is their eye telling them the picture on these cooler screens is closer to real-live? Putting aide what we know is fact about 'the standard' and just asking Why isn't calibration for everyone?



Many people believe that the Mona Lisa is a work of art.

A few others believe dogs sitting around a poker table is art.

If you prefer dogs sitting around a poker table and think that is art, that's your opinion and you can buy as many as you want to place around your house. As its your house and you prefer it, that's your right.

However, it does not reflect reality or accuracy and most realize its really not a masterpiece - and accept that.

This debate between JRCorwin and yourself is now in at least 10 threads and your opinion on what appeals to you personally is no less valid than JRCorwin who dismisses scientific data when recommending other items. He is asking you to ignore scientific data on this, while he does the same on other items. Just as he has the right to accept one set of data while ignoring scientific data on other devices, you have the right to do the same. That does not mean that the scientific data is wrong in either case. However, you both have the right to prefer what you want - even if the scientific data is against both of you in certain instances.

I think a neutral D65 greyscale is very important to image quality.

But to throw something else in, what about the viewing environment, the wall, floor color. The eyes are biased by the surrounding colors. How much does effect how you perceive colors on the display.

Also D65 is red - blue color temperature, green is reference. But the eyes are more sensitive to inaccurate red-yellow-green mix as it effects skin tone.

Is using a bluer greyscale color temperature enabling the display to have a different gamma.

Many people believe that the Mona Lisa is a work of art.

A few others believe dogs sitting around a poker table is art.

If you prefer dogs sitting around a poker table and think that is art, that's your opinion and you can buy as many as you want to place around your house. As its your house and you prefer it, that's your right.

However, it does not reflect reality or accuracy and most realize its really not a masterpiece - and accept that.

This debate between JRCorwin and yourself is now in at least 10 threads and your opinion on what appeals to you personally is no less valid than JRCorwin who dismisses scientific data when recommending other items. He is asking you to ignore scientific data on this, while he does the same on other items. Just as he has the right to accept one set of data while ignoring scientific data on other devices, you have the right to do the same. That does not mean that the scientific data is wrong in either case. However, you both have the right to prefer what you want - even if the scientific data is against both of you in certain instances.
Let it be known that I have tried to bury the hatchet and find common ground with this member (BeachComber) several times and he has refused each time.

(He's peeved that I recommend the Ideal-Lume bias lighting, which he feels is inferior.)

Move on buddy.

Have you ever done a TV calibration in a similar environment and ended up with an unhappy customer afterward?

You may be the first..

Until you get a handle on the over head lighting, lamps, windows etc..

No, but there can be certain things that may be flexible, such as overall light output (preferably set by an iris, not by the contrast control which ideally should be optimized for maximum contrast ratio).
If you adjust things to whatever tickles your fancy then you will not have a calibrated image any more. You may still have a grayscale close to D6500, but that doesn't mean the pic is properly calibrated overall.
Compensating for very poor looking TV shows may be OK very occasionally, but you are then making your TV inaccurate to compensate for an inaccurate program.

Just to chime in here. Chad calibrated my Sony A3000 and I can't say enough about how happy I am with the results. Pre-calibration, I was a "tweaker." Constantly making adjustments and I was never quite satisfied. Post-calibration, whites look white, gamma is improved, and color is accurate. The TV is perfectly bright enough and my room has huge windows which let in a lot of light during the day. And this is coming from a person who prefers a bright image. I don't do anymore tweaking and the TV looks fantastic.

To RMZ...what I am suggesting is that if your Hitachi already arrived to you calibrated, perhaps it was not truly calibrated properly to get the maximum out of the display. Thus, you might not have the benefit of seeing how a professional grade calibration helps the image quality of an HDTV. I have no way of knowing one way or the other, just speculating that it is possible. Not all ISF calibrators are created equally. You'll know a truly top of the line calibrator such as Chad based on the array of positive recommendations here on AVS. Just something to consider.

You need to understand that there are technical reasons for calibration.
4.) Color temp - This seems to be where you disagree the most... However, no one is here to brainwash you. If you prefer a higher or lower color temp, use it! No one here can argue against preference. Whereas there are rather negative repercussions for miscalibration on the other items, a wrong color temp will only produce a wrong color temp image. However, if you want to display your movie or show accurately, to what the masters had seen, you should go for 6500.


What's interesting to me is if I take a photo with my Digital SLR camera, the camera is calibrated by default to D65. The prints I receive are printed to match an even warmer temp D50 and yet the image seems very accurate on the prints and it is accepted as the standard. Seems like for display technology it would make sense to go in the reverse order and bump up the kelvins a bit.... My question was why does D65 look off to so many people, why do they have to go through a period of days for their eyes to adapt when the human eye is pretty good at looking at two printed pictures with color variance and immediately determine which one is more life-like.... That leads to another question (which I've brought up repeatedly in another thread) why does an entire region of planet earth (China, Japan and Korea) reject 6500k as the broadcast standard, they calibrate their studio monitors and pro equipment to 9300k and most Asian film directors use this as their standard (Source: Digital Video and HDTV, By Charles A. Poynton ISBN 1558607927)


Please don't lump audiophiles with the lp movement. Without getting too off topic, you only believe the lp side if you completely lack all scientific and technical knowledge on how both work. Now, you may have a preference for lp, and that is absolutely perfectly fine. But arguing lp's are technically better than cd's is just absurd.

It can be related to the argument of high-fidelity. It would be a more relevant discussion to compare 35mm film to 1080p HD content. LPs are analog and presuming the original recording was captured on analog equipment and processed with analog equipment (very very rare these days, but some artist still refuse digital), LPs have superior capability to produce sound on playback as it was captured, given the proper playback equipment... For the same reasons the original 35mm film master will always be superior to any digital video recreation (when the director creates his work with 35mm) analog LPs have potential to be better than CDs.

Now I say all this and I don't own single LP. I understand the others camps argument and as a Software Engineer I understand the limitations of digital audio and video formats. Although a large amount of my music collection is of audio recording from 1960-1980 (music that would benefit in fidelity given I had a quality turn table and quality vinyl) I prefer CDs because of their benefits over LPs.... Getting back to the point: the audiophile seeks what the videophile seek; high-fidelity. The person who is not a videophile or audiophile is going to gravitate to what their senses/instincts tell them looks best or sounds best. Yet the videophile will always argue this and brightest of the bunch can pull out some nice calculus equations to explain why your eyes are lying to you... Comedy can't be scripted better than this.

If I were to get my set calibrated, after doing so I could adjust brightness, contrast, gamma, etc... to my hearts content and still be viewing a properly calibrated image?

If this is your desire, honestly, save your money and Do Not get a Professional Calibration.

What's interesting to me is if I take a photo with my Digital SLR camera, the camera is calibrated by default to D65. The prints I receive are printed to match an even warmer temp D50 and yet the image seems very accurate on the prints and it is accepted as the standard. Seems like for display technology it would make sense to go in the reverse order and bump up the kelvins a bit.... My question was why does D65 look off to so many people, why do they have to go through a period of days for their eyes to adapt when the human eye is pretty good at looking at two printed pictures with color variance and immediately determine which one is more life-like.... That leads to another question (which I've brought up repeatedly in another thread) why does an entire region of planet earth (China, Japan and Korea) reject 6500k as the broadcast standard, they calibrate their studio monitors and pro equipment to 9300k and most Asian film directors use this as their standard (Source: Digital Video and HDTV, By Charles A. Poynton ISBN 1558607927)

You're arguing the wrong thing entirely. No color temp is superior over another. The point is to make your display match the color temp of the mastering... that is the goal.
"reject 6500k"
They don't nessecarily "reject" it as much as they don't want the expense of "moving" to 6500k. Video mastering standards form over a period of time... and once a standard is set, it is not easy to change them. This is really an an entirely different topic.


LPs have superior capability to produce sound on playback as it was captured, given the proper playback equipment...
Which is an entirely baseless assertion on your part. Stating one's opinion as fact does not make it true.


Now I say all this and I don't own single LP. I understand the others camps argument and as a Software Engineer I understand the limitations of digital audio and video formats.
Well, as a programmer, who is also starting to major in electrical engineering, and minor in computer engineering, i have to disagree with you entirely. No offense meant, but you're cutting so much out of the equation with your statements. Next you'll be talking about "them digital gaps" ;)

rmz76,

Did you read the post I provided the link to in post #2 in this thread?

How about that stock market, eh? Buy, buy, buy...

...My question was why does D65 look off to so many people, why do they have to go through a period of days for their eyes to adapt...

That such an odd pair of questions. I guess there's a whole series of similar questions.

Why does D75 look off to so many people?
Why does D93 look off to so many people?
Why does D50 look off to so many people?
Why does Sony Warm2 look off to so many people?
Why does Sony Cool look off to so many people?

(I could obviously go on and on.)

Why do they have to go through a period of days for their eyes to adapt to D75?
Why do they have to go through a period of days for their eyes to adapt to Sony Warm2?

(etc.)

I guess I'm just saying that any change looks off to many people, and any change takes time to adapt to. Is there really a question there? Or was it rhetorical?

Let it be known that I have tried to bury the hatchet and find common ground with this member (BeachComber) several times and he has refused each time.

(He's peeved that I recommend the ...., which he feels is inferior.)



No, just that you make statements not backed by scientific fact and evidence post on AVS and other places - just what you accuse rmz76 of doing.

Your preference is your preference (even if its wrong), just like rmz76 - but at least he is not pushing his preference that goes against scientific fact as being correct for all (only in his instance), unlike what you do in the reverse role.

Before you throw stones, go look in the mirror.

What's interesting to me is if I take a photo with my Digital SLR camera, the camera is calibrated by default to D65. The prints I receive are printed to match an even warmer temp D50 and yet the image seems very accurate on the prints and it is accepted as the standard. Seems like for display technology it would make sense to go in the reverse order and bump up the kelvins a bit.... My question was why does D65 look off to so many people, why do they have to go through a period of days for their eyes to adapt when the human eye is pretty good at looking at two printed pictures with color variance and immediately determine which one is more life-like.... The simple way to analyze this is the fact that white is derived from the balance of RGB. If all the colors in a movie are mastered at post production with white at "D65", then any reproduction other than with a grayscale at D65 will deviate from the correct mastered colors. If one prefers a higher Kelvin grayscale that has more Blue, then all colors generated will have more blue than the master. This means that flesh tones will have more blue.

.....why does an entire region of planet earth (China, Japan and Korea) reject 6500k as the broadcast standard, they calibrate their studio monitors and pro equipment to 9300k and most Asian film directors use this as their standard...Why does part of the world use the metric system? With the 9300K mastering, colors are corrected for that white point, and to look proper, they need to be viewed on a display calibrated to 9300K.

To say your calibrated display doesn't work for your viewing environment doesn't mean that calibrating to D65 is the problem. You cannot blame any poor performing display on the D65 standard. If you need to view TV in a brightly lit room, you need the display that is bright enough for the room and need the blacklevel and gamma properly set to that viewing condition. Those settings in a dark room would be terrible, but it was not calibrated to look good in that environment.

When one has been watching a display that may have a white point (grayscale) well in excess of 14,000K (I've seen this on many displays)it can take a while to acclimate to the changes. If the image is too dim, then your display is not correct for you, not the calibration. Additionally if you have different viewing conditions, you should have calibrated settings for those conditions.

As for viewing printed pictures from a digital camera, you are changing the color of white by the paper and the light source when it is viewed. If you print on paper that has a green tint, whites and every other color will will have a slight green cast (especially the light colors). Now if you view that picture with a very warm light source (sort of an orange color), the white and all other colors will shift towards the color of the light. A photo should look close to the original if it is viewed in the same conditions and light source the picture was taken. The major factor is the color of the paper the photo is printed on.

...Even in darker environments why do most people gravitate towards the Cooler out-of-the-box color temps? Are they doing this because they grew up watching analog CRT televisions that were closer to the 9300k standard? Or is their eye telling them the picture on these cooler screens is closer to real-live? Putting aide what we know is fact about 'the standard' and just asking Why isn't calibration for everyone?I don't see this as true. I come across very few who prefer OOTB color temps once they have seen a properly calibrated image. Some take a while to adjust because they use computer monitors set to 9300K on a daily basis and before calibration, they were watching TV manufacturers vivid "Torch Mode". As for those who decide calibration isn't for them is generally twofold, they don't understand the basics of colors, color calibration, have "never" seen a properly calibrated display and their new HDTV has a much better picture than their old TV. The second, and generally the biggest factor is that of being too cheap to spend the $400 for a proper calibration because they basically bought the cheapest TV in their size or the biggest they could afford. Many times they bought the wrong TV because the salesman led them to it or it was the most colorful and brightest TV in the store. There is more pride in being able to brag about the TV they bought, than viewing a properly calibrated accurate picture. There isn't one low end display, that I have seen, with a image mode/color temp close to a uniform D65 grayscale OOTB factory "6500K" settings.

The proper calibration also adjusts contrast, brightness and gamma for the display and environment. Boosting contrast to get a "brighter" picture does more damage to picture fidelity than most can imagine. You can generate color shifts, but mostly start white clipping. Using "Night" settings in high ambient light will have a tendency to crush blacks due to brightness and gamma settings.

The bottom line is you cannot say a properly calibrated display, at D65, is wrong because it is too dark/dim. That is more a matter of having the wrong display.

No, just that you make statements not backed by scientific fact and evidence post on AVS and other places - just what you accuse rmz76 of doing.

Your preference is your preference (even if its wrong), just like rmz76 - but at least he is not pushing his preference that goes against scientific fact as being correct for all (only in his instance), unlike what you do in the reverse role.

Before you throw stones, go look in the mirror.
Why are even talking about it in this thread? Do you not realize how long ago that was? Seriously, get a grip.

...The bottom line is you cannot say a properly calibrated display, at D65, is wrong because it is too dark/dim. That is more a matter of having the wrong display.

Thanks for the comments and endulding me a bit on this Glen... So have you come across HDTVs that post calibration were the wrong display for the environment the owner had it in? If that is the case and an abundance of ambinet light makes it so a certain make and model display (post calibration) is not going to work for the environment the owner is trying to place it in... and... replacing the disaply is not an option, then some sacrifice has to be made. As a pro calibrator where do you recommend going from there?

rmz76,

Did you read the post I provided the link to in post #2 in this thread?

rmz76,

Did you read the post I provided the link to in post #2 in this thread?

Thanks George, yes I have... Please let me indulge this just a bit longer... I'm really hoping Glen will respond to my last question.

Thanks George, yes I have...
I couldn't tell.

Thanks for the comments and endulding me a bit on this Glen... So have you come across HDTVs that post calibration were the wrong display for the environment the owner had it in? If that is the case and an abundance of ambinet light makes it so a certain make and model display (post calibration) is not going to work for the environment the owner is trying to place it in... and... replacing the disaply is not an option, then some sacrifice has to be made. As a pro calibrator where do you recommend going from there?There is no perfect display. If you have a situation with very high ambient light, LCD can be a choice. They have very high image brightness along with high black levels. Getting colors correct has been a short coming. The grayscale bay be adjustable, but many have very large color gamuts.

When you cannot "replace" the display, compromises need to be made. Typically it is not in the grayscale (D65) nor contrast. Some times the VIVID mode coupled with D65 grayscale is the best option for high ambient light. If the TV needs to be brighter, you are stuck with what you have. Any attempt to increase light output will sacrifice image quality. Depending on the display and the color of ambient light, color correction may be needed. The other option is trying to control the ambient light.

Purchase your display wisely......

I think the original poster is just looking for an argument. You made your point. You have received opinions from professional calibrators. Time to move on

Bingo!

There is no perfect display. If you have a situation with very high ambient light, LCD can be a choice. They have very high image brightness along with high black levels. Getting colors correct has been a short coming. The grayscale bay be adjustable, but many have very large color gamuts.

When you cannot "replace" the display, compromises need to be made. Typically it is not in the grayscale (D65) nor contrast. Some times the VIVID mode coupled with D65 grayscale is the best option for high ambient light. If the TV needs to be brighter, you are stuck with what you have. Any attempt to increase light output will sacrifice image quality. Depending on the display and the color of ambient light, color correction may be needed. The other option is trying to control the ambient light.

Purchase your display wisely......

Thanks Glen... It sounds like pro calibration may help me after all, I didn't know yu could calibrate to D65 on vivid/dynamic mode in fact I was told this could not be done for my set... it's interesting to know that it can.

I think the original poster is just looking for an argument. You made your point. You have received opinions from professional calibrators. Time to move on

Actually it was JRCorwin who challenged and baited him in about 5 other threads to come here and post.

He believes that rmz76 has to accept scientific data as reality when he himself does not when it conflicts with his opinions.

A small percentage of people have a preference for purple hair. The majority do not as its not a natural hair color found in nature. JRCorwin just fails to realize that basic point. 99% of the people will be happy with a calibration. A small number will prefer it another way. RMZ76 falls in that percentage.

Actually it was JRCorwin who challenged and baited him in about 5 other threads to come here and post.

He believes that rmz76 has to accept scientific data as reality when he himself does not when it conflicts with his opinions.

A small percentage of people like purple hair. Most do not as its not a natural hair color found in nature. JRCorwin just fails to realize that basic point.

It's just easier to quote myself at this point.

Why are even talking about it in this thread? Do you not realize how long ago that was? Seriously, get a grip.

____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Beach, you're obsessed. I support the Ideal-Lume...you don't. Big freakin' deal. Get over it already.

JRCorwin just fails to realize that basic point. 99% of the people will be happy with a calibration. A small number will prefer it another way. RMZ76 falls in that percentage.
Most of the time that 1% just does not understand the reasons. After some explanation they can change their mind.

Most of the time that 1% just does not understand the reasons. After some explanation they can change their mind.

You're on the right track.... When a newcomer reads a review up on CNet or from Home Theater Magazine (creditable sources, debate aside) and is told Movie Mode -Warm 2 gets you close to the broadcast standard and adjust user settings only to get a picture with unbalanced color it's very upsetting. The first thought is "why would I want calibration if it's going to make my set look more like that".

That's exactly what happended with my new Samsung 67A750... eventually I used Joe Kane's tri-color filter and color test pattern from DVE: HD Basics to confirm the color decoder was performing much better on Standard mode than the recommended Movie mode (closer to D65 standard). The CNet reviewer even noticed the same red problems in Movie mode on his 61A750 test model but still recommended readers to to tune to this mode because it's color temp is closer to D65 (ignoring the color balance issues, he just says this set would benfit from pro calibration... seems a no brainer, but why tell everyone to dell with unbalanced color just to get closer to D65? Seems like a pretty bad trade off to me)

My issues is that there is a lot of subjective information being thrown around as fact and to add to the fire there are super egos to deal with... People absolutely uncompromising in their point of view....

From the ISF calibrated displays I've seen it's very clear although all these ISF techs were targeting the 'system standard' the techs that performed the calibrations were not all equally skilled (perhaps it was limitations of displays themselves to match that standard, most of these sets were $4k plus Plasmas or front projector units).

I was told by one local ISF calibrator that if I could not control my environment and I had a lot of ambinet light that could not be controlled he would not recommend paying for a pro calibration... Of course you learn new information every day... Glen mentioned in his last post here that in environments like mine sometimes he would calibrate the vivid modes to D65... Lot's of contracting information and inconsistent results.... If I were going to pay for a calibration I think I'd get a money back guarantee and read a few reviews on the calibrator or get some strong references.

Thanks for those who responded. I'm closing this out...

You're on the right track.... When a newcomer reads a review up on CNet or from Home Theater Magazine (creditable sources, debate aside) and is told Movie Mode -Warm 2 gets you close to the broadcast standard and adjust user settings only to get a picture with unbalanced color it's very upsetting. The first thought is "why would I want calibration if it's going to make my set look more like that".

That's exactly what happended with my new Samsung 67A750... eventually I used Joe Kane's tri-color filter and color test pattern from DVE: HD Basics to confirm the color decoder was performing much better on Standard mode than the recommended Movie mode (closer to D65 standard). The CNet reviewer even noticed the same red problems in Movie mode on his 61A750 test model but still recommended readers to to tune to this mode because it's color temp is closer to D65 (ignoring the color balance issues, he just says this set would benfit from pro calibration... seems a no brainer, but why tell everyone to dell with unbalanced color just to get closer to D65? Seems like a pretty bad trade off to me)

My issues is that there is a lot of subjective information being thrown around as fact and to add to the fire there are super egos to deal with... People absolutely uncompromising in their point of view....

From the ISF calibrated displays I've seen it's very clear although all these ISF techs were targeting the 'system standard' the techs that performed the calibrations were not all equally skilled (perhaps it was limitations of displays themselves to match that standard, most of these sets were $4k plus Plasmas or front projector units).

I was told by one local ISF calibrator that if I could not control my environment and I had a lot of ambinet light that could not be controlled he would not recommend paying for a pro calibration... Of course you learn new information every day... Glen mentioned in his last post here that in environments like mine sometimes he would calibrate the vivid modes to D65... Lot's of contracting information and inconsistent results.... If I were going to pay for a calibration I think I'd get a money back guarantee and read a few reviews on the calibrator or get some strong references.

Thanks for those who responded. I'm closing this out...

As I read above, here is your problem - you took a review and assumed that is what the end result would look like.

You have a full color management system in the Samsung unit and if you had a competent ISF tech deal with your set all the problems could have been dealt with. Of course, the LEDs would change over time and that would need tweaking.

As you seem to have stated above, both options were wrong (and then again, is a CNET reviewer a qualified ISF tech?) and while the reviewer decided that mistakes for him looked better in one direction, you decided mistakes in the other direction looked better in your situation.

On top of everything else, a high end SpectroRadioMeter, be it a Minolta, PhotoResearch or Progressive Labs would really be required to make sure that a LED or Laser light source was being measured properly. Not that I read very many C-Net reviews, but I have never seen C-Net ever refer to SpectroRadioMeter they have access to.

If proper color management was utilized, the results would have been far superior than the results both of you have seen without it.

Well the first clue should have been that there was a recommendation to use factory settings. I have "never" seen a good factory grayscale on a TV. Any calibrator telling you to not bother with a calibration, probably didn't know how to deal with the situation. Find another calibrator who knows what he is doing and can discuss the issues you face and potential shortcomings. Samsung DLPs require a spectroradiometer for calibration. The color filters can have gross errors on a Plasma or DLP. What looks correct with the filter can be way off, I've seen it many times.

One needs to be careful about information obtained on forums, you have no idea if the information is correct. One needs to evaluate the information for reasonableness and more often than not, strong convictions, absolute opinions, etc. generally have little foundation, just someones opinion, ego or need to validate their purchase......

Bottom line, a calibration from a competent professional calibrator with the correct equipment will always improve the picture. Noting is 100% non-correctable.