One comment I have seen about calibrating a TV is "sometimes you have to get use to the picture, because it is what the producer wanted you to see."
I feel like maybe we sometimes are falling for a trick. If your TV has a picture that "pops" and others comment how good the picture looks. Then why mess with a good thing. If you read that you always need a calibration & get one. You shouldn't have to get use to the picture. A good picture is a good picture.
My two cents worth...:)

That's why calibration is always an option, as well as why there are a variety of options of picture settings on your TV, to tailor the picture to your preference.

However, many of us on this forum value accuracy, and desire to see and hear exactly what the director/producers intended (as well as what exists in the real world). Calibration is simply the effort to get as close to the accepted industry standard as possible, in order to attain this accuracy.

Your opinion is certainly valid. However, the exact same argument could be made with anything that has a standard. Additionally, I prefer to hear/see things in my HT setups that most accurately portray what I hear/see in the real world. If I watch a picture that inaccurately exaggerates the green of grass or the blue of a sky, or listen to a soundtrack or music that inaccurately emphasizes notes/words in a certain frequency vs. another, it bothers me immensely. However, I know many people who could care less. For me, I'm grateful that there is a standard, as well as calibration methods to attain it. For others, it wouldn't be a wise investment, and I wouldn't recommend it to them.

A more accurate statement would be that sometimes you have to get used to a calibrated display because it is different from what you may be accustomed to viewing. Most users who have their displays calibrated find that after watching a properly calibrated image for a while, they would not want to go back to what they had before.

If you are happy with your image, and think that it is fine, then no reputable calibration professional would suggest that you calibrate your set. No one with any ethics, and certainly not any of the credible calibrators who contribute here, are trying to "trick" anyone.

What you will find, if you do your homework, is that calibration can yield more realistic images in many cases, and when done properly, makes the display less likely to contribute to altering the image that was produced. Starting with a calibrated display may or may not reveal what the producer wanted you to see, but it certainly makes it more likely. Regardless, if you want to watch what you have then please do so. Let's not continue another nonsense thread that misleads people about what calibration is supposed to be about.

Calibration is about having a display that produces images as closely to the relevant industry standards as possible. This may or may not be consistent with your tastes. If not then you should not have your set calibrated. I do suggest that you learn more before you assume that someone is trying to "trick" you. Mostly, the pros here try to educate.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021933

The sticky above should clear up many questions about calibration.

A more accurate statement would be that sometimes you have to get used to a calibrated display because it is different from what you may be accustomed to viewing. Most users who have their displays calibrated find that after watching a properly calibrated image for a while, they would not want to go back to what they had before.

If you are happy with your image, and think that it is fine, then no reputable calibration professional would suggest that you calibrate your set. No one with any ethics, and certainly not any of the credible calibrators who contribute here, are trying to "trick" anyone.

What you will find, if you do your homework, is that calibration can yield more realistic images in many cases, and when done properly, makes the display less likely to contribute to altering the image that was produced. Starting with a calibrated display may or may not reveal what the producer wanted you to see, but it certainly makes it more likely. Regardless, if you want to watch what you have then please do so. Let's not continue another nonsense thread that misleads people about what calibration is supposed to be about.

Calibration is about having a display that produces images as closely to the relevant industry standards as possible. This may or may not be consistent with your tastes. If not then you should not have your set calibrated. I do suggest that you learn more before you assume that someone is trying to "trick" you. Mostly, the pros here try to educate.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021933

The sticky above should clear up many questions about calibration.

The word "trick" was a wrong term. Maybe "fashionable" would be better. Thanks for the good replies. My main theme about this comment would be "Don't feel guilty if you haven't had your TV calibrated. If you are happy with the picture, thats all you need."

My problem with your post is that similar threads have made the point that there is some trickery at play in the notion of calibration.

It is certainly true that many people may be content to watch their displays uncalibrated and may not know what they are missing. The mission of those of us that are proponents of calibration is to educate those people about what they are missing. What people "need" is often a decision that is made based on a lack of education, and it is the experience of most pros that once consumers are educated regarding what their displays are capable of and what they are not currently doing, they do, in most cases, prefer the more well calibrated image.

One comment I have seen about calibrating a TV is "sometimes you have to get use to the picture, because it is what the producer wanted you to see."
I feel like maybe we sometimes are falling for a trick. If your TV has a picture that "pops" and others comment how good the picture looks. Then why mess with a good thing. If you read that you always need a calibration & get one. You shouldn't have to get use to the picture. A good picture is a good picture.
My two cents worth...:)

This sort of question opens a can of worms. Unfortunately to give you a proper answer this is going to be a bit long. I will provide a quick summary first and you can read on only if interested.

The short answer is that for most people the out of the box settings do the job quite nicely and in fact displays placed in environments where lighting can't be controlled may be better left alone. Pro calibration is not something to be pursued by everyone and you need to ignore anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. If you fall into that 5% that desire to have your display calibrated to exactly what the director and producer used when making the content and you meet the following criteria, the go for it!

Reasons to hire a calibrator (or pursue do-it-yourself calibration):

You desire for calibrated results (visit a few Home Theater stores in your area to survey quality of work of the calibrator and to get an idea what a properly calibrated set will look like, you may not like what you see).
You have flexibility to control the lighting in the environment (within reason).
You have the disposable income to pay a pro calibrator to do the job ($300-$600 first visit is the range for a local calibrator, fly in a real 'pro' and you'll pay a lot more, stay on the cheap side and you'll likely have a worse picture than factory defaults- avoid retail chains offering 'pro' calibration on the cheap!).
You're using the display primary for film and television content created against the US broadcast standard (there are other standard's in existence. A good number of video games for example aren't even produced against the US broadcast standard and would not appear accurate post-ISF calibration).
You have an HDTV that will show noticeable benefit from pro calibration. Some displays today are so close to the mark out of the box it would be hard to justify the $600 to get the job done. Before people attack me on this one saying "all displays will show benefit of calibration...". I'll stomp that idea now with the truth: All displays can be brought closer to the US broadcast standard (if that's a benefit depends on my other points), while they can all be tuned a bit finer, my point on this item is: Is that degree of fine tuning worth $600? On some displays that are way off the mark this service would be more valuable than on others. If your in film school or already a pro director perhaps getting from 98% to 100% is going to worth that kind of money... If you have a great deal of disposable income then it may also be worth it... Context is very important and note that this forum has users from many different social classes.


That's a long list I know, but all things to consider.

Going a bit deeper: I asked the same question a few months back over in the Calibration thread (were professional calibrators hang out) the pro's agree that the calibration service they provide isn't intended for everyone. In fact 'not for most people' was one comment. The professional calibrators aim for (and what the hobbyist posting calibration settings aim to mimic) is to get the HDTV as close to US broadcast standard as possible.

The US broadcast standard is a set of parameters (6500k color accuracy is the one that gets all the focus in the hobbyist threads because it's the parameter you need pro equipment and skill to correct) that all studio monitors adhere to. Meaning when the director produced his or her content it was against this standard they were judging.

If you're looking at a ISF calibrated display and it looks bad to you, the two most likely reasons:


Your eyes are accustom to the the cooler temperature settings we've all been seeing on color television since we were children. We've been trained to think 'that's the way it's suppose to look'

The calibration job was poorly done and the resulting in the Warm temperature calibration having too much red or green push. In this case the color becomes very distracting (usually noticeable right away with flesh tones looking off regardless of source material)


On the first issue you should know all tube-based, standard definition color televisions are balanced closer to the 9300k standard (or even higher), my understanding is this is due to technology limitations and a desire to make displays stand out on a showroom floor. The result has been our acceptance and expectation of blue in our whites instead of neutral white. 9300k ballpark is what we've been trained to believe a display image is suppose to look like. Since modern HDTV's seem fairly well balanced around the higher temp (be it 9300k or whatever) you may not notice this blue hue (after watching a calibrated display for some time you will immediately notice it when walking through a showroom floor or visiting a friends house) and since most TV manufacture's do not properly balance color around the warmer temp (or, let's just say they seem to do a better job balancing around the cooler temps since that's what they assume most people will use), the Warmer temp may immediately look off to you because not only is it color less balanced but the warmer temp will be perceived as darker ( The image at the higher temperature does appear brighter, but the consensus is less accurate than the warmer color temperature). The need to hire a pro or go into service menu to tweak the Warmer temp to get it close to standard (and thus balanced) is what fuels a great deal of the post in this forum.

If you don't want to touch the service menu settings then on many sets you may be better off with the cooler temperatures. It's not disputed that the human eye will make all other color relative to a given white point, but the human eye will notice color imbalance (e.g. red push, green push, etc..) so this should be avoided at all cost and given priority in your calibration effort.

We've adapted to various white point's that yield relative balanced color. 5500k (used in print) 6500k (US broadcast/ISF), 9300k (Asian broascast, NTSC color television factory standard), etc.. If the out-of-the-box Standard mode is closer to 9300k than the out-of-the-box Warm mode is to 6500k then if you intend to use the warmer temperature you probably need to do some tweaking for it to look right to your eyes. That doesn't mean 9300k is more accurate as a standard (accurate as in recreating life-like image), just that out-of-the-box your set is producing more balanced color at the cooler temp and needs calibration. It should be said, no set is going to nail 9300k or 6500k perfect out of the box, but it is most likely that one of the color temperatures will be more balanced around it's target white point. Unless you intend to pro calibrate the set, that's the setting you should go with.

I wish this was all more simple, but unfortunately it's a rather complex topic.

However, as I pointed out here back in Feb, the Asian regions of the world (China, Japan, Korea, etc...) reject the US broadcast standard and actually calibrate their HD studio monitors to 9300k, which again is what will be listed as 'standard' mode on most televisions. This is also why a good number of video games are going to look accurate against that standard and seem off against the US broadcast standard. Also if you're into animated content, there are a good number of Japanese animation houses that produce not all Japanese animation (Anime) but also US cartoons this material will often be more accurate against the 9300k standard (or at least it sure appears to be).

Out of the box the television is going to have Standard and Warm temperatures (perhaps a Dynamic mode for show room) that try to accommodate various source material, now you know why :). If you're going to put an HDTV in a theater room where you have controlled lighting and you're going to be watching Hollywood movies most of the time then obviously ISF calibration may be a desired thing.

If you want to try a do-it-yourself calibration job you can always buy a color meter and read up on the process in the calibration thread (perhaps where this post belongs anyway). Also you'll find for almost any given make and model some service menu or deep user menu tweaks on LCD's to copy and see what that brings you...

In the end it's very very simply: if you aren't happy with the results go back to something you are happy with! Don't let someone else tell you what is going to work best for you... and... watch out for the idiots who try to push calibration on as 'the standard'. As I've pointed out, even the pro calibrators don't think the service they offer is for everyone! For every reason you may want to calibrate there could be two reasons not to. It just depends...

What he (rmz76) said.:) Very, very well put.

Have you ever noticed that the real world does not "pop"? If your display does, it's not accurate.

Calibration is the effort to make your display look natural or to accurately reproduce whatever deviation from nature the director was aiming for.

"Gone with the wind" isn't supposed to look like "Cars"

"Gone with the wind" isn't supposed to look like "Cars"

LoL, I might use that one.... I will say in counter to this argument that when it comes to display calibration there seems to be a lot less tolerance in the community for display enhancements. Considering how much money TV makers put into these settings I find this a bit odd.

To draw a comparison in the audio production world; record producers have very high-end studio monitors that are balanced to faithfully reproduce the sound as captured, however it's also accepted that speaker manufactures (even high-end gear) will deviate from faithful reproduction and introduce equalization (generally bass boost) this is just considered the norm. This is what separates high-end speakers from high-end monitors. Consumers have a choice to go with monitors or speakers, but one isn't really frowned on the way going against monitor standards are for video. In fact you'll find a lot more speakers sold than monitors, even mid-range products (Bose, which I'm not a big fan of, but to use as an example of a mid-range product) are not trying to duplicate the sound sound character of studio monitors. For the most part the monitor's are only used for content creation in the audio world. In the video world the TV makers are giving us all of these features to introduce picture tweaks, essentially doing the same thing the speaker makers are doing, but like I said there is no tolerance for any enhancements here. I think people should be more open minded...

For the same reasons it makes sense to me that some level of enhancement should be tolerated for video (especially given the variance in transfer quality from Blu-Ray disc to Blu-Ray disc which is pretty wide).

On my set I use Edge Enhancements liberally when I think it's appropriate to do so and I don't discourage people from leaving these sort of enhancements on all the time if it looks more pleasing to them. Some will say 'that's not what the director intended' well, perhaps the director or studio should have done a better job with the transfer of their movie :eek: And often times they just do a piss poor job for whatever reason. That leaves me as a consumer with little reason to respect the integrity of their work.

This isn't always the case of course. If you look in the Blu-Ray reviews, you see reference grade Blu-Ray's shine with all enhancements off.

So my perception (which isn't popular and I don't want to debate it again) is to view the director's work much like the music producer, his or her job to put out a professional grade and the job really stops there. That high quality product (a Blu-Ray film for example) can then be tweaked within a certain degree of user parameters to improve quality to personal preference.

So my perception (which isn't popular and I don't want to debate it again) is to view the director's work much like the music producer, his or her job to put out a professional grade and the job really stops there. That high quality product (a Blu-Ray film for example) can then be tweaked within a certain degree of user parameters to improve quality to personal preference.

Well said. While I have had my Sony Bravia professionally calibrated, and am very glad that I did, the common sense statement that rmz76 brings to this "discussion" is welcomed.

A good picture is a good picture.
My two cents worth...:)

A good picture is an accurate picture.

A good picture is an accurate picture.

Well said, the problem is no display on the market is going to get you 100% perfect reproduction. So then the calibrator has all these parameters at his or her disposal and must think 'wow what must be sacrificed'.

There is absolutely no way to simple get a great picture. I think we have to show some respect to the calibrators for all their hard work and it's only fair to also acknowledge there are quite a few calibrators with the ISF cert who aren't doing such a great job. For the user who decides not to hire a calibrator or attempt DIY service menu tweaks the answer of what settings they should be using are not cut-and-dry either.

My current HDTV had color imbalance problems on it's warmer temperature out-of-the-box yet had balanced color on the cooler temp. Had I not stumbled upon some service menu settings that worked the magic I'd still be using the cooler temp and rightfully so...

Most peoples displays are oversaturated. Even isf calibrated. Even those who had isf calibrartion, or did it themselves, still oversaturated, and still not accurate. In no way does a isf gurantee a accurate picture, but it will probably come closer to what most people think is accurate, and in some cases it will be accurate. My advice is to learn what a accurate picture looks like, just look at any images on the web and chances are most pictures are very accurate. You want to duplicate that with your display. When you learn that, you can get 'spot' on accuracy. Of'course if your display needs service menu adjustments it might be best to have someone do it. In that case though i usually would return the display.

My advice is to do some homework and rely on more credible sources than zeus, who has been inaccurate even after being corrected many times. There is little reason to expect that web images viewed on a computer monitor will resemble a calibrated video display at all. Simply wrong information. It is so wrong that it is becoming clear that zeus is simply a troublemaker attempting to create controversy on the forum.

My advice is to do some homework and rely on more credible sources than zeus, who has been inaccurate even after being corrected many times. There is little reason to expect that web images viewed on a computer monitor will resemble a calibrated video display at all. Simply wrong information. It is so wrong that it is becoming clear that zeus is simply a troublemaker attempting to create controversy on the forum.


Guaranteed web images on your monitor are probably more accurate than your display is showing video. I'm glad i'm wrong. I hope i'm wrong, but probably not.

Even isf calibrated. Even those who had isf calibrartion, or did it themselves, still oversaturated, and still not accurate.


Again, you go posting facts when you have none to back you up.

My advice is to learn what a accurate picture looks like

Try taking your own advice.

By numerous past posts, you have stated you prefer a color temp of 9300K instead of 6500K which is the Industry Standard.

If one points a properly calibrated professional video camera out the window and looks at it on a properly calibrated display, even though REC 709 cannot reproduce all the colors the eye can see, for the most part, one will be able to see the color is for the most part accurate in what the TV can reproduce.

If one were to set the TV to 9300 Kelvin as you prefer, then it is very quickly obvious that the colors are incorrect.

So take your own advice and learn what an accurate picture looks like.

A good picture is an accurate picture is a closed mided and blinded view imo.

A perfect example from audio that backs up RMZ post perfectly is Metallicas Death Magnetic.

This was mastered Horribly at a very loud level where distortion was introduced in the master.

Thank goodness for audio adjusmtnets to correct this abomination of a production.

Now maybe for movie viewing for the most part accuracy will work for most hollywood productions.

But I can also assure you that 75 percent or more of what is on normal TV viewing will look a HELL of alot better tweaked out.

Just my opinion.

My theory on calibration was this; I had heard a LOT about it after I got my HLS7178. I was on the fence about getting one for a long time.

At the time, the price I paid for the set was a steal. I figured that for the amount of money I paid for the set, and the amount of time I DIDN'T want to spend fiddling with the settings, brightness, contrasts, etc ... and the time I DIDN'T want to spend wondering whether or not it was a good idea, I would try a calibration. Just once in my life. If I didn't like it or if I got no perceived value from it, I'd never get another one again ... but at least I'd KNOW it wasn't for me.

And I maintain that, for all home theater/electronics-related expenses I've ever incurred, it's right up there as the best $$ spent for the result.

But someone else had a good point in an earlier post; on my set, there was a lot of room for improvement. The HLS-series DLPs are good entry-level HDTV sets with entry-level out-of-the-box display settings, but they come with a lot of "knobs and sliders" that, in the right hands, can make it perform like a set that costs 3x as much. When Eliab finished calibrating my set, it looked at least that much better.

I would guess that with each passing year, the display technologies get better and better to the point that there may be a natural "diminishing value" to getting a set calibrated. For example, my buddy who just got a 2009 model year Pioneer Elite plasma probably would not have the same perceived value with a calibration as I did with my 2006 DLP. And likely, the 2009 model year DLPs probably have better displays as well.

By numerous past posts, you have stated you prefer a color temp of 9300K instead of 6500K which is the Industry Standard.



Thanks for the laugh. I guess your only recourse is to come up with some flat out crazy inaccuracies. What are the odds BeachComber, the beach wonderer, knows what a accurate picture looks like? :)

For example, my buddy who just got a 2009 model year Pioneer Elite plasma probably would not have the same perceived value with a calibration as I did with my 2006 DLP. And likely, the 2009 model year DLPs probably have better displays as well.


True, but all those with elites that do get calibration are still fooled by the whole process and still can't wait to post the results, saying BIG difference. Not saying that the process is designed to trick people, just people think imo it's magic somehow that their tv is transformed into a picture that they think is not obtainable with basic user controls.

True, but all those with elites that do get calibration are still fooled by the whole process and still can't wait to post the results, saying BIG difference. Not saying that the process is designed to trick people, just people think imo it's magic somehow that their tv is transformed into a picture that they think is not obtainable with basic user controls.


Do you ever read back over what you've written and think "I've got to cut back on the mind-altering substances, they're making me sound stupid."?

Why calibrate?

Number on reason to calibrate, you bought a Mitsubishi :p

Not knocking Mitsubishi now. My next set maybe one of the 82 inchers :D

A good picture is an accurate picture is a closed mided and blinded view imo.

No. It is the only view.

The consumer playback chain is, fundamentally, a an image reproduction system. It strives to be, and standards are designed to support, essentially, a copy of what was mastered in the studio as closely as possible. The only way to judge whether an image is reproduced well is whether it matches as accurately as possible the original reference. We are not creating new images in whatever fashionable way we please, we strive to reproduce existing references accurately.

A good image is an accurate image. Period.

If you do not want an accurate image, that is a different choice, and your own metric of what you prefer is entirely up to you. But you are deviating from the entire purpose of watching films at home in a way that recreates as closely as possible the intended artistic experience of the film.

It is not in any way possible to have a discussion about "good" or "bad" in any meaningful way in a reproduction system without accuracy as the foundation of the discussion.

If you do not care about accurate images (like Zues), then just be honest about that and say that you do not care about quality imaging, and then you can concern yourself with making your TV look however you want. But don't pretend that you care about quality images in some other way than accurate, it simply is not possible.

But don't pretend that you care about quality images in some other way than accurate, it simply is not possible.


Just like it wont be possible with your upcomming rs20 without spending just as much for a radiance processor. :(

Do you ever read back over what you've written and think "I've got to cut back on the mind-altering substances, they're making me sound stupid."?


No, all i can think is you spent hundreds on calibration, right?

No. It is the only view.

The consumer playback chain is, fundamentally, a an image reproduction system. It strives to be, and standards are designed to support, essentially, a copy of what was mastered in the studio as closely as possible. The only way to judge whether an image is reproduced well is whether it matches as accurately as possible the original reference. We are not creating new images in whatever fashionable way we please, we strive to reproduce existing references accurately.

A good image is an accurate image. Period.


The flaw in your argument and most of the other closed minded people here (I mean no offense, but you are being closed minded). Is the assumption that every consumer wants to match the original reference 1:1. Consumers generally like to sprinkle on a bit of this and that and do a bit of configuration to personal taste.

I realize that line of thought horrifies the purist, but it sure seems to be true.

As I pointed out in the audio world there is a clearly defined difference between studio monitors and speakers. One isn't respected or disrespected over the other. The same principles should apply to video and I think they do! Well, the parameters are built into the sets, but you have a few individuals who seem to want to tell people if they alter these parameters their picture is no longer good (well, actually that's exactly what you have said).

The word 'good' itself implies subjectivity and your opinion.

You can say that turning these parameters (edge enhancement, modified color temp, etc..) on is taking the picture further away from what the director created and you can say it's less accurate and those are true statements, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder my friend and you can't label what is good or bad outside your own perception.

Example in point, just like I prefer to add a bit of bass boost on my car stereo and the Infity speakers are already adding a bit of bass boost (they aren't designed to be monitors... very very few people go around listening to music through monitors, most perfer some form of minor enhancement). To relate that to display technology, I've found turning edge enhancements on sometimes produces a more disarable picture (again, not everyone is obsessive compulsive about accurate=good=must have)



It is not in any way possible to have a discussion about "good" or "bad" in any meaningful way in a reproduction system without accuracy as the foundation of the discussion.


Completely and respectfully disagree with this statement for the stated reasons. I'll even go a step further and say I think defining for all consumers what is 'good' or 'bad' for them is harmful and shows arrogance of the poster. In terms of picture quality, it's even laughable in a "how dare you" and "shut your mouth" kind of way... Listen, no aggressive tone here, I just say Ease up! The TV manufactures spent quite a bit of money on all that technology in the box, while the purist say turn off the edge enhancements, black enhancements, etc... some people are going to find these things desirable. You can tell them that these things take them further from accuracy and tell them how to qualify that using a reference such as Digital Video Essentials, but you should also accept that accurate or not, some people will like what these features do for the image.

I just wish there was a little more reason, tolerance and less arrogance in these post. I actually believe individuals that lack these attributes are less intelligent than those who posses them, but I won't disgress into that :).

Off topic a bit, but to reiterate what was said earlier in this thread- not all transfers are the same. If you think about it, even applying upscaling to DVD content to make it 1080p is signal processing not approved by the director/studio and of course not all upconverters are the same? Are we going to break-down when we can and can't use upscaling? Do you see how silly this whole "don't use signal processing" argument becomes? If you want to be a pursit you can take that as far as you wish. I will make the point again that these studios could often do a much better job with the transfer of their theatrical release to home media: DVD, Blu-Ray, etc... Case in point: almost all the Lionsgate Blu-Ray releases which are a disgrace to the format and the actors involved. Disney's Pinocchio Blu-Ray release was given color-remastering treatment that many long time fans have commented negatively about (some very, very angry about this). George Lucus gives us the option of watching the enhanced and original versions of his first Star Wars trilogy. I prefer to watch the enhanced versions, but many fans feel very negative about that... Lighten up purist!

Often times the studios/producers make poor choices if consumers want to add some post processing provided in their HDTV to make the displayed image more disirable (especially in these sort of situations) I just don't see the logic in telling people "no you can't do that", only the director has the right to make those mistakes. When the studios and directors learn to show some respect to the original reference content then maybe we should as well.

Why calibrate?

I would think this really depends on what everyone is calibrating to. If you like the torch mode, the factory default mode is usually calibrated to that. However, not everyone enjoys torch mode calibration in their private viewing environment.

No, all i can think is you spent hundreds on calibration, right?

Well, let's see... $14 for an AVIA disc and $0 for the hundreds of pages in the Hitachi xxf59a thread and a few hours (ok, quite a few) tweaking... add it all up and you get: (drum roll)

$14

Now, back to my point about mind-altering substances and you.

Friends don't let friends post when fried.

Completely and respectfully disagree with this statement for the stated reasons. I'll even go a step further and say I think defining for all consumers what is 'good' or 'bad' for them is harmful and shows arrogance of the poster. In terms of picture quality, it's even laughable in a "how dare you" and "shut your mouth" kind of way... Listen, no aggressive tone here, I just say Ease up! The TV manufactures spent quite a bit of money on all that technology in the box, while the purist say turn off the edge enhancements, black enhancements, etc... some people are going to find these things desirable. You can tell them that these things take them further from accuracy and tell them how to qualify that using a reference such as Digital Video Essentials, but you should also accept that accurate or not, some people will like what these features do for the image.

I just wish there was a little more reason, tolerance and less arrogance in these post. I actually believe individuals that lack these attributes are less intelligent than those who posses them, but I won't disgress into that :).

Off topic a bit, but to reiterate what was said earlier in this thread- not all transfers are the same. If you think about it, even applying upscaling to DVD content to make it 1080p is signal processing not approved by the director/studio and of course not all upconverters are the same? Are we going to break-down when we can and can't use upscaling? Do you see how silly this whole "don't use signal processing" argument becomes? If you want to be a pursit you can take that as far as you wish. I will make the point again that these studios could often do a much better job with the transfer of their theatrical release to home media: DVD, Blu-Ray, etc... Case in point: almost all the Lionsgate Blu-Ray releases which are a disgrace to the format and the actors involved. Disney's Pinocchio Blu-Ray release was given color-remastering treatment that many long time fans have commented negatively about (some very, very angry about this). George Lucus gives us the option of watching the enhanced and original versions of his first Star Wars trilogy. I prefer to watch the enhanced versions, but many fans feel very negative about that... Lighten up purist!

Often times the studios/producers make poor choices if consumers want to add some post processing provided in their HDTV to make the displayed image more disirable (especially in these sort of situations) I just don't see the logic in telling people "no you can't do that", only the director has the right to make those mistakes. When the studios and directors learn to show some respect to the original reference content then maybe we should as well.


This argument is completely irrelevant, video “processing” like upscaling is a separate issue entirely, it affects perceived image quality but is independent of primary and secondary colour accuracy, grey scale accuracy, gamma and black - white level, which are the fundamentals of calibration.
The user can “tweak” brightness and color saturation setting to suit individual program content, and contrast-brightness to suit changes in ambient light levels as required, but the industry standard “calibrated” settings should always remain the base line from which you tweak.


98% of all video content available in western countries is produced to the same “standard”, this “standard” is shared by both NTSC and PAL countries.
Rec 709 and 6500K white point is “THE” standard for HD world wide, a display calibrated to 9300K will have color that is WAY, WAY off.

If you are happy with the picture you have, there is no “need” to have your display calibrated, it’s entirely optional.

[QUOTE=rmz76;16251951]
I just wish there was a little more reason, tolerance and less arrogance in these post. I actually believe individuals that lack these attributes are less intelligent than those who posses them, but I won't disgress into that :).
[QUOTE]

There is much reason and tolerance here. Please target your comments to those whom you consider to be intolerant or arrogant.

There are a few who would suggest that a display be calibrated and the user should not have access to controls to modify it from that point. They are in the minority among reputable calibrators, IME. Most of the best and most well respected calibration pros go to great lengths to educate the user with respect to the calibration process, what can be accomplished, what cannot, and what the user controls do.

It does get tiring to have to constantly correct posters who think that their own opinion about what constitutes a "good" image is somehow valid for others and equivalent to calibration. There is certainly nothing invalid about anyone's preference, but it must be taken for what it is. Calibration is about getting a display to behave the way it would be expected to in terms of industry standards and not add, subtract, nor alter information that it displays. We use references to do so and start with the basic science. There are trade-offs and some judgement to be made about how to get many displays to perform as close to standards as they can, but this is very different than simply adjusting to ones personal preference.

Distinctions should be made between one's opinion of what is pleasing and what is good or bad in terms of imaging science. If you think a calibrated display looks bad because you don't like the look of more accurate color reproduction, you are quite welcome to that view. Just don't confuse what is accurate or inaccurate with what is pleasing or not pleasing. They are different dimensions of viewing. Many of us feel that we would rather minimize the display as a variable in the chain of possible mistakes in reproducing an image. Others would see it as a canvas upon which their images should be adusted to get some effect other than reproducing what the camera picked up or artist created. Either view is valid. Only one of them is based on imaging science.

[QUOTE=rmz76;16251951]
I just wish there was a little more reason, tolerance and less arrogance in these post. I actually believe individuals that lack these attributes are less intelligent than those who posses them, but I won't disgress into that :).
[QUOTE]

There is much reason and tolerance here. Please target your comments to those whom you consider to be intolerant or arrogant.


The poster who said an accurate image=good image, period. Would be an example of such an intolerant, arrogant, poster.


There are a few who would suggest that a display be calibrated and the user should not have access to controls to modify it from that point. They are in the minority among reputable calibrators, IME. Most of the best and most well respected calibration pros go to great lengths to educate the user with respect to the calibration process, what can be accomplished, what cannot, and what the user controls do.


It seems that way to me as well. In my quest to open dialog with calibrators I've noticed the seasoned pro's with the higher rates were very engaging and seemed concerned about what I was looking to accomplish, what I was using the set for, etc... The Geeksquad calibrator (who it took some real work to actually get on the phone) didn't ask any questions for more assertive in what I needed before asking a single question. Having seen some of the Geekquad calibration jobs I can not recommend whatever it is they are doing (and hesitant to even call it calibration). It should be noted my comments only apply to local sampling of Geeksquad calibrated displays. I haven't done any kind of proper study to say geeksquad is bad, I'm sure there are a few good calibrators working for that chain.. but their practice is very different. They have a fixed time allocated for the job and they don't leave printed reports showing their results. This pracrice does seem to be enforced by Geeksquad, they are trying to be the McDonalds of calibration jobs. These are ISF certified calibrators mind you, which just proves not all ISF certified calibation jobs are going to be equal.


It does get tiring to have to constantly correct posters who think that their own opinion about what constitutes a "good" image is somehow valid for others and equivalent to calibration. There is certainly nothing invalid about anyone's preference, but it must be taken for what it is. Calibration is about getting a display to behave the way it would be expected to in terms of industry standards and not add, subtract, nor alter information that it displays. We use references to do so and start with the basic science. There are trade-offs and some judgement to be made about how to get many displays to perform as close to standards as they can, but this is very different than simply adjusting to ones personal preference.


Let's split hairs for a moment:
Websters Dictionary says you're right... but also wrong :)

Calibrate
3. to standardize (as a measuring instrument) by determing the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors

4. To adjust precisely for a particular function

Calibration can be defined as tuning a device to conform to a standard, but it can also refer to user menu tweaks and even service menu tweaks for a particular function. That function may be to target US broadcast standard or some other function. The other function could be user 'adjusting parameters to use preference'.

I think it's safe to assume in the context of this thread and the forums found on this website, calibration refers to the first definition with the standard defined as the US broadcast standard. But we should be tolerant to the other definition.

Let's not forget most pro calibrators would even tell you the service they offer isn't for everyone, or 'not even for most people' as one pro told me in the calibration thread on this form.



Distinctions should be made between one's opinion of what is pleasing and what is good or bad in terms of imaging science. If you think a calibrated display looks bad because you don't like the look of more accurate color reproduction, you are quite welcome to that view. Just don't confuse what is accurate or inaccurate with what is pleasing or not pleasing.


We're mostly in agreement here. But I would point out again, imaging science is not universal when it comes to color accuracy. You have the western world scientist perception of what is proper white point and then you have the Asian world's standard. Most color televisions sold in the last 40 years have been closer to the Asian world's standard, which has given western population an expectation of bluer whites.

So you have the US broadcast standard which, if you have a properly calibrated display you know is closer to accurate, but then you have this other unofficial standard (9300k) that the western world grew up on (research tube televisions and 9300k). It's pointless arguing that the bluer white point isn't what some people are going to gravite to, because they will and calibrator's know this.

The good one's aren't on a mission to control people tell them what is best for them. (For those doing this, damn you! Stop it! :confused: ). It's ok to inform people and let them know of the benefits of calibration without pushing it on them and even as you provide the information on the benefits be mindful of the reasons why someone might not want to go down this path. Don't judge people because they perfer not to calibrate for whatever reason.


They are different dimensions of viewing. Many of us feel that we would rather minimize the display as a variable in the chain of possible mistakes in reproducing an image. Others would see it as a canvas upon which their images should be adusted to get some effect other than reproducing what the camera picked up or artist created. Either view is valid. Only one of them is based on imaging science.

Good attitude for the most part, however I want to add that the 9300k standard (the color temperature calibrators are working down from) is a standard based on imaging science, it just deviates from the western world standard. There are disagreements among scientist on many things, so this isn't much of a surprise. But considering how much media content we get from the Asian world it's something to certainly consider before calibration. Esepcially if you're purchasing one of these displays to be placed in a game room to be used for video games, or even if you're considering using the display for video games or animated content over 20% of the time... These are reasons to rethink calibration.

Now I've gotten off the topic of user preference. But my point is you can't just calibrate a display to US broadcast standard and then expect it to display all source material accurate. In today's world people are using their displays for more than just television and movies and they should know this.

The flaw in your argument and most of the other closed minded people here (I mean no offense, but you are being closed minded).

No, I am not being closed-minded. I am simply proceeding based on definitions and the entire design of the video playback chain and all the associated standards. In fact, if you read my post more carefully, you see that I have no problem with people who want to make their picture look however they please. I just ask that such people do not bring image quality into the discussion since they don't care about image quality and instead desire to attain an image that is completely of their own choosing.

Is the assumption that every consumer wants to match the original reference 1:1. Consumers generally like to sprinkle on a bit of this and that and do a bit of configuration to personal taste.

Again, I am not making that assumption. But those consumers who care about image quality do. Some people don't care about image quality. And that's fine.

I realize that line of thought horrifies the purist, but it sure seems to be true.

That being said, I have never seen a person view an accurately reproduced image compared to an out-of-box inaccurate image and EVER prefer the out of box image.

As I pointed out in the audio world there is a clearly defined difference between studio monitors and speakers. One isn't respected or disrespected over the other. The same principles should apply to video and I think they do!

They do not apply to video, and I would disagree that they apply to audio as well, but I would cede the point that audio is a little bit more elusive and less standardized than video.

There is nothing preferential about D65.

Well, the parameters are built into the sets, but you have a few individuals who seem to want to tell people if they alter these parameters their picture is no longer good (well, actually that's exactly what you have said).

That is correct. Deviating from an accurate image necessarily means that you are no longer getting an accurate image. In a reproduction chain, accuracy is the only meaningful way to describe the quality of that reproduction. If it is accurate, then the reproduced image is good. If it is inaccurate, then the reproduced image is not good.

The word 'good' itself implies subjectivity and your opinion.

No, that's my whole point. The only way to discuss "good" or not in any meaningful way in a reproduction chain is the accuracy of that reproduction.

It is, again, akin to a photocopier. If the photocopy is good, then it should be the same thing as the original piece of paper that you put in there. Not with a bunch of added spots, or blurry edges, or mushy text. If the photocopy is not good, then it doesn't match the original.

That's what we are dealing with in the playback chain is reproduction of an original.

You can say that turning these parameters (edge enhancement, modified color temp, etc..) on is taking the picture further away from what the director created and you can say it's less accurate and those are true statements, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder my friend and you can't label what is good or bad outside your own perception.

It is disturbing the original image, and most of the time those things are very detrimental to the quality of the image.

I have no problem with what you're saying, but those people are simply not concerned with quality images. That's fine. I don't care. You can sharpen the image all you want, or twiddle all you want to reach whatever subjective preferences you desire. It is YOUR TV and YOUR satisfaction. If that's what you want, then that's great! But just be honest and say that you do not care about image quality, and instead would prefer to see something else of your own preference.

Example in point, just like I prefer to add a bit of bass boost on my car stereo and the Infity speakers are already adding a bit of bass boost (they aren't designed to be monitors... very very few people go around listening to music through monitors, most perfer some form of minor enhancement). To relate that to display technology, I've found turning edge enhancements on sometimes produces a more disarable picture (again, not everyone is obsessive compulsive about accurate=good=must have)


Completely and respectfully disagree with this statement for the stated reasons. I'll even go a step further and say I think defining for all consumers what is 'good' or 'bad' for them is harmful and shows arrogance of the poster.

No, there is no arrogance at all. It is simply proceeding from a fundamental understanding that the consumer video playback chain is a reproduction chain, a fundamental point that you seem to be missing. The entire purpose, and every standard that concerns itself with this chain, is designed to ensure that content can be delivered in the home that matches what is seen and intended in the studio. It is about reproduction, and in this task the only meaningful way to judge the quality of that reproduction is its accuracy.

Indeed, what you are advocating, in that you as the consumer should create the artistic intent of a film or a piece of content by making it appear however YOU want it to, rather than the film director, is arrogant. You are saying that you know better than Steven Spielberg how Saving Private Ryan should look, or how the Matrix should look, or how Lawrence of Arabia should look. That is arrogant.


In terms of picture quality, it's even laughable in a "how dare you" and "shut your mouth" kind of way... Listen, no aggressive tone here, I just say Ease up! The TV manufactures spent quite a bit of money on all that technology in the box, while the purist say turn off the edge enhancements, black enhancements, etc... some people are going to find these things desirable. You can tell them that these things take them further from accuracy and tell them how to qualify that using a reference such as Digital Video Essentials, but you should also accept that accurate or not, some people will like what these features do for the image.

And I do accept that. That's absolutely fine. I have no problem with that. Those people are not concerned with image quality. That's absolutely fine with me, it is a free country. If that's what you enjoy, then there you go!

I just wish there was a little more reason, tolerance and less arrogance in these post. I actually believe individuals that lack these attributes are less intelligent than those who posses them, but I won't disgress into that :).

You are missing the fundamental purpose of the consumer video chain, which is reproduction. Until you grasp that aspect of it, then you will continue to hold a misunderstanding of image quality.

Off topic a bit, but to reiterate what was said earlier in this thread- not all transfers are the same. If you think about it, even applying upscaling to DVD content to make it 1080p is signal processing not approved by the director/studio and of course not all upconverters are the same? Are we going to break-down when we can and can't use upscaling?

That is true. Some upscaling algorithms are of higher quality than others, and better one allow you to reach a higher degree of accuracy. All of video is a compromise. In attaining a quality image, sometimes tradeoffs must be made, and this is where subjective preference can come into play, and the art part of calibration enters. That being said, most basic upscaling methods still produce a more accurate image with less noise if you are upscaling significantly. This leads to a more accurate image, and is why upscaling is preferred (with some caveats).

Do you see how silly this whole "don't use signal processing" argument becomes?

That is an absolutely ridiculous argument, but nobody here has made it. I absolutely disagree with such an assertion. Signal processing is HUGELY important and can be VERY beneficial to image accuracy. This is a straw argument.

Instead of such a dishonest characterization of my position and the position of others who concern themselves with image quality, we care about preserving the original. That means that you neither detract from (remove stuff from) the original, nor add new artifacts to the original.

So nobody is saying "don't use the sharpness control." Instead, we are saying "put the sharpness control at the correct location." Too low, and frequency response suffers, and you lose detail. This looks terrible and soft. Too high, and you introduce artifacts, sometimes distracting ones, that detract from the accuracy and quality of the image. The correct use of this control will hopefully yield a flat frequency response that properly preserves all the detail in the content, but without over-emphasizing any frequencies and thus not adding any artifacts that were not originally present.

Signal processing can be, and is, HUGELY useful in achieving an accurate image, for instance the use of color management systems, or upscaling, etc.

And as you delve into things more deeply, some things are fairly open for debate, such as noise reduction.

If you want to be a pursit you can take that as far as you wish. I will make the point again that these studios could often do a much better job with the transfer of their theatrical release to home media: DVD, Blu-Ray, etc... Case in point: almost all the Lionsgate Blu-Ray releases which are a disgrace to the format and the actors involved. Disney's Pinocchio Blu-Ray release was given color-remastering treatment that many long time fans have commented negatively about (some very, very angry about this). George Lucus gives us the option of watching the enhanced and original versions of his first Star Wars trilogy. I prefer to watch the enhanced versions, but many fans feel very negative about that... Lighten up purist!

Often times the studios/producers make poor choices if consumers want to add some post processing provided in their HDTV to make the displayed image more disirable (especially in these sort of situations) I just don't see the logic in telling people "no you can't do that", only the director has the right to make those mistakes. When the studios and directors learn to show some respect to the original reference content then maybe we should as well.

Again, if there are clear errors in the content, then compensating for that is just part of achieving a more accurate image.

You are attributing things to me that I have not said at all, and have very explicitly stated to the contrary in many posts.

If black is mastered wrong, then sadly the content we were delivered is inaccurate. Having the ability and knowledge to correct for that is advantageous, and achieves a more accurate image. Therefore, the image is better. More accurate=better. It's as simple as that. If you don't want an accurate image, that's totally fine with me, just do not claim to care about quality images.

Let's split hairs for a moment:
Websters Dictionary says you're right... but also wrong :)

Calibrate
3. to standardize (as a measuring instrument) by determing the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors

4. To adjust precisely for a particular function

Calibration can be defined as tuning a device to conform to a standard, but it can also refer to user menu tweaks and even service menu tweaks for a particular function. That function may be to target US broadcast standard or some other function. The other function could be user 'adjusting parameters to use preference'.



Since you are splitting hairs you might want to point to where the "precision" comes from in that situation. I would say that calling adjusting any settings, user or otherwise, to personal preferences is not calibration, and it is not sensible to call it so. It does nothihng but confuse people and dilute the value of the term.



So you have the US broadcast standard which, if you have a properly calibrated display you know is closer to accurate, but then you have this other unofficial standard (9300k) that the western world grew up on (research tube televisions and 9300k). It's pointless arguing that the bluer white point isn't what some people are going to gravite to, because they will and calibrator's know this.

Actually, there is more to the story. Most calibrators know from experience that the vast majority of users will prefer properly calibrated displays to OOB settings or 9300K color temps, once they experience both. The preference to higher color temperatures is usually temprorary until one sees the more realistic color of a properly calibrated set. It is based on what people are accustomed to and on tendencies in short term viewing to higher contrast ratios.


Good attitude for the most part, however I want to add that the 9300k standard (the color temperature calibrators are working down from) is a standard based on imaging science, it just deviates from the western world standard. There are disagreements among scientist on many things, so this isn't much of a surprise.

You should also add that 9300K is not what most sets display OOB. Most have color temperatures at nearly twice that of D65. There was virtually no disagreement on the choice of D65 in the standards that include it. There is, however, ambiguity in the use of 9300K as a standard, and disagreement over what colorimetry should be used to achieve that color temperature. Just because that color temperature is mentioned and used does not make it a standard. There are times when it might make sense, but that is another discussion.

No, there is no arrogance at all


Yes there is alot of Arrogance from some calibrators. Some calibrators have even said most isf calibrators don't know what a accurate image looks like. That's arrogance. Some say the consumer can never get it right without their pr650 tool, that's arrogance. You say people like me don't care about image quality and accuracy because you think i'm calibrating to a prefference, when my prefference is in fact accuracy. But you think because i do it my way it must be wrong and don't adhere to the standards. Icould show you screencaps of my display all day long and everyone will look reference, and all you could say is Dayumm.

[QUOTE=lcaillo;16255496][QUOTE=rmz76;16251951]
I just wish there was a little more reason, tolerance and less arrogance in these post. I actually believe individuals that lack these attributes are less intelligent than those who posses them, but I won't disgress into that :).


The poster who said an accurate image=good image, period. Would be an example of such an intolerant, arrogant, poster.

Nonsense. I take offense to that. I have been very explicit in my tolerance of people who want to deviate from standards. I have only been very clear in stating that doing so makes discussing image quality impossible within the context of a reproduction system.


It seems that way to me as well. In my quest to open dialog with calibrators I've noticed the seasoned pro's with the higher rates were very engaging and seemed concerned about what I was looking to accomplish, what I was using the set for, etc... The Geeksquad calibrator (who it took some real work to actually get on the phone) didn't ask any questions for more assertive in what I needed before asking a single question. Having seen some of the Geekquad calibration jobs I can not recommend whatever it is they are doing (and hesitant to even call it calibration). It should be noted my comments only apply to local sampling of Geeksquad calibrated displays. I haven't done any kind of proper study to say geeksquad is bad, I'm sure there are a few good calibrators working for that chain.. but their practice is very different. They have a fixed time allocated for the job and they don't leave printed reports showing their results. This pracrice does seem to be enforced by Geeksquad, they are trying to be the McDonalds of calibration jobs. These are ISF certified calibrators mind you, which just proves not all ISF certified calibation jobs are going to be equal.

Of course. ISF is a fairly basic introduction to imaging which aims to bring everyone up to speed. The pros who do this with much greater detail and enthusiasm you must locate on your own.



Let's split hairs for a moment:
Websters Dictionary says you're right... but also wrong :)

Calibrate
3. to standardize (as a measuring instrument) by determing the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors

4. To adjust precisely for a particular function

Calibration can be defined as tuning a device to conform to a standard, but it can also refer to user menu tweaks and even service menu tweaks for a particular function. That function may be to target US broadcast standard or some other function. The other function could be user 'adjusting parameters to use preference'.

I think it's safe to assume in the context of this thread and the forums found on this website, calibration refers to the first definition with the standard defined as the US broadcast standard. But we should be tolerant to the other definition.

Let's not forget most pro calibrators would even tell you the service they offer isn't for everyone, or 'not even for most people' as one pro told me in the calibration thread on this form.


We're mostly in agreement here. But I would point out again, imaging science is not universal when it comes to color accuracy. You have the western world scientist perception of what is proper white point and then you have the Asian world's standard. Most color televisions sold in the last 40 years have been closer to the Asian world's standard, which has given western population an expectation of bluer whites.

This is a subjective sales issue, not an accuracy issue. White point standard has been D65 since the beginning. It is the whitepoint standard in every current studio standard that I am aware of. This is why calibration is important, because the consumer display out of the box is very unlikely to be anywhere close to an accurate neutral white which is defined by the CIE as CIE standard illuminant D65. The D65 point is scientifically derived and defined to be the neutral point on the daylight illuminant locus, and is used as such around the world almost universally. Some industries such as print/graphics use D50 because of the prevalence of incandescent lighting whose CCT is often lower than neutral daylight, so they use D50 on the daylight illuminant locus.

From the CIE directly:
CIE standard illuminant D65 is intended to represent average daylight and has a correlated color temperature of approximately 6500K. CIE standard illuminant D65 should be used in all colorimetric calculations requiring representative daylight, unless there are specific reasons for using a different illuminant.

The family of D illuminants is the updated and current universal standard for all of color measurement around the world, and supplants illuminant C. Only Illuminant A and the family of D illuminants and the equi-energy Illuminant E are current to my knowledge, and A is also effectively obsolete. There is no defined D illuminant that is near a CCT of 9300K.

Your history of most TVs being close to the 9300K chosen by the Japanese is a mischaracterization of that choice. This is simply because bluer sets appear brighter (but are far more inaccurate) than a correct neutral white. No studio standards use that as the standard white point, thus viewing on a display with a white point so much higher than D65 such as 9300K or more yields a wrong image.

So you have the US broadcast standard which, if you have a properly calibrated display you know is closer to accurate, but then you have this other unofficial standard (9300k) that the western world grew up on (research tube televisions and 9300k).

No, the western world did not "grow up on" 9300K as the standard. It has always been D65.

It's pointless arguing that the bluer white point isn't what some people are going to gravite to, because they will and calibrator's know this.

That's fine. But that yields you a wrong image. If that's what you want, that's not a problem. But the picture is wrong.

The good one's aren't on a mission to control people tell them what is best for them. (For those doing this, damn you! Stop it! :confused: ). It's ok to inform people and let them know of the benefits of calibration without pushing it on them and even as you provide the information on the benefits be mindful of the reasons why someone might not want to go down this path. Don't judge people because they perfer not to calibrate for whatever reason.

You are the only person in this thread judging anybody, as "intolerant" "less intelligent" and "arrogant." I am merely pointing out that there is no way to discuss quality imaging in the context of an image reproduction system without using quality as synonymous with accuracy, which is *must* be by definition and principle as set out by the design of the broadcast and standards system.



Good attitude for the most part, however I want to add that the 9300k standard (the color temperature calibrators are working down from) is a standard based on imaging science, it just deviates from the western world standard.

No, the 9300K choice has nothing to do with imaging science, you are misinformed on this. This point is nowhere defined by the CIE as a standard illuminant. 9300K was adopted by the Japanese for cultural reasons, not any scientific reasons, and has to do with their cultural preference for pale skin. All the current global video and imaging standards nearly across the board use D65, and they have in the US for a very very long time.

There are disagreements among scientist on many things, so this isn't much of a surprise. But considering how much media content we get from the Asian world it's something to certainly consider before calibration. Esepcially if you're purchasing one of these displays to be placed in a game room to be used for video games, or even if you're considering using the display for video games or animated content over 20% of the time... These are reasons to rethink calibration.

Now I've gotten off the topic of user preference. But my point is you can't just calibrate a display to US broadcast standard and then expect it to display all source material accurate. In today's world people are using their displays for more than just television and movies and they should know this.

Well, the global standards are in place, Rec709 has been adopted, and it specifies D65 as the white point. Period. If there are people producing content that is errant, that is not a reason to give up the pursuit of accurate images, but is a motivation to make sure that content producers are correctly following the standards so that distribution is robust.

Also, I should point out that this is the AVScience forum. It is not the AVi-dont-care-about-the-science forum. I presume that people here care about quality images, and care about the performance of their systems and are here to learn. If you care about quality images, that's fantastic. If you don't, that's fantastic too. But if you don't, you should be aware that this forum is filled with people who do care about imaging and who strive to get the best possible images they can by seeking out the best displays, or by ensuring that the displays that they do own are performing and delivering the best image that it can.

If you are not interested in the pursuit of quality images, then why are you here?

People that strictly rely on science deserve inferior video and audio.

People that strictly rely on science deserve inferior video and audio.

Hilarious. You should put that in your signature. That way everyone else can know to ignore you as well. Color science? Who needs it!

The hilarity never ends with you.

That's because i'm 'talented' :) Where you ever good at any sports chris?

That's because i'm 'talented' :) Where you ever good at any sports chris?

Sports? I thought this discussion had turned into "Science Or Not Science"?

Chris, I'm obviously on your side in this little "debate". But I'm afraid you're arguing with children here. I would preserve my sanity and give them up to their ignorance if I were you.

And the insults are about to be lobbed my way in three...two...one...

People that strictly rely on science deserve inferior video and audio.

Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Sports? I thought this discussion had turned into "Science Or Not Science"?


Well science did help Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, but look where that got them.

Well science did help Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, but look where that got them.

...and? What does that have to do with proper calibration?

...and? What does that have to do with proper calibration?


Maybe sometimes science is wrong?

Maybe sometimes science is wrong?

You being wrong is much more likely.

You being wrong is much more likely.


Sure , but if you head to the calibration forums they are totally against sharing settings, which can be true, so why have a calibration thread for samsungs if you believe so much in science and that you should not share settings? Do you want other peoples display's to be inaccurate?

After getting my set calibrated professionally, I would recommend it to everyone & anyone who can afford it with the bolded part of my sentence being probably the most important piece.

You should also add that 9300K is not what most sets display OOB. Most have color temperatures at nearly twice that of D65.


I was told most color tube televisions (you know the kind we had when we were children that you can't buy anymore) were color balanced around 9300k.

Modern HDTV's offer a migh higher color temp settings (it's called Dynamic on current Samsung models) that's on out of the box for showroom purposes, but they also offer Standard (closer to 9300k) and Moive (closer to 6500k) modes. Consumers who know nothing about calibration looking to make their look look lke what their old tube television did will likely find the Standard mode most comfortable.


There was virtually no disagreement on the choice of D65 in the standards that include it. There is, however, ambiguity in the use of 9300K as a standard, and disagreement over what colorimetry should be used to achieve that color temperature. Just because that color temperature is mentioned and used does not make it a standard.

China, Korea and Japan all calibrate studio monitors to 9300k. In that region of the world (it's a very signifigant population of planet earth) it is the broadcast standard.

Why isn't this more widely known? I have no idea... Probably because ISF seems to controls knowledge on the topic in the western world. Charles A. Poynton mention's it in his book Digital Video and HDTV: Algorithms and Interfaces (2003) but seems to downplay the significance of it.

I imagine the angle he's coming from is the result impact of the Asian world's rejection of D65 has little impact on the western world... I've said here many times there should be real discussion on why an entire region of the planet has rejected D65 (if their calibrating their studio monitors to 9300k they are clarly rejecting it), but for those who are into Japanese Anime, Asian films or what's more popular: video games (many of which are created for the 9300k and the colors are not localized for the western world) there is a real consideration that should be made.

With modern HDTV's there is generally at least a Standard and Movie mode with one of those temperatures in the 9300k ballpark and one of the 6500k ballpark. When a calibrator comes in and tweaks color settings they will be balacing RGB around one of the other, perhaps for many the out of the box settings provide a good balance... but now we're back to what I said in my first post here- for most people, paying a calibrator just doesn't make sense.

Maybe sometimes science is wrong?

Science is a method. Science is neither wrong nor right.

That being said, we wouldn't even HAVE TV's if it weren't for the scientific inquiry into the nature of vision and color.

Or we can stick with your logic that medical science causes problems in sports, therefore all of science can be tossed aside. That's a winning argument right there. :rolleyes:

Here, let me try my hand at similarly effective logic: have you ever watched television Zeus? They have shows for children on television such as Sesame Street. Therefore you must have the intellect of a small child.

I was told most color tube televisions (you know the kind we had when we were children that you can't buy anymore) were color balanced around 9300k.

Told by whom? Most CRTs are all over the map, just like most digital displays, and are often way higher than even 9300K.

Modern HDTV's offer a migh higher color temp settings (it's called Dynamic on current Samsung models) that's on out of the box for showroom purposes, but they also offer Standard (closer to 9300k) and Moive (closer to 6500k) modes. Consumers who know nothing about calibration looking to make their look look lke what their old tube television did will likely find the Standard mode most comfortable.

Sure. The key to this statement is "consumers who know nothing."

China, Korea and Japan all calibrate studio monitors to 9300k. In that region of the world (it's a very signifigant population of planet earth) it is the broadcast standard.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. This color temperature is not defined by Rec709 which is the global standard. 9300K is a practice which in all textbooks is strongly discouraged, and is not written into any adopted broadcast or studio standards that I am aware of.

Why isn't this more widely known? I have no idea... Probably because ISF seems to controls knowledge on the topic in the western world. Charles A. Poynton mention's it in his book Digital Video and HDTV: Algorithms and Interfaces (2003) but seems to downplay the significance of it.

And he rightly plays it down and discourages such practice. D65 should be the correct global standard, and is adopted as such an essentially all relevant video, broadcast, and studio standards.

I imagine the angle he's coming from is the result impact of the Asian world's rejection of D65 has little impact on the western world... I've said here many times there should be real discussion on why an entire region of the planet has rejected D65 (if their calibrating their studio monitors to 9300k they are clarly rejecting it), but for those who are into Japanese Anime, Asian films or what's more popular: video games (many of which are created for the 9300k and the colors are not localized for the western world) there is a real consideration that should be made.

Perhaps if you're living in Japan and watching Japanese broadcast TV. But what this has to do with your argument is beyond me. If a different standard is in place either effectively or by adoption, then you must adhere to that standard for proper accuracy.

With modern HDTV's there is generally at least a Standard and Movie mode with one of those temperatures in the 9300k ballpark and one of the 6500k ballpark. When a calibrator comes in and tweaks color settings they will be balacing RGB around one of the other, perhaps for many the out of the box settings provide a good balance... but now we're back to what I said in my first post here- for most people, paying a calibrator just doesn't make sense.

You are essentially arguing that most people simply do not care about quality images. That is a fairly pessimistic assumption. There are a lot of people who DO want good images. And for them there are a plethora of options to getting a more accurate image, some of which are free, some of which cost very little, and some of which cost significantly more.

Maybe YOU don't care about image quality. But I think it's pretty presumptuous of you to assume that most others must therefore agree with your rather narrow-minded perspective. And when given the choice between an uncalibrated image and a calibrated image, I have never, not once, seen a person choose the less-accurate image. Ever.

Well, let's see... $14 for an AVIA disc and $0 for the hundreds of pages in the Hitachi xxf59a thread and a few hours (ok, quite a few) tweaking... add it all up and you get: (drum roll)

$14

Now, back to my point about mind-altering substances and you.

Friends don't let friends post when fried.

I spent $600 dollars on a Professional calibration and you get the same professional CraigR results for $14 dollars? DAMN!!! :eek:

Sure , but if you head to the calibration forums they are totally against sharing settings, which can be true, so why have a calibration thread for samsungs if you believe so much in science and that you should not share settings? Do you want other peoples display's to be inaccurate?

You are making inaccurate statements again. Many of us are in favor of sharing settings, but only in cases where we know it will work. Many settings cannot be shared very efectively at all. It is not calibration, so it does not belong in the calibration forum. In the calibration forum we simply point people to the brand or model specific forums where it is appropriate. We also send people to TweakTV, a forum specifically started by calibration pros to give people a general idea of what settings to start with. Any calibrator who has done more than one of a set has noted that most come OOB with different factory settings, and the calibrated results often have very different values.

I have posted some very detailed suggestions in the past for how to set several models very reliably for some settings. I also point out the limitations of doings so, and the probablity of not being very close to a calibrated image on most sets, only probably closer than ramdomly using someone else's settings. That info only comes after repeated measures within a model.

Once again, Zeus does not know what he is talking about...or is just plain telling lies to create controversy. Someone needs to start the AV Preference forum, since the idea of scienctific approach to the matter is so difficult for him, and a few others, to accept.

Once again, Zeus does not know what he is talking about...or is just plain telling lies to create controversy. Someone needs to start the AV Preference forum, since the idea of scienctific approach to the matter is so difficult for him, and a few others, to accept.



Seems you want alot of people to accept it. Your sig is perfect. Is this why you are mad i don't need a joe kane cd or a pr650, and can still probably get a more accurate image than you could? Do you really think you are more critical of pq than i am? And your scientific approach will yield a superior picture than mine with zero tools besides my eye?

Sure , but if you head to the calibration forums they are totally against sharing settings, which can be true, so why have a calibration thread for samsungs if you believe so much in science and that you should not share settings? Do you want other peoples display's to be inaccurate?
The thread listed in my signature serves two groups of people:



Those who own and are using proper equipment to actually calibrate their displays and would like to share their experiences with others.
Those who do not wish to pay for professional calibration or purchase proper equipment, but are interested in what has worked well for others as a starting point and/or are interested in trying the same types of settings.


Sharing settings is not the same as calibration. Everyone in that thread is well aware of that and respects the potential in a professional calibration. I want everyone to have the best picture they can achieve, but I also know that not everyone will pay for a calibration or purchase the equipment needed to do it themselves.

Every reasonable person, with even the slightest hint of understanding about display technology, understands that nothing rivals a quality professional calibration tailored to each individual display.

You claim that you can achieve a more accurate picture than a professional calibrator. This only proves that you do not know what an accurate picture actually is.

You claim that you can achieve a more accurate picture than a professional calibrator. This only proves that you do not know what an accurate picture actually is.


That's the funny thing. People put some kind of aura about certain calibrators. Maybe it's their name and reputation? And dismiss the geek squad guys that adhere to the same standards that are isf trained. Maybe it's the pr650 in their signatures? Certainly that tool will justify the price of calibration vs the best buy geek squad. And again, thanks for showing your ignorance that i don't know what a accurate picture is. That seems to be the go to line everyone uses.

That's the funny thing. People put some kind of aura about certain calibrators. Maybe it's their name and reputation? And dismiss the geek squad guys that adhere to the same standards that are isf trained. Maybe it's the pr650 in their signatures? Certainly that tool will justify the price of calibration.
It's their reputation. Many of the best in the country are members here.

Not all of the Geek Squad folks have been officially trained. At times, one is trained and then he or she trains the others. Also, a Geek Squad calibration cannot even be compared to the level of detail and care put into a calibration performed by many of the professionals we have here.

It's their reputation. Many of the best in the country are members here.

Not all of the Geek Squad folks have been officially trained. At times, one is trained and then he or she trains the others. Also, a Geek Squad calibration cannot even be compared to the level of detail and care put into a calibration performed by many of the professionals we have here.


I agree, just don't assume a savy videophile can't get a excellent picture without their services, or a joe kane cd, or a pr650. I put more time into my calibration than any calibrator comming out for a few, four, five, hours. I don't care who it is. I know their are others with tools that put just as much time in, and judging by their settings that some have shared, i know they can still be off quite considerably.

I agree, just don't assume a savy videophile can't get a excellent picture without their services, or a joe kane cd, or a pr650. I put more time into my calibration than any calibrator comming out for a few, four, five, hours. I don't care who it is. I know their are others with tools that put just as much time in, and judging by their settings that some have shared, i know they can still be off quite considerably.
Your picture will never be as accurate without using the proper equipment and knowing how to use it. That's the bottom line. You may end up with something which perfectly suits your tastes, but color points and such won't be as close to perfect as you will get with a proper calibration.

Your picture will never be as accurate without using the proper equipment and knowing how to use it. That's the bottom line. You may end up with something which perfectly suits your tastes, but color points and such won't be as close to perfect as you will get with a proper calibration.


Most of the battle is finding a display that is capeable of being accurate. From my findings a display that measures bad with poor or average color can't be corrected. The displays that do measure great do so with just a few tweaks.

Most of the battle is finding a display that is capeable of being accurate. From my findings a display that measures bad with poor or average color can't be corrected. The displays that do measure great do so with just a few tweaks.
How are you measuring what is accurate?

That's the funny thing. People put some kind of aura about certain calibrators. Maybe it's their name and reputation? And dismiss the geek squad guys that adhere to the same standards that are isf trained. Maybe it's the pr650 in their signatures? Certainly that tool will justify the price of calibration vs the best buy geek squad. And again, thanks for showing your ignorance that i don't know what a accurate picture is. That seems to be the go to line everyone uses.

The geek squad members are not all individually trained. Usually one or two per store, then they train the rest. On top of that, they will be sorely lacking in experience. They get only a 2 hour window to calibrate a TV. That means they will at best show up with a preset of numbers to punch into the service menu if there is one, then quickly perform the calibration within their time limit, probably without any light control(since they work during the day). It's also not the only thing they do for BB. Whereas the professional calibrators have to know enough, and keep on top of the changing display technologies to earn a living at it.

Having a PR650 and knowing how to use it properly would always be a plus. It also means that a calibrator has invested his money for the best equipment to get the job done. They also often will perform followup calibrations for the same customer as a lesser rate.

As for sharing settings, RMZ76 knows that the shared settings for the 67" Samsung copied over to another 67" set with the same firmware version yielded the same measurement results. Even when they tried my 61" settings, the two 67" sets measured the same problems, being that they were not meant for the 67" version. Do they work for everybody? No.

How are you measuring what is accurate?


What's accurate? Pretty much for rear projections sony is, was, the king. Tube tv's sony is the king. Samsungs are capeable of being accurate, but i still think sony has more know how secrets they will never reveal to their competition. Samsungs are 'accurate', atleast they measure great. I'm more of a fan of mitsubishi than samsung. But i know samsungs are 'measuring' better nowdays.

Projectors? Sony is more accurate than any of your basic brands.

What's accurate? Pretty much for rear projections sony is, was, the king. Tube tv's sony is the king. Samsungs are capeable of being accurate, but i still think sony has more know how secrets they will never reveal to their competition. Samsungs are 'accurate', atleast they measure great. I'm more of a fan of mitsubishi than samsung. But i know samsungs are 'measuring' better nowdays.

Projectors? Sony is more accurate than any of your basic brands.
That's not what I am asking. How are you personally measuring the accuracy of the picture you achieve?

That's not what I am asking. How are you personally measuring the accuracy of the picture you achieve?


Funny you should ask but i can tell if it's accurate just by looking at it or after i played with the adjustments. Reviews only confirm it, but not needed. I could make a incapeable of being accurate display that i know won't measure great and could make it look better than a accurate display with oversaturated colors.

Funny you should ask but i can tell if it's accurate just by looking at it or after i played with the adjustments. Reviews only confirm it, but not needed. I could make a incapeable of being accurate display that i know won't measure great and could make it look better than a accurate display with oversaturated colors.
No you can't can tell that just by looking at it.

So...you aren't. That's all you had to say. You are not measuring the accuracy of your picture. You're only guessing.

What display do you have by the way?

No you can't can tell that just by looking at it.

So...you aren't. That's all you had to say. You are not measuring the accuracy of your picture. You're only guessing.


I'm talking about choosing a display. That's the part where the majority of people will fail if they don't have a clue about what they know is a accurate looking picture when they compare different brands. That's the hard part, calibrating and tweaking to perfection is the easy part.

I'm talking about choosing a display. That's the part where the majority of people will fail if they don't have a clue about what they know is a accurate looking picture when they compare different brands. That's the hard part, calibrating and tweaking to perfection is the easy part.

How would you know that if you can't even measure the accuracy of your picture? What display do you have?

It sounds like he has a Sony-The perfect display.:rolleyes:

I just wish there was a little more reason, tolerance and less arrogance in these post. I actually believe individuals that lack these attributes are less intelligent than those who posses them, but I won't disgress into that :).


The poster who said an accurate image=good image, period. Would be an example of such an intolerant, arrogant, poster.

Sorry, a good image is an accurate image. As 99% of the programming will be aimed at specs, if the set can represent the image as transferred, it is a good and accurate image.

If you want to tweak the picture to your liking, the go for it. However, tweaking off standards will present you a bigger problem in a far greater number of other programs.

The closer you can match the standards the better the majority of the viewing time will look.

Sorry if you don't see the rationale in that.

Funny you should ask but i can tell if it's accurate just by looking at it or after i played with the adjustments. Reviews only confirm it, but not needed. I could make a incapeable of being accurate display that i know won't measure great and could make it look better than a accurate display with oversaturated colors.

Then are you finally ready to take the challenge for your $50,000 as detailed in post #74 and beyond on this thread? You continue to talk big yet don't want to put your "skill" to the test.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1130359&page=3

OK - I'll make a deal with you.

Get on a plane - fly here.

Sit in front of a TV and 25 times the red, blue or green will be adjusted by 1 click up or down to change the Color Temp.

You will then identify if the color temp went up or down and which color was adjusted in the grey scale.

We will do the same with a meter.

If you get 80% correct (or a better percentage than the meter correct), I will personally pay you $25,000. Get 100% correct and I will pay you $50,000.

If you loose to the meter, you owe me $5000.

Both your cash and my cash will be placed in escrow prior to the test so neither can back out on payment.

A nice profit for a day's work if your eyes are the best calibration meter made, to use your words.

Ready to put up the cash for what should be an easy profit for you if you are as good as you say = as well as prove that your eyes are better than a meter?

This is all very silly. The discussion with zeus is pointless. Accuracy is another term that is being used improperly. He is simply talking about his personal preference. The best that can be done is to simply keep pointing out that he is not talking about calibration, accuracy, nor anything more than his personal notions about what an image should look like.

Funny you should ask but i can tell if it's accurate just by looking at it or after i played with the adjustments. Reviews only confirm it, but not needed. I could make a incapeable of being accurate display that i know won't measure great and could make it look better than a accurate display with oversaturated colors.


No, you can't tell whether it is accurate or not by just looking at it. You can tell if YOU like it or not, or whether it matches YOUR view of what accuracy means under the conditions present. Once again, it is oxymoronic to say "a accurate display with oversaturated colors."

"Then are you finally ready to take the challenge for your $50,000 as detailed in post #74 and beyond on this thread? You continue to talk big yet don't want to put your "skill" to the test"

There is a lot of difference between playing around with the settings for hours on end to get the most pleasing results and being able to tell if someone has adjusted one setting by a single point.

But sadly I do not think anyone would take your bait even if they could tell. Who gets to choose the source material and the display. Who acts as refree and do you get to bring seconds like in a duel to make sure everyone plays fair. Not to mention the time and effort to go all that way, to meet someone who obviously holds you in contempt and then rely on the honesty of all those involved to payout and disclose the result. Besides you obviously enjoy arguing with him, and since you find him so annoying he might need life insurance.

Alot of calibrators do come across as arrogant towards those who disagree with them. Calibration to standards, equals more accurate image reproduction, the only way to know how well the display is calibrated is to use a calibrated sensor to measure it. How close you can get to the standards is dependent on the display as Zeus points out, and the quality of the calibration which appears to rely on faith in your or someone elses ability and equipment accuracy or for Zeus his own eyes. When all said and done I use my eyes to watch the image and would allways let them and not a sensor reading be the final arbiter as to what looks best. I assume the image closest to standards should usually look best as most film makers would I hope master the film to look its best, not its worst.

How much leeway do the standards - mastering have built in. The image may not be the most accurate reproduction it could be, but the people who do the mastering obviously know most home displays are not reference quality or calibrated to the standards. Even the maligned out of the box settings do not make films look like they are on an alien world staring vaguely human creatures.

LOL... and how are Zeus eyes calibrated?

Zeus is a TROLL, plain and simple, don’t waste your time.

Then are you finally ready to take the challenge for your $50,000 as detailed in post #74 and beyond on this thread? You continue to talk big yet don't want to put your "skill" to the test.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1130359&page=3

OK - I'll make a deal with you.

Get on a plane - fly here.

Sit in front of a TV and 25 times the red, blue or green will be adjusted by 1 click up or down to change the Color Temp.

You will then identify if the color temp went up or down and which color was adjusted in the grey scale.

We will do the same with a meter.

If you get 80% correct (or a better percentage than the meter correct), I will personally pay you $25,000. Get 100% correct and I will pay you $50,000.

If you loose to the meter, you owe me $5000.

Both your cash and my cash will be placed in escrow prior to the test so neither can back out on payment.

A nice profit for a day's work if your eyes are the best calibration meter made, to use your words.

Ready to put up the cash for what should be an easy profit for you if you are as good as you say = as well as prove that your eyes are better than a meter?
That would be the easiest $5,000 you've ever made in your life. Like taking candy from a baby.

I think part of the appeal for calibration comes from the snob factor. People openly admit on other forums to being high definition snobs, viewing standard definition as now unwatcahable having seen high definition. Like fine wine enthusiasts, what was once a perfectly good bottle of booze is now unpalatable. Calibration seems to give some people a feeling of smug supperiority in matters of knowledge or taste, the definition of a snob.

I think part of the appeal for calibration comes from the snob factor. People openly admit on other forums to being high definition snobs, viewing standard definition as now unwatcahable having seen high definition. Like fine wine enthusiasts, what was once a perfectly good bottle of booze is now unpalatable. Calibration seems to give some people a feeling of smug supperiority in matters of knowledge or taste, the definition of a snob.
Trying to get the most out of a display makes you a snob? Just sounds like folks trying to get the most for their money to me. It's a rather small investment (considering the amount paid for displays and such) to help you get the best bang for your buck and view things as intended.

I know people who intentionally set their clocks 15 minutes fast or slow, and people who intentionally set their bathroom scales to show their weight 5 pounds light or heavy. I'm sure that there are people who are happy telling time by looking at the position of the sun and stars. If that's what they like, then that's their business. No worries. But there's no way that they're going to convince me that their clocks or scales or eyes are "right" or "accurate"- it's just what they prefer.

Me, I set my clocks according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology radio time signal out of Ft. Collins, CO, and I set my home scales after a visit to the doctor's office. Clocks and scales drift so I recalibrate them periodically myself. I could get them more accurate by adjusting for the milliseconds it takes the time signal to travel from Ft. Collins or have my scales calibrated to a standard more accurate than the doctor's office, but my clocks and scales aren't that accurate to begin with and my own calibration is "good enough" for me.

I tried calibrating my display by eye with the Digital Video Essentials disc, and it looked good to my view, but after a professional calibration it clearly looked better- with better flesh tones, detail in dark scenes, etc. Will the picture vary over time? Sure it will, but it will still likely be better than I could manage myself without better training, skills, and expensive instruments.

Was a professional display calibration "worth it"? It was to me. Is a professional calibration required for everybody? I don't think that even professional calibrators would claim that it is. But a good professional calibration isn't a "trick" that people are fooled into. It's just a level of accuracy that some of us prefer and don't mind paying for.

Just my 2¢

Told by whom? Most CRTs are all over the map, just like most digital displays, and are often way higher than even 9300K.



http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114184913/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0



Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. This color temperature is not defined by Rec709 which is the global standard. 9300K is a practice which in all textbooks is strongly discouraged, and is not written into any adopted broadcast or studio standards that I am aware of.



There is not a global standard. This is a lie. There is a standard in the western world (United States, Countries of the EU, Mexico, India, etc...) I know the broadcast standard in those countries are the same. However in Asia this is not the case and never has been. I've already provided a reference in Charles A. Poynton's book. There he states explicitly "in Japan and parts of Asia studio monitors are calibrated to 9300k". The reason you don't know about this is because the institutions that educated you (and ever other person in the western world who's tried to study this formally or informally) either purposely concealed it or simply failed to provide all viewpoints.

What's worth noting is that Korea, China and Japan all have members of the CIE (International Commision on Illumination) which standardized D65, D55 etc... There is no D93 standard although those countries calibrate to 9300k, it is their white point, standard even without a CIE commisioned D standard.

Why?

As Poynton simply states (seemly shrug shoulders) "the Japanese perfer more blue in their whites and flesh tones". He clearly doesn't have an answer, but he is providing the west with the fact that the Asian world doesn't feel D65 luminant should be the reference standard. I would love to know more about why this is, but the western world seems more in denial about the conflict.

I did find this one discussion in the calibration thread. Which doesn't answer any questions, but the links inside just provide more evidence to what Poynton already stated about China and Japan calibrating to 9300k according to Asian service manuals.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1120246

When I got my new television I called Samsung and ask them to explain the different color temperatures offered out of the box. They told me 'Movie' mode would be 6500k and that Standard mode would be 9300k. The service tech did not say "approximate 6500k or 9300k" but I knew what he ment.


And he rightly plays it down and discourages such practice. D65 should be the correct global standard, and is adopted as such an essentially all relevant video, broadcast, and studio standards.


This is simply not true (part about global standard). I don't think I need to provide links to the population of China. :). Should be the correct standard would be an opinion. I happen to agree with that opinion, but I'm tired of the significance of 9300k being downplayed.


Perhaps if you're living in Japan and watching Japanese broadcast TV. But what this has to do with your argument is beyond me. If a different standard is in place either effectively or by adoption, then you must adhere to that standard for proper accuracy.


Well, you didn't read my post apparently. A great deal of video games in the US come from Japan. To name a few companies based in Japan: Konami, Square-Enix, Sony Computer Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo... I have a great deal of Japanese Anime and video games. I have Japanese imports of video games by Sony, Capcom and Nintendo and their US retail released counterparts. It's easy to confirm these companies are not localizing the color of their media for the western world, which means they would be accurate at the Japanese standard 9300k.


You are essentially arguing that most people simply do not care about quality images. That is a fairly pessimistic assumption. There are a lot of people who DO want good images. And for them there are a plethora of options to getting a more accurate image, some of which are free, some of which cost very little, and some of which cost significantly more.


Absolutely untrue. I'm saying

Many modern HDTV displays do a reasonable job getting consumers in the 6500k ballpark with Warm or Movie mode and also provide a Standard mode with a cooler color temp some consumers will like. Out of the box, the TV isn't finely tuned for one or the other (well, they better color balanced around the cooler temp, but that's a different story) but is sort of a swiss army knife capable of doing for meeting the demands on many types of source material and consumer preference.

The aim of calibration is to take away that flexibility and make the display optimal against the US broadcast standard. Which may be undesirable for any number of reasons from personal viewing taste to the type of content being displayed (which as I've pointed out would also make the US broadcast inaccurate against Asia source material).


There was a time when HDTV was a luxury item and HDTV's of the CRT Rear Projection type had to be calibrated for more than color accuracy. The displays were very expensive and calibration was going to required regardless if you wanted an acceptable picture (that's my opinion, but the added complexities of geometry and convergence issues these calibrators targeted made their service very valuable on older HD displays).

Today, save for a few high-end models, HDTV's are common place. Someone dropping $800-$1500 on a LCD display or modern DLP RP set with intent on putting that device in a bright family room where the device will be used with many different forms of source material would most likely not want to spend $500-$600 on a first time calibration job. There may actually be negative benefit and the out-of-the-box setting are much better than they were on the old CRT RP "high end" HDTV's of years past as: geometry, convergence, etc.. are no longer an issue on most display technologies. In fact the only thing a consumer can't really calibrate themselves is proper color temp (perhaps that's why so much focus is aimed at color temp in these AVS forums lately?) To me, with these displays being close to the mark and economic times being tough for many, I find it very hard in good conscious to tell someone "pay $500" to get that display from 96% to 100% color accuracy.

I understand calibrators need to feed their families as well, but let's get back to topic. The orignal poster asked "why calibrate" I think cost and nominal benefit on modern displays are strong reasons to consider not calibrating.

LOL... and how are Zeus eyes calibrated?

To quote Pavel Datsyuk, Detroit Red Wings hockey player:

“I trust my eyes to Dr. Rahmani. You should too.”

—Pavel Datsyuk, in a TV commercial for a Detroit-area vision correction business


LOL... sorry, couldnt resist as that darn commercial was played constantly during the regular season... Between that and the truly bizzare McDonalds Fillet of Fish commercial... sheesh! :confused:

Trying to get the most out of a display makes you a snob?

No.
But like fine wine enthusiasts it explains the seemingly contradictory views that despite a good image/display is a calibrated image/display, that calibration is not for everyone and some people prefer a uncalibrated display. Also explains why education of the viewer is seen by many as part of the calibration process, a bit like a wine appreciation course. A uncalibrated image is perfectly watchable just like a cheap wine is perfectly drinkable, but the connoisseur prefers the fine wine - calibrated image and may view those that do not as philistines.

One reason I like owning a projector is the feeling of smug superiority it gives me over those who paid more for flat pannel lcds. Nothing wrong with being a bit snobbish.

I view calibration as two groups of things. Group one things the user can do with little or no expense using a calibration disc, like setting up contrast, brightness, sharpness, color saturation, greyscale color temp preset, gamma preset, overscan. Group two things that cost more money for specialist equiment like a meter or hiring a calibrator, like fine tuning greyscale color temperature, gamma, or color management. I view group one as just setting up your display correctly, which everyone should do, and group two as a calibration. How much you can benefit from group two depends on how bad the manufacturers presets are and how many user-service menu fine tuning controls the manufacture provides.

If a calibrated display gave obviously better image quality, consumers would prefer it and manufacturers would produce displays that adhered more closely to standards. It seems that for most people near enough is good enough. A calibrated display does in my opinion look better. But if it is worth the money or time and effort is dependent on the individual. The film will still be the same film, it is not like it improves the script or the acting. How much you enjoy the movie I think is more dependent on that. Image quality only plays a part in my opinion if it actively detracts from your viewing pleasure. That only happens if you know it could look better. I was happy watching a 20 inch black and white tv for years, now I have a 8ftx4ft6in screen and surround sound. Does that mean I enjoyed movies less when I had the B&W TV, no. But would I now enjoy movies less if I had to watch them on a 20" B&W TV yes.

Zeus is a TROLL, plain and simple, don’t waste your time.


Thanks for showing me your true feelings. Is that all you can come up with? Maybe you know i might be right? All i can tell you is if anyone that could take a accurate display such as yourself and make it 'inaccurate' i guess it would be you with your sxrd, as the nd filter must of heavily skewed up all the colors. But i suppose in your world it's 'reference' like your computer monitor. And in your world the 9g blacks are just a 'little' bit better, and the funniest thing you ever said was SSE is not a problem anymore with a nd filter-LOL.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114184913/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0



There is not a global standard. This is a lie. There is a standard in the western world (United States, Countries of the EU, Mexico, India, etc...) I know the broadcast standard in those countries are the same. However in Asia this is not the case and never has been. I've already provided a reference in Charles A. Poynton's book. There he states explicitly "in Japan and parts of Asia studio monitors are calibrated to 9300k". The reason you don't know about this is because the institutions that educated you (and ever other person in the western world who's tried to study this formally or informally) either purposely concealed it or simply failed to provide all viewpoints.
What's worth noting is that Korea, China and Japan all have members of the CIE (International Commision on Illumination) which standardized D65, D55 etc... There is no D93 standard although those countries calibrate to 9300k, it is their white point, standard even without a CIE commisioned D standard.

Why?

....snip...

I understand calibrators need to feed their families as well, but let's get back to topic. The orignal poster asked "why calibrate" I think cost and nominal benefit on modern displays are strong reasons to consider not calibrating.

With respect to the last comment, most calibration pros are not trying to sell their service to anyone who cannot afford it nor anyone who does not understand what it can or cannot accomplish. Those who do it for a living are among the first to tell people that they don't need their service. You can see that in many threads here.

Now, as for the issue of the usefulness of alternate color temperatures for displays, you need to be careful about what you assume and what you accuse people of. No one is lying. The fact is that rec 709 and the related standards that all use D65 for video are the closest thing to international standards that you will find. The tendency to use higher color temperatures has clear roots in asia for several reasons, but it also relates to trends in computer displays and marketing in North America. Most of the pro calibrators here have likely read Charlie Poynton much more carefully than you have, and understand clearly how 9300K is used and what it does. If you read Poynton further you will see that he clearly states that there is great agreement that a CCT of 9300K will result in images that are far too blue and less than acceptable for Europe and North America.

A little history on how we got to having dislpays that are so blue. Some of it has to do with a preference in Japan for making Asian flesh tones look more European by adding blue. This is a cultural peculiarity that need not affect global preferences, and as we can see in ITU, EBU, and CIE standards, among others, it largely does not. Some of it has to do with the tendency of computer monitors to use higher color temperatures to get higher apparent contrast for clarity in text and graphics. Some of it also has to do with marketing history in television products over the last few decades. When the Japanese began producing sets with higher color temps and contrasts, the battle was begun. It was, and is clear that in short term comparisons, the initial impression of image quality is dominated by contrast and saturation. Like other comparisons, it is easy to sell something that clearly looks different if some positive aspect can be attached to it. The success of selling "trinitron color" with a more pink flesh tone was well understood in the 1970s and 1980s. It is no different than selling differences in speaker sound. As time went on, manufacturers continued to up the ante on contrast ratios, requiring using more blue. What we have today are displays that frequently come OOB with color temps of 13000K and s-shaped gamma curves. Even if you try to use a 9300K color temp, you may get more than you bargained for.

If you want your set calibrated to give you the option of either D65, 9300K, and maybe even D55 or any other brand of white, you can certainly have it done. To argue that calibration does not make sense because there are different references used in various parts of the world, however, is nonsense. There may be good reason to use other values, but in the case of video in the NA and Europe, and even in Japan, the starting point should typically be D65, since this is the white point used by most standards. To know what you've got, however, you still need to calibrate to some reference.

The bottom line is that the answer to the question in the OP is that you should calibrate if you want some reference to what the standards say video should look like. If that is not of value to you or you cannot afford it, then you should not calibrate your display. If you prefer to use any particular setting, or someone else's settings, then you should do so. Just don't confuse it with calibration to a standard.

No.
But like fine wine enthusiasts it explains the seemingly contradictory views that despite a good image/display is a calibrated image/display, that calibration is not for everyone and some people prefer a uncalibrated display. Also explains why education of the viewer is seen by many as part of the calibration process, a bit like a wine appreciation course. A uncalibrated image is perfectly watchable just like a cheap wine is perfectly drinkable, but the connoisseur prefers the fine wine - calibrated image and may view those that do not as philistines.


I see your point and agree to some extent, but I'm going to go back to the audio world analogy (because it's more appropriate). With audio we're essentially doing the same thing with video, a group of skilled engineers are working to capture a subject (generally 24-bit multitrack digital) and for playback the consumer has equipment (a stereo and two or more speakers). All consumer and a good number of pro-gear speakers available today add some minor EQ to the output. In audio, we differentiate audio monitors from speakers by simply calling one a monitor and other a speaker.

The record producer fully accepts that over 99% of the listening audience will have speakers and not monitors. And the record producers themselves have speakers (not monitors) in the car and home theater.

How does this relate to video? Well, it's the same principle of having skilled engineers capture a subject in digital form and then having a play-back chain aimed at recreating that subject. It's absolute proof that the desire of the consumer is not always 1:1 reference quality reproduction in fact that is undesiable in the audio world.

In video why is there no tolerance for allowing a consumer to adjust his parameters to add a bit more blue tint to the whites (at the benefit of perceived brightness increase) or to add edge enhancements, et al. I have an Infinity sound system in one of my cars and a Kenwood system in the other. I also have a pair of studio grade audio monitors. I use EQ on my car stereo without much thought to retaining 1:1 reference quality... So why are the rules different for video. To say "they just are" is just not an intelligent answer.

I'm not saying there isn't a good argument to be made on why we accept 'enhancements' on audio in the playback chain and do not for video. I'm just saying I have yet to hear such an argument and would love for someone to help me qualify this.

Until someone does I think everyone pushing video standards who doesn't have monitor grade audio and monitor grade speakers in the car (these don't exist to my knowledge btw) is a bit of a hypocrite.



If a calibrated display gave obviously better image quality, consumers would prefer it and manufacturers would produce displays that adhered more closely to standards. It seems that for most people near enough is good enough. A calibrated display does in my opinion look better. But if it is worth the money or time and effort is dependent on the individual. The film will still be the same film, it is not like it improves the script or the acting.


Consumers don't always prefer 1:1 reference. A recent study a sample group of consumers were allowed to listen to a collection of 1-minute samples in lossless 16-bit audio and then the same samples with light compression (like that found in iTunes audio media). Consumers actually preferred the lossy audio!

Does this tell us people are stupid? Well I guess if you're a arrogant a-hole you might think that... Since they lack information you could say they are ignorant, but that doesn't change this simple fact: ignorant or not, people collectively can dictate what is good or bad based on popular opinion. To the horror or purist, that generally has nothing to do with science. You can choose to be the nerdy scientist on the outside screaming at the top of your lungs "you've all got it wrong" and maybe you're right... but it doesn't change that people are going to form their own opinion and that most people aren't going to pay to have a display calibrated.

With the geometry and convergence issues gone I question how long we'll have a need for pro calibrators in the future. Eventually a technology will come along that will take us from 'good enough' to 'damn near on the mark' out of the box.

Speaking of new technologies I learned today my local BB has the new Samsung LED displays, going to go check those out now.

The tendency to use higher color temperatures has clear roots in asia for several reasons, but it also relates to trends in computer displays and marketing in North America. Most of the pro calibrators here have likely read Charlie Poynton much more carefully than you have, and understand clearly how 9300K is used and what it does. If you read Poynton further you will see that he clearly states that there is great agreement that a CCT of 9300K will result in images that are far too blue and less than acceptable for Europe and North America.


There is an agreement? Right we agree to disagree with the Asian worlds broadcast standard. You aren't really saying anything... And for the record I have read Poynton's text and know of two pro calibrators who have not. One of those never went to college so I know he doesn't have the math background to even touch it. Which makes me wonder what kind of educational background is actually required for one to become an ISF certified calibrator, but I digress.


A little history on how we got to having dislpays that are so blue. Some of it has to do with a preference in Japan for making Asian flesh tones look more European by adding blue. This is a cultural peculiarity that need not affect global preferences, and as we can see in ITU, EBU, and CIE standards, among others, it largely does not.


And here we go again... this is from the Poynton text. Essentially he said "those crazy Japanese like a bit more blue in their flesh tones so they decided to make 9300k the standard for all studio monitors". Poynton doesn't mention China, but if you do some research you'll find China also calibrates to 9300k. Japanese culture is something I know a little bit about, my wife is a member of the local Japanese-American society. This is not a culture that does things in a haphazard way. The Japanese are very structured culture and arguably much more efficient than the US will likely ever be in most aspects of their daily routine (if you've had the opportunity to visit Tokyo you know what I'm talking about). You can say the real advancements in video display technology are coming out of Asia, but let's not go there... The point is Asian cultures collectively are an exceptionally bright group of people and have some of the best scientist in the world when it comes to A/V technology. I think the brand names speak for themselves: Samsung, Mitsubishi, SONY, Hitachi, Pioneer. All of this technology comes from Asia. Yet we're going to say "because they perfer a blue tint to their whites they willing to throw off all other colors". You see how ridiculous that is? The more likely answer is they reject our definition of what is proper white and the related color around it and embrace what they feel is proper, 9300k.

The reality is, by accepting 9300k as their broadcast standard, Asia (at least Korea, Japan and China that I've been able to confirm) has rejected 6500k as their broadcast standard. To say they are willing to throw all other color off to add more blue to flesh tones is not consistent with their precision obsessed culture, so I rebuke that argument because I think it shows a great disrespect to the Asian world. Unfortunately it's typical western-arrogant attitude. I'm not blaming any specific person here. The failure is on those who educated us on this who glazed over this topic because of their arrogance. Think I'm wrong? Poynton's a Ph.D student... most likely he'll be in a college classroom teaching in the years to come and when asked "what about Asia and the 9300k standard" if he were to respond to his future students as he does in his text (and very well respected text I might add) he'll reduce the argument to "they perfer bluer flesh tones".

It's very sad when high education fails us in this way, but it does time and time again.

Anyone who wants can read the Poynton text, you can see when it comes to Asia and 9300k, it touches on it and quickly moves on to another topic. Avoiding discussion and debate.... I have a bad habit of hijacking threads and driving this point home. If you wondering what all this has to do with the simply question the OP asked "Why Calibrate", well it's valid discussion because it adds to the reasons why someone might not want to calibrate.

Until someone does I think everyone pushing video standards who doesn't have monitor grade audio and monitor grade speakers in the car (these don't exist to my knowledge btw) is a bit of a hypocrite.


You can buy 3k focal utopias for your car :)

In video why is there no tolerance for allowing a consumer to adjust his parameters to add a bit more blue tint to the whites (at the benefit of perceived brightness increase) or to add edge enhancements, et al.

The Samung HL67A750 set you own has such an adjustment in the user menus, it's called "White Balance". You use the the right side of the scale for more blue, and the left side of the scale for more red.

This is all very silly. The discussion with zeus is pointless. Accuracy is another term that is being used improperly. He is simply talking about his personal preference. The best that can be done is to simply keep pointing out that he is not talking about calibration, accuracy, nor anything more than his personal notions about what an image should look like.


Why is it so hard for you and others to understand what a accurate image is suppose to look like? Go look through a video camera, that's what a accurate image is suppose to look like. There is no personal preference of anything but accuracy. You choose charts and data, but just don't expect reference image quality everytime with actual video content. Because obviously the standard when it comes to color intensity,lumination, it is not spot on with all technologies and display capeabilitys. I look at at it as 'torch' mode standard.

rmz76,

Since you know so much about Japanese and Chinese broadcasting please educate us on where they go for standards, and why their precision based society has chosen 9300K as a standard. While you are at it, I'd like to know what colorimetry they specify to be precise, since 9300K is rather ambiguous. Also, how is this really relevant if Europe and the US have decided that D65 is a better choice for white?

You point to the vague treatment of the matter in Poynton, so where should we go for the information that is being "concealed" by institutions here?

The fact that there are different standards in use in different applications is no reason to avoid calibration. We calibrate to the standards that are appropriate. In the context of video in most of the locations of the users in the discussion here, the white point is clearly appropriate at D65. When it makes sense to do something else, there is no reason it can't be done. Just show the reason.

Why is it so hard for you and others to understand what a accurate image is suppose to look like? Go look through a video camera, that's what a accurate image is suppose to look like. There is no personal preference of anything but accuracy. You choose charts and data, but just don't expect reference image quality everytime with actual video content. Because obviously the standard when it comes to color intensity,lumination, it is not spot on with all technologies and display capeabilitys. I look at at it as 'torch' mode standard.
...you're wrong. Cameras that are used for television programs and films are following a particular standard. Home displays can be calibrated to that same standard. Accuracy is measured by how close your display comes to meeting that standard. You can get close with home calibration discs and such, but the results will never be as precise as a complete calibration.

You apparently have no idea what an accurate image even is since you personally cannot verify or measure it. You claim that you can look at an image and measure its accuracy and that just is not true.

The Samung HL67A750 set you own has such an adjustment in the user menus, it's called "White Balance". You use the the right side of the scale for more blue, and the left side of the scale for more red.

I'm talking about in general since why are these sort of enhancements not tolerated in the video world, but tolerated and expected in the audio world?

At some point you want to throw up your hands and say "look, watch it however you want to". A good number have already said that, the problem is they walk away with this belief in their heart that anyone not watching a calibrated display is watching a poor quality picture. Where as the record producer driving down I-5 in his Ferrari is soaking up his latest project on a speaker system that he knows is calibrated differently than his studio monitors. He has no distane or feeling of inadequacy about this.

It sure does seem like a double standard to me.

Why is it so hard for you and others to understand what a accurate image is suppose to look like? Go look through a video camera, that's what a accurate image is suppose to look like. There is no personal preference of anything but accuracy. You choose charts and data, but just don't expect reference image quality everytime with actual video content. Because obviously the standard when it comes to color intensity,lumination, it is not spot on with all technologies and display capeabilitys. I look at at it as 'torch' mode standard.

I understand better than most what an accurate image is supposed to look like. I just don't pretend that I can be as accurate, nor as precise, in adjusting a display without instrumentation and standards. I also recognize the difference between what one might LIKE and DISLIKE and what is a measured result. I can actually get many displays more accurate than they come OOB quite easily with my belief of what accurate looks like and my eyes. I also know that it is not as accurate as if I use my equipment.

You once again, are attributing methods and intent that are NOT TRUE. The last check that any calibration tech makes is to verify that the set looks great with actual video. If there is a difference between what he sees and what his instruments tell him, then he figures out why. Using actual video is always a part of the process. You simply assume things that are not so or you are telling lies.

Calibration is about improving the performance of displays using science. If the result is not going to be acceptable visually, there would be no point in it. We cannot always get displays to behave the way that they should, and there is always some subjective nature to any process, no matter how scientific we try to be. The bottom line is that we use the best tools that we can to be as accurate as we can, and adhere to the standards as well as we can. This is the only way to have a reasonable idea of what accuracy is, and a starting point for any changes that we think might represent an improvement. It is simply faulty to argue that one can have a better idea of what is accurate just because you think you know. You have an idea of what you LIKE. Period. Go away and be happy with what you like and stop confusing people.

...you're wrong. Cameras that are used for television programs and films are following a particular standard. Home displays can be calibrated to that same standard. Accuracy is measured by how close your display comes to meeting that standard. You can get close with home calibration discs and such, but the results will never be as precise as a complete calibration.

You apparently have no idea what an accurate image even is since you personally cannot verify or measure it. You claim that you can look at an image and measure its accuracy and that just is not true.


Maybe in your mind, go look in the mirror, and tell me you are not looking at a 'calibrated' image. Now, can you tell when someone has been to florida and has bad case of sunburn? Do you need scientific proof they have a sunburn? Maybe you chalk it up that it's their natural skin tone? Probably, because obviously your own judgement is meaningless without mesurements.

I'm talking about in general since why are these sort of enhancements not tolerated in the video world, but tolerated and expected in the audio world?

At some point you want to throw up your hands and say "look, watch it however you want to". A good number have already said that, the problem is they walk away with this belief in their heart that anyone not watching a calibrated display is watching a poor quality picture. Where as the record producer driving down I-5 in his Ferrari is soaking up his latest project on a speaker system that he knows is calibrated differently than his studio monitors. He has no distane or feeling of inadequacy about this.

It sure does seem like a double standard to me.


You make some really poorly justified assumptions about what is tolerated and what is not. It may be convenient to support your debating position with such assumptions and generalities, but it makes you look about as credible as a lousy politician or Limbaughesque talk show host.

rmz76,
We calibrate to the standards that are appropriate. In the context of video in most of the locations of the users in the discussion here, the white point is clearly appropriate at D65. When it makes sense to do something else, there is no reason it can't be done. Just show the reason.

Ok. Out-of-the-box these sets can approximate 9300k and 6500k nicely with a nice array of user parameters that add minor enhancements to PQ (edge enhancements, black enhancements, etc...). Essentially out of the box the display device is perfect for most consumers. It can nicely accommodate 9300k source material (not going to get into video games, asian films, etc.. at this point... regardless of your viewing habits, the number of Americans who play video games and the sales data is available for your research) and to lesser degree it can approximate 6500k on warmer settings.

In addition to the cost involved, calibration is not going to take into account the additional modes on the television. It's aim is to turn off all enhancements 'corrupting' the source material and to get color accuracy close to 6500k on all inputs being calibrated. Post-calibration most likely the Standard and Dynamic modes will be useless (or at least further away from proper decoding than they were out of the box) as the calibrator will not touch these but the settings he changes may very well effect them. I doubt most consumers are going to want to loose features, but essentially that's what is going on. Do I need to say again, this is a luxury service not intended for everyone? Do you disagree with that? If you do that would put you at odds with many a pro calibrator.

The whole process makes sense for a very small percentage of the population which is why a small percentage of the population pays for this service. Given all the facts I think most people would still elect not to calibrate for the stated reasons.

Maybe in your mind, go look in the mirror, and tell me you are not looking at a 'calibrated' image. Now, can you tell when someone has been to florida and has bad case of sunburn? Do you need scientific proof they have a sunburn? Maybe you chalk it up that it's their natural skin tone? Probably, because obviously your own judgement is meaningless without mesurements.
....what are you even talking about? I know if the image of myself is accurate...because it's an image of myself. :rolleyes: Wow...nice try there.

You only know if the image on your display is accurate if your display is following the same standard as the one which was followed during the production of the film or television show.

. It is simply faulty to argue that one can have a better idea of what is accurate just because you think you know. You have an idea of what you LIKE. Period. Go away and be happy with what you like and stop confusing people.


I'm not trying to confuse anybody. The goal of calibration is to make the image look as real life as possible as if you where the director looking through the film camera. Maybe you should stop confusing people in thinking calibration will always meet that goal.

....what are you even talking about? I know if the image of myself is accurate...because it's an image of myself. :rolleyes: Wow...nice try there.


Thanks, now go take a picture of yourself, burn it to a cd, display it on your video display, and tell me it looks just like what you see in real life. Is that hard?

I'm not trying to confuse anybody. The goal of calibration is to make the image look as real life as possible as if you where the director looking through the film camera. Maybe you should stop confusing people in thinking calibration will always meet that goal.
It will come a lot closer than your technique of eyeballing it without using any type of testing material whatsoever.

Thanks, now go take a picture of yourself, burn it to a cd, display it on your video display, and tell me it looks just like what you see in real life. Is that hard?
My camera cannot be calibrated properly to accurately reproduce the image I am taking. My display however can be properly calibrated.

You make some really poorly justified assumptions about what is tolerated and what is not. It may be convenient to support your debating position with such assumptions and generalities, but it makes you look about as credible as a lousy politician or Limbaughesque talk show host.

Come now, there's no need for pouting, name calling and this sort of humility. I expect more from you actually as I'm putting time into these post :) and I detect a hint of anger... let's not let these post get us angry as there's no way to escape that defeat.

Not even sure why you bothered with this post, I provided specifics and actually pointed out it is the western scientist who have made generalities "the Asian's like blue in their whites so they abandoned our standard". Yes, I'm calling out a respected author and a respected text on this. But his book is text searchable on-line, that's pretty much verbatim what he said. It's very general and against the Japanese culture it makes no sense at all.

I've made my point, unless you have one I think we're done.

My camera cannot be calibrated properly to accurately reproduce the image I am taking. My display however can be properly calibrated.


So you are 100% confident that your display is reproducing reference image quality?

Ok. Out-of-the-box these sets can approximate 9300k and 6500k nicely with a nice array of user parameters that add minor enhancements to PQ (edge enhancements, black enhancements, etc...). Essentially out of the box the display device is perfect for most consumers. It can nicely accommodate 9300k source material (not going to get into video games, asian films, etc.. at this point... regardless of your viewing habits, the number of Americans who play video games and the sales data is available for your research) and to lesser degree it can approximate 6500k on warmer settings.

In addition to the cost involved, calibration is not going to take into account the additional modes on the television. It's aim is to turn off all enhancements 'corrupting' the source material and to get color accuracy close to 6500k on all inputs being calibrated. Post-calibration most likely the Standard and Dynamic modes will be useless (or at least further away from proper decoding than they were out of the box) as the calibrator will not touch these but the settings he changes may very well effect them. Do I need to say again, this is a luxury service not intended for everyone?

The whole process makes sense for a very small percentage of the population which is why a small percentage of the population pays for this service. Given all the facts I think most people would still elect not to calibrate for the stated reasons.

Again, you make some big assumptions. First, the majority of displays do not come close to 9300K nor D65 at any of the OOB settings. Some do, and some vary a great deal around those points. Calibrating one of the settings to D65 may or may not affect the other settings. It depends on the display. A client can certainly request any combination of settings and calibration that they prefer.

The goal of calibration is not to remove all processing. Removing processing that does things to alter the image and make it less accurate is a method used, not a goal. If a particular setting improves the image, then it is used or not, depending on the situation and the related effects and priorities.

In most cases, the other modes are closer to a calibrated value after calibration, but again, it completely depends on the display. To say with certainty that they would either be closer or not is impossible. It may be convenient to your argument, but again, not correct.

The fact is that only a small percentage of the population does get a display calibrated. That does not mean that there is not value in the service. What nearly all calibration pros know is that their clients are more well educated about what a display can and can't do, how to adjust it, and what they got by having calibration done. They are also nearly 100% satisfied with the results and very very few wish to go back to watching the display the way it was before calibration. If it does not make sense for you or for anyone else, that is fine. No credible calibrator would argue that everyone should have a display calibrated. They likely would argue that everyone should ask the question and learn something about what it means.

Arguing against calibration with straw man and red herring points does little to educate, and little to help people make an educated decision. Making unfounded assumptions about what calibration's goals are and the methods used does nothing but confuse. I strongly suggest that anyone who asks the question speak to the local pros who do it then take those conversations here to discuss the value of what that calibrator wants to do. One would find that there are lots of good calibrators out there, and a few great ones, and that there is much to learn. Most of those calibrators are very willing to help in that process and answer any questions. You will find little of the arrogance that has been attributed nor much of the intolerance that you suggest.

So you are 100% confident that your display is reproducing reference image quality?
I am 100% confident that, upon completion of a proper and thorough calibration, my display will provide an image that is as accurate as is possible within the capabilities of my display.

I am also 100% confident that if we gave an identical display to both you and to a quality professional calibrator...the calibrator's resulting image would be more accurate than yours every single time.

With your technique...you have no way of know how accurate the image is. It's complete and total guesswork on your part.

Again, you make some big assumptions. First, the majority of displays do not come close to 9300K nor D65 at any of the OOB


The word close implies subjectivity. So I can't say you're wrong, but I can say I disagree with you. The best of the brand name products come close enough and do a a job good enough for most consumers. The lesser grade displays let's exclude for the same reason no sane person buys a Kia and then then go invest over 50% what you paid for the car in enhancements.

Our disagreement on this point prevents me from addressing the remainder of your post sense it builds on your assumption that modern displays are too far off the mark for most consumers.... But I see you're an AV Tech, so I have to wonder: do you really believe that? Do you believe professional calibration is for most people? I think that's a ridiculous idea based on cost alone.... If you aren't arguing that point then I'm not sure why we continue to go on. If you are actually saying you think most consumers going out spending $800-$1500 on a display should pay an additional $600 (40%-75%!) so that they can perhaps get the warmer temperature settings 5-10% closer to standard. I just wonder if we're living in the same world.

Another bone to pick- I really don't appreciate the Limbaugh comparison. He's a great entertainer, but you've got it a bit backwards as he's a conservative. My ideas here are anything but conservative. They are challenging the system. Come to think of it the way you're defending the system and name calling I think you may could give Rush a run for his money (for the record I am not a Republican and in fact feel Mr. Limbaugh is the epitome of what is wrong with the Republican party, but I digress again)

Unfortunately I do believe the 9300k Asia vs 6500k US broadcast standard discussion has been surpressed because of politics, but not government politics. The politics that exist inside all institutions of higher learning and corporate America in general. Politics come into play in any organization, anytime you have agenda's and power to be had by pushing those agenda's forward while suppressing other agenda's. It's ugly and it's everywhere...

My only agenda is common sense aimed at helping the OP (e.g. Calibration isn't for everyone because of it's cost and nominal benefit) and exploration (e.g. why do the Asian countries reject the D65 standard). Both of these are on topic I think. If you want to keep exploring these ideas without name calling I think we can hug and move forward.

Did you not read that he said that calibration was not for "most people"?

Obviously, rmz76 did not read much of what I posted, nor much of what the other calibrators on AVS regularly post. He does exactly what miscreants like Limbaugh do. He takes a bit of a comment and makes assumptions regarding others' intent, then uses it to argue his point. He rarely answers a question, nor has much regard for context. He has an agenda, a point to make, an opinion, and pretends that it has basis in facts that are really just more assumption and misinterpretation of others' words. Not much more useful than other trolls like zeus. They seem to becoming more common than ever on AVS. I, and others that I communicate with have just about had enough of this nonsense and the tolerance for such at AVS.

Thanks for showing me your true feelings. Is that all you can come up with? Maybe you know i might be right? All i can tell you is if anyone that could take a accurate display such as yourself and make it 'inaccurate' i guess it would be you with your sxrd, as the nd filter must of heavily skewed up all the colors. But i suppose in your world it's 'reference' like your computer monitor. And in your world the 9g blacks are just a 'little' bit better, and the funniest thing you ever said was SSE is not a problem anymore with a nd filter-LOL.

Yet another example of a post intended to cause outrage, controversy and argument in response, trolling by definition.

If you want someone else to call you a troll, go over to one of the pro photography forms and tell people they should not be using neutral density filters to control exposure because it will “heavily skewed up all the colors”, it wont take long I assure you.

The tolerance for trolls here has made AVS pretty useless these days. I can see a number of the most experienced posters limiting their involvement here...

Yet another example of a post intended to cause outrage, controversy and argument in response, trolling by definition.

If you want someone else to call you a troll, go over to one of the pro photography forms and tell people they should not be using neutral density filters to control exposure because it will “heavily skewed up all the colors”, it wont take long I assure you.


True on the nd filter, but something is skewing your set up. What about SSE?Lol.


You tell me if you dont think your colors are skewed.

Owen
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6598/picture0311hq0.jpg

Owen Sxrd
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/889/dsc0095aon0.jpg


Zues VIZIO
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/7222/55410951qo7.jpg

The tolerance for trolls here has made AVS pretty useless these days. I can see a number of the most experienced posters limiting their involvement here...

Yes, it's sad that the prevalence of trolls here has ruined an otherwise excellent source of valuable information. I guess it was bound to happen at some point - the internet is full of crazies, and in the absence of good moderating, even niche forums like this can get overrun by leeches and threadcrappers who have nothing positive or constructive to contribute. At least we have the ignore function :D

Yes, it's sad that the prevalence of trolls here has ruined an otherwise excellent source of valuable information. I guess it was bound to happen at some point


I'm not suprised you where bound to make a appearance in this thread. :D

I am also 100% confident that if we gave an identical display to both you and to a quality professional calibrator...the calibrator's resulting image would be more accurate than yours every single time.


Sure, just like Owen :) Who's sxrd blows away a vizio as far as measuring accuracy. You tell me what looks better? And his is HD, mine SD.

One comment I have seen about calibrating a TV is "sometimes you have to get use to the picture, because it is what the producer wanted you to see."
I feel like maybe we sometimes are falling for a trick. If your TV has a picture that "pops" and others comment how good the picture looks. Then why mess with a good thing. If you read that you always need a calibration & get one. You shouldn't have to get use to the picture. A good picture is a good picture.
My two cents worth...:)That's right - a good picture is a good picture.

If you want the best picture, get your set calibrated.

Why?
When a set comes out of the factory, it's very rarely adjusted to provide the best possible (read: accurate) images. A calibration is designed to make the set perform as close as possible to known industry standards.

When HD is being made, standards are being applied at various points in the production / distribution chain. Using the same standards at home is the best way to maximise your personal HD experience.

End of story.

Maybe in your mind, go look in the mirror, and tell me you are not looking at a 'calibrated' image.Your not......consumer mirrors use low grade glass which will give you a color shift towards green.

You can try this out by holding up a white sheet of paper close to the mirror and compare the actual paper to the mirrored one......you'll notice the mirrored paper has a green shift compared to the actual.

cheers

http://www.lbaileyht.com/owentestphoto.jpg

To get it this way, it took more work than the manufacturer had provided with the base set, a Sony SXRD.

I don't understand why some think that they have the ability to set up a TV to a standard, other than their own standard, without the use of measurement equipment to verify it. Do you even own an optical comparator, even a home made one, for setting up grayscale? Do you have a magic set of filters to view through that can set up your primary and secondary colors for luminance, saturation, and phase using just the color and tint controls on your TV? A magic pair of glasses for getting the gamma setting correct?

If you're happy with the way your set looks, fine. Don't take that extra effort to make your set look it's best. The investment is yours. Just don't think less of those who do invest the time and effort, and yes, money, to make their equipment perform at the best levels.

Calibration is a term to get suckers to waste money buying services and/or equipment to try and do it themselves. Todays modern sets come with close enough presets. Calibration had its place 3+ years before manufacturers built in a preset for "torch mode." Now it is mostly snake oil ate up by the same people that think a $300 monster HDMI cable will make their picture look better. This is evident by the fact that ISF now gives cards to anyone from geek squad that pays for their 2 day course. Buy a disc like DVE and see so yourself. I get totaly different settings in the day than compared to at night and end up just sticking close enough to factory presets for movie/cinema that you can't see a difference. If you think Bose and Monster rule than by all means waste money calibrating a modern HDTV. You may be better off spending the money on treatment for OCD.

"Then are you finally ready to take the challenge for your $50,000 as detailed in post #74 and beyond on this thread? You continue to talk big yet don't want to put your "skill" to the test"

There is a lot of difference between playing around with the settings for hours on end to get the most pleasing results and being able to tell if someone has adjusted one setting by a single point.

But sadly I do not think anyone would take your bait even if they could tell. Who gets to choose the source material and the display. Who acts as refree and do you get to bring seconds like in a duel to make sure everyone plays fair. Not to mention the time and effort to go all that way, to meet someone who obviously holds you in contempt and then rely on the honesty of all those involved to payout and disclose the result. Besides you obviously enjoy arguing with him, and since you find him so annoying he might need life insurance.




He claims his eyes are the most sensitive instrument available - so its put up or be shown for the troll he is.

The money is on deposit at Bank of America and can be verified through a representative at the Private Client Group.

The source is a very simple grayscale - varying between 10 IRE and 100 IRE.

A CPA would select change the R, G or B one position and bring him back in the room. He gets to make give us his "most sensitive instrument ever made eye judgement" of what changed and the meter does the same.

Very straight forward - but he won't do it because he knows he will loose.



Alot of calibrators do come across as arrogant towards those who disagree with them. Calibration to standards, equals more accurate image reproduction, the only way to know how well the display is calibrated is to use a calibrated sensor to measure it. How close you can get to the standards is dependent on the display as Zeus points out, and the quality of the calibration which appears to rely on faith in your or someone elses ability and equipment accuracy or for Zeus his own eyes. When all said and done I use my eyes to watch the image and would allways let them and not a sensor reading be the final arbiter as to what looks best. I assume the image closest to standards should usually look best as most film makers would I hope master the film to look its best, not its worst.

How much leeway do the standards - mastering have built in. The image may not be the most accurate reproduction it could be, but the people who do the mastering obviously know most home displays are not reference quality or calibrated to the standards. Even the maligned out of the box settings do not make films look like they are on an alien world staring vaguely human creatures.

The standards are made for a reason.

Zues believes D93 looks better than the standard D65. Even the worse equipment I have ever seen can get closer much closer to D65 than having it fall at D93 by mistake.

Zues believes D93 looks better than the standard D65. Even the worse equipment I have ever seen can get closer much closer to D65 than having it fall at D93 by mistake.


What a joke. Please quote me where i ever said i prefer d93. Nobody believes you.

I don't understand why some think that they have the ability to set up a TV to a standard, other than their own standard, without the use of measurement equipment to verify it. .


Proof is in the pudding. Of'course screenshots don't always tell the whole story, but they can say alot. Take a look what i did to a vizio. A tv like Sony or Samsung would be a piece of cake in comparison. No joe kane cd, no tools, just my eye, guaranteed they will measure as best as possible, or look better considering i think the standard for color intensity might be outdated, torch mode imo for many displays.

This is my limited understanding of the benefits, why you should calibrate, please correct or clarify anything that I have got wrong or poorly worded.


Correct setup with a calibration disc gives the following benefits

Brightness level correct. Best possible image depth while maintaining no lose of shadow detail. (Analogue standard defintion has different setup black levels for USA NTSC 7.5IRE, Japanese NTS and European PAL are 0IRE. Some displays have this switchable so if you calibrate it with the correct setup option you can easily switch black level between formats without having to recalibrate brightness)

Too high brightness will give a brighter image and make inaccurate colors look more natural by desaturating them, but image will lack depth. Dark scenes may look like they have more depth but overall the image will lose depth.

Too low brightness will enhance image depth in bright scenes but lower image depth in very dark scenes and cause some shadow details to be lost into black, colors maybe more vibrant more saturated.


Contrast level correct. Best possible image depth while maintaing no lose of very bright area detail and no color shifting in very bright areas. (some people maybe willing to suffer color shifiting above 80%ire if this enables them to get more contrast out of the display)

Too high contrast will give slightly better image depth in some scenes, but can make the image look less natural, as color saturation maybe too low in bright areas in comparison to dark areas. Details in very bright areas will be lost to white, color shifting in very bright areas maybe visible.

Too low contrast will give slightly less image depth in some scenes. Image may again look less natural due to color saturation being off.


Gamma preset closest picked. Some test patterns can be down loaded and burned to disc or closest sounding preset can be picked. Gives better color accuracy as it effects how brightness is tracked by the greyscale(black&white) image and each color so effects amount of each color in a mix and so saturation and hue. Gives most natural looking contrast, image depth. USA SMPTE NTSC has a gamma standard of 2.2, while UK EBU PAL has a gamma standard of 2.35, and some claim crt has a gamma of 2.5. High definition has its own gamma standard for encoding but not for displays. As mentioned below gamma maybe adjusted to better suit the viewing environment. But gamma that is correct to the source gives a better image in my opinion.

Too high gives darker overall image, more perceived contrast up to the point the image looks too dim. Colors will be more vibrant. But image may look unnatural too contrasty, colors may look unnatural and darkscenes too dim - flat. A high gamma may be desirable in dark viewing conditions due to dark surround effect making the viewer perceive less contrast in the image, and shadow detail visibilty is better because the eyes are adapted to lower light levels.

Too low gives brighter overall image, and colors may look less inaccurate due to lower color saturation. Image may have better image depth in dark scenes, shadow detail is more obvious. But image will lack depth in bright scenes. A low gamma may be desirable in bright viewing conditions to make shadow detail more visible and the image overall brighter.


Overscan set to zero. With source and display with same native resolution gives sharpest possible image. Some sources may not fill the screen or have noise above the visible image with zero overscan, it is better to mask these rather than overscan.

Overscan will make the objects in the image bigger, but will blur very fine detail.


Sharpness set correct. Contrast in fine details is the same as contrast in large details, image looks natural.

Sharpness too high, image may look better - sharper, but some fine details will be blurred and visible ringing may be present or made worse if edge enhancement is on the source. For DVDs problems with too high sharpness become more readily obvious on calibration discs than will occur on film dvds as film dvds are pre-filtered/pre-smoothed so lack high contrast fine detail unlike the test discs.

Sharpness too low, image may look better on some test disc patterns, no visible ringing, but on a horizontal sweep pattern lose of contrast in fine details will be obvious. The image will look softer.


Greyscale color temperature closest preset. You can only tell which one is correct if they are so far off as to have visible color tinting on a grey scale ramp or by their names. Correct one gives best color accuracy, noticeable as better image depth as no washing out or brightening of dark colors by a color tint. Subtle color shading especially in skin tones more visible giving a more natural look and more image depth.

Too blue. Gives brighter cleaner looking image, inaccurate color is less obvious as color saturation of red/green mix lowered by blue. Inaccurate blue not obvious as we are more sensitive to red/green mix useful for judging healthy skin tones or freshness/ripeness of food.

Too green. Gives much brighter looking image, will reduce apparant image depth as brightness dark areas alot. Skin tones may look slightly off but grass will be more vibrant. Some displays designed with incorrect color temperature may have incorrect color decoders with red push to make skin tones look more natural despite having a green tint.

Too red. Gives warmer image, eyes can completely adjust to redder greyscale than D65 so may look very natural. But excess red will washout subtle shades in skintones, and excess red will reduce image depth in dark scenes.


Color saturation in ball park. Set using blue filter or comparing models faces. Filter is often inaccurate, and sources-films may vary in their color saturation. Gives best image depth while maintaining vibrant natural looking image, as color adds brightness and interacts with greyscale-black&white image to determine actuall color saturation and so color hue.

Too high gives more vibrant colors but reduces image depth and natural look. If greyscale color temperature is wrong has too little red it may make the image look more natural

Too low reduces image depth, color vibrancy and natural look. If greyscale color temperature is wrong has too much red or green it may make the image look more natural.



A basic ISF calibration adds
If the display has user or service menu controls for individual color bias/gain. Using a sensor and software enables fine tuning of the greyscale color temperature. This is faster and more accurate than doing it by eye as eyes are adaptive so what you see is dependent on what you have previously been looking at. Depending on how far off the preset was, it can give much better color accuracy.
Gamma presets can be measured and the closest preset picked.



A more indepth calibration adds

If the display has a good color management system and color gammut. Color primaries and secondaries can be made more accurate this is most noticeable as more natural looking highly saturated colors or if the display has inaccurate yellow secondary or another color wayout of standards, more accurate colors. Note standard definition PAL and NTSC and High Definition all use slightly different primaries. This is not readily apparant when viewing despite many American films being transcoded to PAL without re-mapping the colors, just removing illegal colors, despite being displayed on displays with different primaries. This is because they all use the same white point and inaccuracies due to primaries only become more obvious the higher the color saturation, skin tones are not usually highly color saturated.

If the display has a good gamma correction system. Gamma tracking can be made more accurate. Note standard definition NTSC SMPTE for USA and PAL EBU for UK have different gamma standards, high definition has another gamma encoding standard but no display standard. This is not usually readily apparant on viewing despite American films being transcoded to PAL without remapping greyscale to a different gamma on the assumption that UK displays will have different display gamma. It is readily apparant on some films and makes a big impact on perceived image depth or making colors look natural.

Proof is in the pudding. Of'course screenshots don't always tell the whole story, but they can say alot. Take a look what i did to a vizio. A tv like Sony or Samsung would be a piece of cake in comparison. No joe kane cd, no tools, just my eye, guaranteed they will measure as best as possible, or look better considering i think the standard for color intensity might be outdated, torch mode imo for many displays.
You've already been offered a fair deal by Beachcomber and you've chosen to ignore it. Proper instrumentation will beat your eyes any day of the week. If you honestly believe that you can more accurately calibrate a display by eyeballing it...rather than a person with the proper equipment and the skill to use it...then you're a lost cause. You are simply guessing with your display and nothing more.

I am getting my HL67A750 calibrated this weekend and can't wait:)

Ah.... AVS where great threads go to die :rolleyes:

I am getting my HL67A750 calibrated this weekend and can't wait:)
Is the calibrator anyone we might know here?

If one considers him/her self to be a serious videophile or video aficionado, sooner or later will end up giving some type of measurement a shot.

I have to agree that no tv needs to be calibrated to look decent, and there is the always present subjective factor of preference and room conditions. and with no doubt the set will look ok. Now if you could do a side by side comparison of a calibrated set with a non calibrated set and adhering to calibration standards, one could clearly see the over saturated colors and the overexpose whites.

The standards exists to have a way of reproducing the exact same thing over and over again that represents as close as possible a true realistic image.

Bottom line ... if one's display is not calibrated to these standards, it might look good (to you) but it is in no way a true and faithful representation of what is "should look like" , and yes yours doesn't have to look like is should.

A true videophile sooner or later will have his/her set calibrated otherwise is merely a hobby.

You've already been offered a fair deal by Beachcomber and you've chosen to ignore it. Proper instrumentation will beat your eyes any day of the week. If you honestly believe that you can more accurately calibrate a display by eyeballing it...rather than a person with the proper equipment and the skill to use it...then you're a lost cause. You are simply guessing with your display and nothing more.



Yup, just like i can guess your color settings are 40+, just like i can guess that you are guaranteed oversaturated. Obviously YOU don't have a clue because you don't have a clue what a accurate pic looks like, just what data, or someone else tells you is accurate. You have ZERO skill in this hobby.

Yup, just like i can guess your color settings are 40+, just like i can guess that you are guaranteed oversaturated. Obviously YOU don't have a clue because you don't have a clue what a accurate pic looks like, just what data, or someone else tells you is accurate. You have ZERO skill in this hobby.
Two points:



My display has both color and desat controls.
The only way to insure an accurate picture is to follow the same data as the original production of that material. What you are watching on your display was produced while following a particular standard. You calibrate your display to the same standard. It's a rather simple concept.


Calibration is a method based on science and fact. Your method is based on guesswork and a lack of knowledge on the issue.

Hey Zeus, are you serious or is this an April fools joke gone wrong?

cheers

As long as you are happy with the pic that's the important thing.

Fact-me- 100% happy adjusting the pic my way, accurate or inaccurate, you decide.


You- Rely on data or someone else to tell you what to be happy with and what it should look like. Accurate? According to data or the calibrator. You will never know or learn anything about image quality, and if you did, you should know what's wrong by looking at it. Strictly trusting tools and data or someone else can result in a lifetime of watching inaccurate images. :(

As long as you are happy with the pic that's the important thing.

Fact-me- 100% happy adjusting the pic my way, accurate or inaccurate, you decide.


You- Rely on data or someone else to tell you what to be happy with and what it should look like. Accurate? According to data or the calibrator. You will never know or learn anything about image quality, and if you did, you should know what's wrong by looking at it. Strictly trusting tools and data or someone else can result in a lifetime of watching inaccurate images. :(
How can calibrating your display to exact same standards that were used in the production of what you are watching result in an inaccurate picture? Just the opposite it true. You in fact have no idea if the image you have achieved with eyeballing it and guesswork is anywhere near accurate. Simply using DVE or some other type of testing material will result in a more accurate picture than you have achieved.

You in fact have no idea if the image you have achieved with eyeballing it and guesswork is anywhere near accurate.


That's like saying when you go out into the real world and look at people, nature-etc- you have no idea what accurate color is. Do you really think some noob to hdtv world can go out and buy dve, or a meter and achieve better than my results? After years and years knowing what a accurate pic looks like? Years of watching film at theaters and studying the pq?

And again, if accurate is all you are concerned with, you are STILL being told what to watch, whether from data, or tools, and have ZERO skill.

A true videophile sooner or later will have his/her set calibrated otherwise is merely a hobby.
lmao @ "true videophile".
a person with true common sense will get the best display in the first place and realize there are too many variables to pay $300 or dick around buying calibration equipment unless they are going to "calibrate" it every time they watch a different source under different ambient light conditions.
I suppose if you have a butler and chef on the payroll in your home you can hire a calibrator to make adjustments you won't even notice so it absolutly perfect before everything you watch.

I think a "true videophile" knows better and the ignorant hobbyists run around in circles until they realize they were better off with the factory presets and maybe some user adjustments for each thing they watch. As the factory leaves them at a good all around center for different sources and programing with different ambient lighting conditions.

This image was taken with a video camera in still mode, it is not and was never expected to be color accurate. It was taken to show that totally different display technologies can be calibrated to look the same, in this case a 70” SXRD and the Sony G500 CRT PC monitor (botton right corner). They are effectively identical after calibration as the photo shows.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6598/picture0311hq0.jpg



Original image captured direct from the frame buffer of my HTPC. This is what the original image actually looks like.
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/723/transformers4mt2.jpg

Here is the same image displayed on the SXRD and captured with a Nikon D40, slightly over exposed but close enough.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2961/sxrdct2.jpg

Picture provided by Zues of his “calibrated” Visio Plasma
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1870/24461416ay8.jpg




Original image captured from PC frame buffer
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7336/leluoriginal.jpg

Same image displayed on a 70” SXRD. Camera is an Olympus E510
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5121/leluoriginalw.jpg




Original image captured from PC frame buffer
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9930/leluandbruceoriginal.jpg

Same image displayed on a 70” SXRD. Camera is a Nikon D90 (taken today)
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7154/leluandbrucefinal.jpg

Zues “calibrated” VIZIO Plasma
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/7222/55410951qo7.jpg

In all cases the camera is the limiting factor in the comparisons, its VERY difficult to get a photograph to accurately portray what the eye sees and a photo of a display gives a combination of the display errors and the camera errors.
The Nikon D90 is the best camera I have used for the job but I am not fully up to speed with all its many adjustments, especially its color management which is quite complex.

those screen shots prove absolutly nothing, nice job showing your ignorance.
first your 2 displays do not look the same at all. second Zeus was taken with completly different camera under different conditions. not like you can even take accurate screencaps for comparison with a camera anways.

That's like saying when you go out into the real world and look at people, nature-etc- you have no idea what accurate color is. ...not it isn't. You don't know if the image you are seeing is accurate or not unless you verify that certain settings are set properly. Color points, desat values, contrast, brightness, color, gamma, color temp, and on and on and on.

Do you really think some noob to hdtv world can go out and buy dve, or a meter and achieve better than my results? Yes, I do...

And again, if accurate is all you are concerned with, you are STILL being told what to watch, whether from data, or tools, and have ZERO skill.
I'm not being told to watch. I want to see things as they are. I want every color on that screen to be as close as possible to what was actually filmed. That's what I like. Some people prefer a less accurate image and that is perfectly fine.

What you are doing is claiming that your image is accurate...when you have no way of even knowing that.

What you are doing is claiming that your image is accurate...when you have no way of even knowing that.


This is why you will never have a clue :( Only data or someone else can tell you, YOU will never know.

Is the calibrator anyone we might know here?

Chad/Nicholc2

This image was taken with a video camera in still mode, it is not and was never expected to be color accurate. It was taken to show that totally different display technologies can be calibrated to look the same, in this case a 70” SXRD and the Sony G500 CRT PC monitor (botton right corner). They are effectively identical after calibration as the photo shows.


Your pc must be way off. Odd considering it's a sony. What on earth did you do to it?

This image was taken with a video camera in still mode, it is not and was never expected to be color accurate. It was taken to show that totally different display technologies can be calibrated to look the same, in this case a 70” SXRD and the Sony G500 CRT PC monitor (botton right corner). They are effectively identical after calibration as the photo shows.
In all cases the camera is the limiting factor in the comparisons, its VERY difficult to get a photograph to accurately portray what the eye sees and a photo of a display gives a combination of the display errors and the camera errors.
The Nikon D90 is the best camera I have used for the job but I am not fully up to speed with all its many adjustments, especially its color management which is quite complex.

Its hilarious that somebody so concerned with having a perfectly accurate picture would even post such useless material for making comparison

This is why you will never have a clue :( Only data or someone else can tell you, YOU will never know.
I do know because I have science and facts to back it up. You only have this eyeballing technique and guesswork. I'm sure your color points are all over the map.

http://www.lbaileyht.com/owentestphoto.jpg

To get it this way, it took more work than the manufacturer had provided with the base set, a Sony SXRD.


Yes, it’s a great image, I shot it with a Nikon D40 and find it useful for comparisons because of its wide variety of colors and natural flesh tones.

[quote=Lee Bailey;16269128]

To get it this way, it took more work than the manufacturer had provided with the base set, a Sony SXRD.
QUOTE]

Yes, it’s a great image, I shot it with a Nikon D40 and find it useful for comparisons because of its wide variety of colors and natural flesh tones.
What was it taken from?

those screen shots prove absolutly nothing, nice job showing your ignorance.
first your 2 displays do not look the same at all. second Zeus was taken with completly different camera under different conditions. not like you can even take accurate screencaps for comparison with a camera anways.


Zues was quite happy to make a photographic comparison, he seemed to think it was valid, I just obliged him with a better example.

Your pc must be way off. Odd considering it's a sony. What on earth did you do to it?

Nothing wrong with the PC or the displayed image, the problem is with the video camera used to take the shot.

I always have to chuckle when I see threads like this one. I have seen so many in the past. Ahh, to each their own.

I have been using tune up discs for years. I did one just this weekend for my Mother in Law. She hated it. I set it back to the 'showroom' settings and she loved it. Go figure.

This will be my first pro calibration that I have had done (shooting for this saturday). I set the current picture using DVE and some other discs so I will post befores of what I had, and what the calibrator comes up with. On the same set, on the same camera, on the same image(s), on the same day, with the same source and in the same lighting.

Why I am I having it done? Curiosity.

Can anyone point me to some tips on how to shoot an image from the set?

Its hilarious that somebody so concerned with having a perfectly accurate picture would even post such useless material for making comparison

The images where used by others in the “screenshot wars” thread and elswhere, I took the same shots for comparison. What would you consider more appropriate?

I know what a meter looks like, I don't need no stinking tape measure to tell me what's right!

Don't take up cabinetmaking...

[quote=Owen;16271157]
What was it taken from?

The image is my own, its a still image from my SLR cropped and downscaled to 1920x1080 for use as a test shot via my PC.
Most HD video does not stand up well when a single frame is displayed so I used one of my digital photos in stead, I have never seen HD video that good.

Fifth Element is a good film, but it always strikes me as odd it gets used to demonstrate color accuracy, since there are multiple versions of the film on disc with different color balances at least in Europe.

I think trying to use screen photos to prove picture quality is a exercise in futility anyway as it is so camera dependent. The camera will alter the white balance and black-white level. You would need a calibrated camera to take photos of your calibrated display to then be viewed on their calibrated monitor. Besides displays these days are simply too good to be captured accurately on camera.

Standards always struck me as odd in that they are suppose to enable the people mastering the video to see what the consumer will see. But the standards are not accurate to the most common displays. I would of thought they would have made the standards easy to achieve for manufactures so that reference monitors and consumer displays alike would be the same. But no. Now we have such a large back catalogue of material new standards are always designed to be backwardly compatible.

Out of the box settings should in my opinion be alot better than they are for digital sources. White level, black level, greyscale color temperature should all be perfect. You should only need to switch gamma presets to suit viewing conditions or for formats PAL EBU/NTSC SMPTE/High Definition, Color matrix likewise be switchable for formats. Color saturation adjustable for some source varitation. Greyscale color temperature switchable for some black & white movies, and Japanese mastered sources.

In analogue it made sense that you had to calibrate to the input as strict standards for signal levels were never applied, and signal loss and noise always possible. But the high definition display spec could have been alot tighter. Instead the likes of EBU standards only have recommendations. I can only think component variation in the manufacturing process must be larger than ideal and manufactures want to be able to claim their display looks better rather than looks accurate. The market for reference displays must be as small as that for reference quality audio monitors/speakers, and sales of displays as dependent on hype/marketing gimmics and looking different as speaker sales. It is odd that the standards for display monitors used in mastering video are so tight when the standards for home displays are just recommendations, and worrying that display monitors are dying out no more crt monitors, no more pioneer plasmas, only a couple of samsung projectors. When fims are no longer mastered using reference quality displays then what.

Hey Owen, hows the D90 going?
I've had some fun with my D300, certainly keeps you busy with all the adjustability. Here's one I took of the Moon during the recent Victorian bushfires
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h146/MACCA350/DSC_4572_20090214_3475.jpg

cheers

Anyone here can find everything they need to calibrate their own set for a modest investment in equipment. Why would'nt you want to, if you could, just to see what it looks like. You can always go back to your original settings if that floats your boat. Hell, maybe it close to standard anyway.

I have a hard time figuring out why the folks with uncalibrated sets are bashing the ones who do calibrate their sets. To each his own.

For centuries people thought the earth was flat, and branded Galilleo nuts too.

Can any one point me to or send me some good 1920x1080 shots that I can display and take screen captures of?
Thanks

Can any one point me to or send me some good 1920x1080 shots that I can display and take screen captures of?
Thanks
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/downloads/date/hdtv/1080p/

Good link... thanks!

Fifth Element is a good film, but it always strikes me as odd it gets used to demonstrate color accuracy, since there are multiple versions of the film on disc with different color balances at least in Europe.



For the purposes of comparison it makes no difference what video is used, remember we are not comparing real life to a video we are comparing video raw digital video data to that same image displayed on a TV to judge how similar they are.
If you use a PC to play the video you can capture raw decoded video frames directly and save them as still image files for comparison with photos from a camera, that is what I have done in my examples.
If your PC monitor is not calibrated what you see will never be accurate to the source. ALL displays need calibration, be they PC monitors, TV’s or projectors if you want to display images with any degree of accuracy.
I calibrate all my displays, PC monitors and TV’s alike, most can be made to look virtually identical to each other after calibration which is the entire point of doing it.

Monitors used for graphic arts, publishing, photographic work or TV/video /film production MUST be calibrated to the industry standard so that all people viewing the images will see the same thing. You can’t have people making changes to images unless they know what they are looking at is accurate, that’s why “standards” exist.

Manufacturers of current TV’s could make them very accurate if they so wished, however if they all did so they would all look the same. If all TV’s looks virtually identical in the showroom how would one manufacturer differentiate their products from another, no marketing edge there. Manufacturers deliberately make their displays inaccurate for marketing reasons, plain and simple.

Hey Owen, hows the D90 going?
I've had some fun with my D300, certainly keeps you busy with all the adjustability. Here's one I took of the Moon during the recent Victorian bushfires
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h146/MACCA350/DSC_4572_20090214_3475.jpg

cheers

I am enjoying the D90, it’s a great toy but to get the best out of it requires a bit of practice. I have not used it enough to gain the required experience at this stage and with so many parameters to play with its easy to forget what I have learned, especially since I don’t use it much.

Like I said before... You liking the way your tv looks doesn't mean is right, to the standard it created under. ALL post production is done to calibrated units. ALL initial shooting is done to calibrated units.

If your set is not calibrated to their same standards you are not seeing the material the way it was intended... YES you might like it, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you are not seeing the material the way it was intended.

And as much argument as you can have... your set might look good, very good for that matter, but I'll go with the bet done before, you won't be even close to the standard. And YES nobody needs to tell you how or what you like, and there is nothing wrong with that, but, once again, if your tv is not calibrated IT IS NOT a videophile caliber display.

superleo,

Well said.

And its as simple as that.

Superleo and Owen,

Both well said!!!

you won't be even close to the standard.

Thats a bunch of BS unless you have an old pos or off brand.

A "videophile" should have done the research and bought a display that is close to the standards. Blu-ray may stay close to the standards but OTA, cable, satellite does not make it to your set as it was viewed on "standard calibrated" displays during production. Even between blu-ray players there is alot of variance. Then you have to take into account the variables at your home like ambient light. You keep regurgitating the same old sales pitch we've heard a hundred times.

...you're wrong. Cameras that are used for television programs and films are following a particular standard. Home displays can be calibrated to that same standard. Accuracy is measured by how close your display comes to meeting that standard. You can get close with home calibration discs and such, but the results will never be as precise as a complete calibration.

You apparently have no idea what an accurate image even is since you personally cannot verify or measure it. You claim that you can look at an image and measure its accuracy and that just is not true.

Jrcorwin,

You're right. Maybe you may want to specify 'professional' video cameras. I work with them all the time. "Home" camcorders are not calibrated. Pro cameras have to see the 'same' image in every respect (especially if doing multiple camera shoots) and the ONLY way is to calibrate them in the beginning (using a calibrated display). Most people are only use to a home camcorder and do not realize what it takes to set up a pro shoot. Very good point you made with tv/film following a specific standard.

you won't be even close to the standard.
Absolutely...agreed. There are so many different items that must be measured and tweaked. The non-believers think they are close to the standard...only because they don't know what an accurate calibration would look like. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Calibration is an obvious and wise investment.

Jrcorwin,

You're right. Maybe you may want to specify 'professional' video cameras. I work with them all the time. "Home" camcorders are not calibrated. Pro cameras have to see the 'same' image in every respect (especially if doing multiple camera shoots) and the ONLY way is to calibrate them in the beginning (using a calibrated display). Most people are only use to a home camcorder and do not realize what it takes to set up a pro shoot. Very good point you made with tv/film following a specific standard.
Correct. That's what I meant and I should have specified that. Thank you.

Jrcorwin,

You're right. Maybe you may want to specify 'professional' video cameras. I work with them all the time. "Home" camcorders are not calibrated. Pro cameras have to see the 'same' image in every respect (especially if doing multiple camera shoots) and the ONLY way is to calibrate them in the beginning (using a calibrated display). Most people are only use to a home camcorder and do not realize what it takes to set up a pro shoot. Very good point you made with tv/film following a specific standard.

If you knew anything you would know home video cameras are the only CE devices that currently use xvYCC and Deep Color that most recent HDTV are capable of displaying. Home camcorders can give you BETTER color than anything from broadcast televison or Blu-ray.

Absolutely...agreed. There are so many different items that must be measured and tweaked. The non-believers think they are close to the standard...only because they don't know what an accurate calibration would look like. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Calibration is an obvious and wise investment.

What do you know? How many HDTVs have you had? How many high def players? How much high def media do you own? Ya we all see those displays of a "calibrated" set next to another set. Just like how BB shows a TV with a monster cable next to one without. They run totaly different sources and have the TVs on totaly different user settings. Want to buy some ocean front property in Arizona?

Hey Owen, hows the D90 going?
I've had some fun with my D300, certainly keeps you busy with all the adjustability. Here's one I took of the Moon during the recent Victorian bushfires
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h146/MACCA350/DSC_4572_20090214_3475.jpg

cheers
Can I get a higher resolution copy of this image?

Professional Display Calibration — Maximizing Your Investment and Big Screen Experience

Posted by miracleman12 on February 18th, 2009
(Parts of this article origially appeared in the Sencore (http://www.sencore.com/) Newsletter.)

Home theater enthusiasts expect the most from their big screen investment including the best possible picture images, the longest possible display life, and optimum energy efficiency. Professional display calibration can deliver these benefits.
Why Calibrate a Display? There are many factors that degrade the big screen viewing experience and influence how the big screen display looks and performs. Here are some examples.


Factory display settings are established by marketing experts to attract buyers. These settings degrade the picture, shorten the display life and waste energy. Furthermore, improper settings can lead to viewing fatigue.
The viewing environment greatly impacts the big screen viewing experience. Room lighting influences how our eyes perceive picture contrast and colors.
Component aging within the display causes degradation in light output and often shifts color background or greyscale.

Display Calibration analyzes and treats these issues to bring out the BEST video images the display can offer. Professional Display Calibration delivers the following benefits to the consumer.


Provides a sharper, more focused, film-like picture
Brings out more visible detail in the darkest or lightest parts of the picture
Improves color accuracy for a lifelike color reproduction (flesh tones, grass, sky, and sports jerseys)
Optimizes the display settings for room lighting and to reduce eye fatigue
Expends the display’s useable life (up to 2x longer than factory settings)
Reduces energy consumption by an average of 10-20%. (Go Green)

http://www.allwired.com/blog/2009/02/18/professional-display-calibration-%E2%80%94-maximizing-your-investment-and-big-screen-experience/

Thats a bunch of BS unless you have an old pos or off brand.

A "videophile" should have done the research and bought a display that is close to the standards. Blu-ray may stay close to the standards but OTA, cable, satellite does not make it to your set as it was viewed on "standard calibrated" displays during production. Even between blu-ray players there is alot of variance. Then you have to take into account the variables at your home like ambient light. You keep regurgitating the same old sales pitch we've heard a hundred times.

And ALL these reasons is exactly why you calibrate !?!?!

Even the best of the best displays, and the best with a major reason, have ISF setting... I wounder why?

You guys eat up every marketing gimmick don't you? Nice quote JR from SENCORE trying to sell their products. Check this out ISF has teamed up with Monster and use some noname bimbo Jenna Drey to sell their **** on myspace. LOL Look at the ISF website. It looks like it was designed in 1996. Years ago you might have NEEDED an ISF calibration. Now they resort to cheap marketing. Bose you used to be good at one time until they went down the path of offering cheap inferior products pushed with marketing campaigns.

here is the monster/isf/Jenna Drey calibration disc... what a frackin joke... lol jenna drey just brings so much credibilty to the science. the geek squad and jenna drey will make your TV picture videophile quality as much as $300 monster HDMI cable will make your picture improve
http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3971

If you knew anything you would know home video cameras are the only CE devices that currently use xvYCC and Deep Color that most recent HDTV are capable of displaying. Home camcorders can give you BETTER color than anything from broadcast televison or Blu-ray.

I can't agree with that. Bring your home video camera to a place that sells professional video equipment (depending on where you are, they are usually small shops and do not sell any consumer based AV) and compare the picture output to pro cameras in the range of $5000, $10,000, and $20,000. You'll see a difference (even between the pro cameras): being displayed on the same monitor (they usually have a setup where you can compare some colorful objects, sometimes a bouquet of flowers, etc. under very good lighting) on a calibrated pro display. I think you'll have an eye opener when you do this.

You guys eat up every marketing gimmick don't you? Nice quote JR from SENCORE trying to sell their products. Check this out ISF has teamed up with Monster and use some noname bimbo Jenna Drey to sell their **** on myspace. LOL Look at the ISF website. It looks like it was designed in 1996. Years ago you might have NEEDED an ISF calibration. Now they resort to cheap marketing. Bose you used to be good at one time until they went down the path of offering cheap inferior products pushed with marketing campaigns.

here is the monster/isf/Jenna Drey calibration disc... what a frackin joke... lol jenna drey just brings so much credibilty to the science. the geek squad and jenna drey will make your TV picture videophile quality as much as $300 monster HDMI cable will make your picture improve
http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3971

....

Both THX, Ltd. and the ISF have offered quality assurance consulting programs, services, and certifications to multiple manufacturers, in and outside of the home entertainment industry for over a decade. Both organizations have elevated the quality of images and sound which consumers and professionals experience today. Monster Cable should be applauded for seeking advice and guidance from outside agents to assist them with their product design, testing and quality control.

Do the prices of said products increase as a result? Of course. Hiring THX and the ISF increases the operating costs of the client manufacturer. Do such manufacturers want consumers to know that they have enlisted the participation of these industry leaders in the development and quality assurance of these products? Of course. Is there a potential market advantage for these products to have a 'THX' or 'ISF' certification logo on them? In many cases, yes.

Are such products perfect? Of course not. Therefore, is there potentially some aspect of such products that could be criticized? Of course. This forum is replete with cynics, malcontents, naysayers, critics and pedants who feel elevated when they can dig up and point out such limitations or defects in product design or performance. Seldom do such critics devote themselves to producing a superior solution. There's a fundamental defect in human nature that assumes greatness in a capacity to criticize others' achievements.

Monster Cable Corporation is a 'big dog' in the consumer electronics industry. They got to that position by doing a helluva lot more things right than wrong. Monster has also helped and elevated a lot more people than it has disappointed. Be assured that neither the ISF nor THX, Ltd. consider themselves "tarnished" by their association with Noel Lee and his endeavors. THX and the ISF also have their share of critics in this forum and the industry at large. Constructive criticism is beneficial. Labels such as "tarnished" and suspicions of dishonesty or corruption are more often presumptuous and/or juvenile than not.

Do similar products exist with equal or superior performance? It's entirely possible. Excellence is not the sole purview of Monster/THX/ISF. Is it easier for many consumers to recognize when extra effort has been devoted to assuring the quality of performance, if the product has a recognizable certification logo on it? That's part of the objective.

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

You guys eat up every marketing gimmick don't you? Nice quote JR from SENCORE trying to sell their products. Check this out ISF has teamed up with Monster and use some noname bimbo Jenna Drey to sell their **** on myspace. LOL Look at the ISF website. It looks like it was designed in 1996. Years ago you might have NEEDED an ISF calibration. Now they resort to cheap marketing. Bose you used to be good at one time until they went down the path of offering cheap inferior products pushed with marketing campaigns.

here is the monster/isf/Jenna Drey calibration disc... what a frackin joke... lol jenna drey just brings so much credibilty to the science. the geek squad and jenna drey will make your TV picture videophile quality as much as $300 monster HDMI cable will make your picture improve
http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=3971

I can't speak for everyone here but I'll venture to say that most of the people in this par of the forums, rear projection, do not fall for marketing scheams ...if so most of us would own LCDs.

I feel like I said my piece long ago, but combing through this thread it seems the OP probably got his answer in the first few pages of post.... The remainder of the thread has been sort of a battleground (I plead guilty).

I think the bottom line there will always be a small group who think the benefits of calibration are worth the cost. With display technologies getting more percise out of the factory (refering to gemometry and convergence issues going away on modern display technologies) it does seem like if anything that group would be shrinking and not growing.

Assuming the OP wasn't a lure, I hope the OP has gotten a good idea of reasons why someone might want to calibrate and someone might not want to pay for this service. It's a shame there isn't more respect for those who don't calibrate. The way some of these post play out it's almost religious. As if those without calibrated sets are damned souls who need to be saved by the light of calibration :)

I also have to wonder how many here are fighting in favor of calibration that have never paid an ISF calibrator and are considering their self-calibration job a calibrated display? IMO if you've never paid for a calibration you shouldn't encourage others to do so without perhaps explaining why you have decided not to (and I bet in almost all cases cost is the primary reason, that's going to be a very good reason why the OP might not want to pay for such a service either).

ISF knew there services were on the way out and no longer needed as TV companies built them close to "standards" when consumers caught on. The real calibrators that can calibrate a CRT split from ISF. ISF now resorts to cheap marketing gimmicks, arming Geek Squad with certifcates and deals cut with television manuafcturers to put "ISF" adjustements on sets. Wake up

If you haven't noticed all of the arguments for calibration did say that it wasn't for everyone. There is no disrespect for people who do not calibrate. The problem occurs when people make erroneous claims that their eyes are the equal of expensive equipment when setting up their displays.

I would like to get a calibration done on my SXRD, but cannot afford it at this time. I have used both the AVS disc and the DVE blu-ray to set up my TV. I think it looks great now, but I think it could look a little better with professional help. I make absolutely no claim that I could achieve anything resembling accuracy with just my eyes alone and no test patterns or filters and I don't think anyone else could either.

ISF knew there services were on the way out and no longer needed as TV companies built them close to "standards" when consumers caught on. The real calibrators that can calibrate a CRT split from ISF. ISF now resorts to cheap marketing gimmicks, arming Geek Squad with certifcates and deals cut with television manuafcturers to put "ISF" adjustements on sets. Wake up
Yet again...proving that you have no idea what you are talking about.

"Factory display settings are established by marketing experts to attract buyers."

Yes but most displays have multiple settings some will be more accurate you do not have to have it calibrated to change it from dynamic/sports setting to theater/film mode. You can also turn down back lighting or contrast.

"The viewing environment greatly impacts the big screen viewing experience. Room lighting influences how our eyes perceive picture contrast and colors."

Calibration to suit viewing conditions is not the same as calibration to standards or the displays maximum potential. Some standards even have viewing environment standards.

I understand the idea of altering gamma - perceived contrast so it suits the environment not a good idea in my opinion but popular with lots of people. I understand the idea of increasing brightness so you can see shadow detail in bright viewing conditions again a bad idea in my opinion but popular.

But I do not understand the idea of altering colors. Perception of color is effected by surrounding colors, but how do you calibrate to compensate for that. I can only think of repainting the wall behind the display, they can not mean calibrating to something other than d65 greyscale or altering the color decoder, prehaps they mean altering color saturation to compensate for having altered the gamma.

"Component aging within the display causes degradation in light output and often shifts color background or greyscale."

Yes with some displays but this means they may attract customers unhappy with their old displays looking to save money by not buying a new one and hoping calibration performs miracles.

"Provides a sharper, more focused, film-like picture"

Yes agree a major advantage of calibration with old crt projectors which need alot of patience or a pro to setup well. With some modern displays it can be easily done yourself with a calibration disc setting image position, overscan and sharpness, noise reduction and image enhancements and gamma presets. On other displays it may not even be possible.

"Brings out more visible detail in the darkest or lightest parts of the picture"

Yes agree, but that probably means setting brightness - contrast correctly which is easily done using a calibration disc. They could mean fine tuning gamma but I doubt it.

"Improves color accuracy for a lifelike color reproduction (flesh tones, grass, sky, and sports jerseys)"

Yes the major advantage of a professional calibration with modern displays is you can get the grey scale color temperature more accurate. Some people claim to be able to do it by eye but it would take longer to do and you could never be sure how close to accurate you got it as eyes are color adaptive. Other people buy a sensor and take the time and effort to do it themselves. But a pro may have access to service menus if the display does not have rb or rbg bias/gain user controls. The pro may also have access to ISF calibrator forums with a solution to a problem with the display, and the pro is likely to have a more sensitive sensor which helps with accuracy at the bottom end of the grey scale.

"Optimizes the display settings for room lighting and to reduce eye fatigue"

This is just setting up the display back light or lamp mode or contrast correctly, or discovering it is just too bright whatever you do unless you cripple contrast. Probably also includes adjusting gamma or brightness to compensate for viewing environment.

"Expends the display’s useable life (up to 2x longer than factory settings)"
"Reduces energy consumption by an average of 10-20%. (Go Green)"

Only if it is back light or lamp based and you are changing the setting to low mode, or it has contrast up way too high and in dynamic/sports mode. Any user can do this. Also implying real cost benefits rather than simply a more accurate image may attract people wanting and expecting real cost benefits over those they can easily achieve themselves by changing a few user settings.

Alot of the reasons and benefits only apply comparing out of the box settings to calibrated settings. Many people may just leave the settings alone out of the box, but most people intreseted in having a calibrated display I would have thought would alter the out of the box settings themselves. Some of the claims making a old display look better, saving on bills or making the display last longer are possible side benefits only and may not be true for all displays.

The only things proffesional calibration gets you with modern displays that you can not easily do yourself is better greyscale color temperature accuracy which is fundemental to good color image quality but does not sound much, and check the gamma presets actual values. If your display and the calibrator are capable color management and gamma correction can be done but both of these are unlikely.

ISF knew there services were on the way out and no longer needed as TV companies built them close to "standards" when consumers caught on. The real calibrators that can calibrate a CRT split from ISF. ISF now resorts to cheap marketing gimmicks, arming Geek Squad with certifcates and deals cut with television manuafcturers to put "ISF" adjustements on sets. Wake up

Completely disagree with this statement.

ISF calibration will never be out, for very high end systems and wealthy consumers these services will always be there. As a matter of fact use to be that case some year back the same as scalers and line doublers that now a days most if not all tvs have where as before very few would even know what those thing were.

As brick and mortar retails seek an advantage over internet retailers I think calibration will become more common in the USA. Since best buy are doing it, how long before their competitors do. The likes of THX must think it is gaining popularity to be increasing their calibration services.

With crt projectors calibration - professional setup was much more neccessary time consuming and complicated. Calibration on new displays is easier - even user controls for rgb bias/gain and some with color management and gamma correction. But the increasing number of user controls that people have no idea what they do, may increase the likelyhood they will want someone else to set it up for them.

In the UK calibration has never been very popular or very well publicised and I doubt it will ever be. It strikes me people view it like coca cola trying to sell purified tap water, people just did not see the point the water was good enough to begin with and it is not from a magic spring. If calibration does not give them an extra box of tricks to stick under the telly they will think they are getting nothing for their money. For calibration to be successful in the UK it would need a day time chat show host to go on about how great it is during prime time tv, demand would then skyrocket.

The problem occurs when people make erroneous claims that their eyes are the equal of expensive equipment when setting up their displays.

The problem occurs when people who just got their first HDTV buy into every marketing gimmick, phony comparison display and listen to SALESMEN. Then think that getting a DLP avatar gives them credibilty. The real problem is when fools say 2008 displays are not close to standards.

I also have to wonder how many here are fighting in favor of calibration that have never paid an ISF calibrator and are considering their self-calibration job a calibrated display? IMO if you've never paid for a calibration you shouldn't encourage others to do so without perhaps explaining why you have decided not to (and I bet in almost all cases cost is the primary reason, that's going to be a very good reason why the OP might not want to pay for such a service either).

For me, I'd rather learn how to do this myself, rather than pay to watch someone else do it.

I do consider mine calibrated, within the limits of the equipment that I am using.

Cost is definitely not the primary reason for me, otherwise, I would have saved a lot of money, and time!

The problem occurs when people who just got their first HDTV buy into every marketing gimmick, phony comparison display and listen to SALESMEN. Then think that getting a DLP avatar gives them credibilty. The real problem is when fools say 2008 displays are not close to standards.

Being close by how much? Even an LG display that come with a THX logo for calibration are still in need of adjustment, per the review in HT mag.

The way the displays are set up in the stores, they are not demonstrating a 'close to standards' viewing option. The buying public in general doesn't know or care that there's a better picture available just by using their remote and actually reading the user manual. Yet they will go ahead and buy that $100.00 6ft NAMEBRAND HDMI cable, probably because if it's priced higher, it's got to be better. It also comes in a real nice looking container.

We here in the forums are a very small slice of people who buy displays and HT equipment who actually want to improve what they have. When you've tried everything, and still don't like the picture, it's time to either get it calibrated or learn how to do it yourself.

The issue here in this thread is when someone who has never actually performed any calibrations, without being able to show measurable results, is telling others that calibrations are not worth the money, because 'they' can calibrate it by eye alone.

Even an LG display that come with a THX logo for calibration are still in need of adjustment, per the review in HT mag.

Well whats that say about THX and THX calibration?
I thought everyone knew THX wasn't much more than a name tag marketing gimmick.
Hey buy our TV its THX certified!! Now you have to hire one of our guys to come calibrate it or its not really THX certified!!
GTFO.....

If you haven't noticed all of the arguments for calibration did say that it wasn't for everyone. There is no disrespect for people who do not calibrate. The problem occurs when people make erroneous claims that their eyes are the equal of expensive equipment when setting up their displays.


Yes, but... Remember regardless of what is proper according to ISF, CIE, etc.. Regardless of what science tells us, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (save the argument's about the science behind attractiveness, I know them... we're talking about the human right of subjectivity and personal preference that will differ from person to person; might I add: thank God we have these differences).

Let's say the owner is willing to pay up to 40% of what he or she spend on the television ($500 first time calibration on a $1200 HDTV as an example.. good averages as most people are spending $400-$600 on first time calibration -and- most consumers are spending $800-$1500 on an HDTV), assuming the calibrator is skilled, his software is bug-free, and his color meter gives proper readings on the target display then post calibration he will have configured the display to meet standards with the goal of making the display more attractive to it's owners.

But if the owner's personal preference lean towards an uncalibrated display then the whole process is a failure. This was not the case a few years back with CRT RP HDTV's, back when the calibrator did a lot more than just color correction. Sadly he has been reduced to just performing that service. Since everyone has been conditioned to the cooler/higher color temps, there is going to be a large group of people who will prefer this. Right or wrong they will be drawn to it and they won't care about your scientific explanation, they won't give even a properly calibrated set the time. Most people do not see the value in this service... Instead of thinking of them in a critical way, I think it would be more productive to reason why they all might have it right...

Getting back my calibration scenario, there's a lot of assumptions going on there. A very large amount of money changing hands for a surgical procedure aimed at taking a consumer from at worst perhaps 90% accurate color out-of-the-box to perhaps at best 99% accurate color post calibration (I think you'll find a good number of modern displays fare better than 90% out-of-the-box. Those with color meters care to prove or disprove this?). If any of those assumptions are wrong then it's possible the owner will walk away with a display with less accurate color (and I've observed 'bad' ISF calibration jobs first hand at local Best Buy store to confirm this is happening!

From an investment stand point, there has to be some equation to represent the benefit of calibration. I would say if you're paying more than 20% of the cost of the television (on a $500 calibration job, that would be a television costing less than $2500) for calibrating it you should perhaps rethink if that 9% accuracy is worth the cost. Obviously if you're buying a $5000 Elite KURO the cost of the calibration is going to be a much smaller percentage of the investment and if you're the type buying such a high-end display probably a very desirable service.

In the days of CRT RP HDTV the calibrator was a a bit like a doctor, performing not only color correction, but fixing all kinds of other problems that just could not be automated on an assembly line. With modern displays, and self-calibration tools, sadly this tech really just doesn't add the value they once did. Yet service fee's haven't really changed.... Their service has been devalued by enhancements in technology; same old story, but one that ultimately benefits the consumer in this case.

Agree, disagree?

Well whats that say about THX and THX calibration?
I thought everyone knew THX wasn't much more than a name tag marketing gimmick.
Hey buy our TV its THX certified!! Now you have to hire one of our guys to come calibrate it or its not really THX certified!!
GTFO.....

Not as bad as ISF settings on video processors when the ISF 2day certification course for calibrators to be able to use the ISF logo does not include how to set it up correctly or what all the setting controls do.

ISF sees their 2 day course and exam as a introduction to the fundementals of calibration which you use as a starting point to pursue more knowledge and experience or as a indepth fast paced rigorous training program, take your pick. Calibration of modern displays is not in my opinion that complicated at least in theory and the 2 day course should be enough to give basic competence. They also get access to the ISF website and forums for service menu access information and help/advice. They should also give you a print out to show you before and after readings so you can see how good the calibration was. I think they also have guide lines or rules on minimum pricing.

THX is a 3 day course and exam, they have to submit their calibrations at least to start with, unsure if they have to submit all calibrations, for approval. So you are guaranteed a certain level of service. Unfortunately THX does not make public what that level of service is (what is a acceptable and what is a unacceptable calibration) The THX course is seen by THX as more advanced than the ISF one, most people taking the THX course have previously done the ISF one, but then ISF has been doing courses longer.

Both ISF and THX do not say what the trainee pass rate is or make past exam paper questions public. So you have no idea how good people have to be to get certified, use their logos. They also do not guarantee or give publicly available minimum accuarcy standards for displays once calibrated by certified calibrators, the display will just be as accurate as the calibrator could get it.

Well whats that say about THX and THX calibration?
I thought everyone knew THX wasn't much more than a name tag marketing gimmick.
Hey buy our TV its THX certified!! Now you have to hire one of our guys to come calibrate it or its not really THX certified!!
GTFO.....

THX certified displays are to have a user mode that is calibrated at the factory to meet the D65 and REC709 specs. No further calibration of that mode should be required.

But if the owner's personal preference lean towards an uncalibrated display then the whole process is a failure.I think there is at least one flaw in this theory. :) As in my case one can learn to appreciate an accurate image. When I first got into home theater (over ten years ago) I thought TV looked like well TV. I never gave it a moment of thought that images could look life-like or even be seen as they were intended.

Luckily Ken Whitcomb lived in my town and I had him calibrate my set (an old 36" Sony CRT). After he finished he asked that I give his settings 30-days and then change anything I wished stating it will take a while to adjust to something so different. Well the first few days were tough as I wanted to turn up the color, pump the contrast and in short turn my TV back into a TV.

But I kept giving it a try and as the days went by I slowly realized the images appeared much more engulfing. I stopped watching TV and started to enter the image's world. None more so than Saving Private Ryan which to this day can still come alive in my mind if given the opportunity.

So like wine, poetry, or any number of other things one can learn an appreciation for an accurate image. Which is a wonderful gift to pass on and one that has increased my entertainment enjoyment for countless hours.

The bottom line is that we have some of the following scenarios...



Some people prefer a display which as been professionally calibrated and offers a picture which is as accurate as possible.
Some people prefer to self calibrate using the proper equipment, as a hobby, which results in a picture which is as accurate as possible based on their skill level and quality of their equipment.
Some people prefer to only use user menu adjustments and products such as DVE to achieve a picture which is as accurate as possible given the limitations of the technique.
Some people prefer to do nothing at all and continue using a vivid or dynamic picture mode.


...and none of them are wrong. To each his own...as long as you aren't attacking others for preferring a more accurate picture. That just doesn't make any sense.

If you can't accept the fact that display calibration is based on actual facts, measurements, and science...you don't belong on a forum dedicated to AV science.

Let's say the owner is willing to pay up to 40% of what he or she spend on the television ($500 first time calibration on a $1200 HDTV as an example.. good averages as most people are spending $400-$600 on first time calibration -and- most consumers are spending $800-$1500 on an HDTV), assuming the calibrator is skilled, his software is bug-free, and his color meter gives proper readings on the target display then post calibration he will have configured the display to meet standards with the goal of making the display more attractive to it's owners.

But if the owner's personal preference lean towards an uncalibrated display then the whole process is a failure.
Luckily, many of the more respectable pro calibrators will be honest with clients and won't push accurate calibration if the owner prefers something other than that.

I prefer your whole outlook on the issue and way of dealing with it. You have an interest in the topic. You respect the honest calibrators. You see both sides of the issue...why someone would and why someone would not want a professional calibration. Luckily, you are among the 99.9% here who also understands what calibration is based on and that it is real.

I understand your argument about color temps. I just don't put much thought into it. I would of course if lived in a different part of the world or had an interest in video from that region however. All the material I watch was authored following a particular standard...so that's the one I pay attention to. It is an interesting topic however and until you came along I hadn't given it much thought. So, thank you for that.

Luckily Ken Whitcomb lived in my town and I had him calibrate my set (an old 36" Sony CRT). After he finished he asked that I give his settings 30-days and then change anything I wished stating it will take a while to adjust to something so different. Well the first few days were tough as I wanted to turn up the color, pump the contrast and in short turn my TV back into a TV.

But I keep giving it a try and as the days went by I slowly realized the images appeared much more engulfing. I stopped watching TV and started to enter the image's world. None more so than Saving Private Ryan which to this day can still come alive in my mind if given the opportunity.

So like wine, poetry, or any number of other things one can learn an appreciation for an accurate image. Which is a wonderful gift to pass on and one that has increased my entertainment enjoyment for countless hours.

Totally agree. I'm lucky also to have Kevin Miller in my area (ISF Founding Member) he calibrated my HITACHI 3 years ago. Best investment ever. My image is so engulfing that til this day I sit in awe sometimes..

I mean how can't you not feel engulfed by images like this: " HALLOWEEN Re-Make Blu Ray"

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/2693/img3396ab6.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img3396ab6.jpg)

Kevin Miller and Ken Witcomb...two of the best in the country.

If you knew anything you would know home video cameras are the only CE devices that currently use xvYCC and Deep Color that most recent HDTV are capable of displaying. Home camcorders can give you BETTER color than anything from broadcast televison or Blu-ray.

Deep Colour requires 10bits per color or 30bits total, no consumer video camera that I am aware of can record 10bit video, only high end pro cameras support 10bit recording. Even if a consumer camera could use 10bit the data rate limits of consumer grade tape and disk formats are so limited the massive compression required to fit 10bit video into the available bandwidth would destroy quality. As it stands tape based HDV has a data rate of 25megabits per second in Mpeg2 and the Mpeg4 based disk and flask memory based systems are restricted to much lower limits. Video is recorded in 8bit with 4:4:2 color (chroma (color) has only half the pixel resolution of Luma), this is done to save on bandwidth.

High end pro cameras use 10bit with 4:4:4 color encoding together with massive data rates, up to 1.5Gigabits per second or more.

Consumer cameras can use xvYCC as it fits into an 8bit data stream, however color management systems and calibration standards of consumer cameras is no where near good enough to make xvYCC useful. Added to that the huge amounts of video compression used by consumer cameras seriously degrades quality and color.

If you want to see the effect of video compression on image quality compare a photo taken with the still mode of a consumer video camera with a frame of video taken of the same scene, some cameras even allow you to take still picture while you are shooting video making comparison very simple.

Marketing features like “Deep Color” and xvYCC will not allow a cheap consumer or pro-sumer camera to deliver quality color accurate images, the camera must be capable of capturing high quality color accurate images to start with.

Yes, but... Remember regardless of what is proper according to ISF, CIE, etc.. Regardless of what science tells us, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (save the argument's about the science behind attractiveness...And unless they are willing to be educated, they will remain in ignorant bliss.

Calibration is a term to get suckers to waste money buying services and/or equipment to try and do it themselves. Todays modern sets come with close enough presets. Calibration had its place 3+ years before manufacturers built in a preset for "torch mode." Now it is mostly snake oil ate up by the same people that think a $300 monster HDMI cable will make their picture look better. This is evident by the fact that ISF now gives cards to anyone from geek squad that pays for their 2 day course. Buy a disc like DVE and see so yourself. I get totaly different settings in the day than compared to at night and end up just sticking close enough to factory presets for movie/cinema that you can't see a difference. If you think Bose and Monster rule than by all means waste money calibrating a modern HDTV. You may be better off spending the money on treatment for OCD.Case in point.

I mean how can't you not feel engulfed by images like this:



Or this :)
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4689/mmmu.jpg


Or rely on tools and data and you might see this :D
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6598/picture0311hq0.jpg

Just for you Zues, looks like that neutral density filter is really screwing up my color. LOL :D


Original image (screen capture from PC)
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7336/leluoriginal.jpg


SXRD photographed with Nikon D90
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7233/lelusxrd.jpg

I think there is at least one flaw in this theory. :) As in my case one can learn to appreciate an accurate image. When I first got into home theater (over ten years ago) I thought TV looked like well TV. I never gave it a moment of thought that images could look life-like or even be seen as they were intended.

Luckily Ken Whitcomb lived in my town and I had him calibrate my set (an old 36" Sony CRT). After he finished he asked that I give his settings 30-days and then change anything I wished stating it will take a while to adjust to something so different. Well the first few days were tough as I wanted to turn up the color, pump the contrast and in short turn my TV back into a TV.

But I kept giving it a try and as the days went by I slowly realized the images appeared much more engulfing. I stopped watching TV and started to enter the image's world. None more so than Saving Private Ryan which to this day can still come alive in my mind if given the opportunity.

So like wine, poetry, or any number of other things one can learn an appreciation for an accurate image. Which is a wonderful gift to pass on and one that has increased my entertainment enjoyment for countless hours.

First of all, great story! I would say you're lucky to have a gifted calibrator in your town and it's great that by waiting as he suggested you found the results to justified your investment.

One thing I would like to add: CRT displays are so bright that a calibrated CRT DirectView sets won't need special lighting consideration post-calibration as rear projection sets will. Do you really recommend someone spending $1200 on a display without the luxury of a trusted calibrator in their city spend $500 (40% of their purchase price) on this service?

It seems to me most people certainly would not want to do that, especially now that we have the Warm temperature setting and other user parameters that help approximate calibration. I'm not going to say adjusting these parameters produces a calibrated display, but they certainly get a consumer much closer than could be obtained on all CRT displays from years past, at least that I'm aware of...

I'm not going to say adjusting these parameters produces a calibrated display, but they certainly get a consumer much closer than could be obtained on all CRT displays from years past, at least that I'm aware of...Not necessarily.
My Epson TW1000 PJ has a colour temp setting, I had it set to 6500k and assumed it was close to D65..........boy was I wrong, it was actually sitting at 4000 Kelvin :eek:

Only way to know for sure is with the proper calibration equipment.

cheers

Just for you Zues, looks like that neutral density filter is really screwing up my color. LOL :D



Those look great.

Completely disagree with this statement.

ISF calibration will never be out, for very high end systems and wealthy consumers these services will always be there. As a matter of fact use to be that case some year back the same as scalers and line doublers that now a days most if not all tvs have where as before very few would even know what those thing were.

History is against you on this.... Back in 2007 when Home Theater magazine reviewed the current Pioneer KURO (non-Elite model mind you) model of that time the reviewer had this to say

"...The Low color temperature option measured so close to the D6500 standard that I did not need to perform any service menu calibrations (see "Measurements"). "

Source:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/1107piokuro6010/

Historically technology arrives expensive in high-end products and then over time becomes more economical to produce and as such it becomes standard on lower-end models while the latest The high-end models gain new features. This is true of technology across the board (think about automatic locks and seat warmers in cars, think about processor speed and preinstalled memory in personal computers, MP3 player features, etc....)

If Pioneer was achieving near D65 accuracy on a mid-range $2700 display in 2007 I would not be surprised if it becomes common place within a few years on displays costing much less. If you're thinking of pursing a career as a professional calibrator this is something worth noting.

History is against you on this.... Back in 2007 when Home Theater magazine reviewed the current Pioneer KURO (non-Elite model mind you) model of that time the reviewer had this to say

"...The Low color temperature option measured so close to the D6500 standard that I did not need to perform any service menu calibrations (see "Measurements"). "

Source:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/1107piokuro6010/

Historically technology arrives expensive in high-end products and then over time becomes more economical to produce and as such it becomes standard on lower-end models while the latest The high-end models gain new features. This is true of technology across the board (think about automatic locks and seat warmers in cars, think about processor speed and preinstalled memory in personal computers, MP3 player features, etc....)

If Pioneer was achieving near D65 accuracy on a mid-range $2700 display in 2007 I would not be surprised if it becomes common place within a few years on displays costing much less. If you're thinking of pursing a career as a professional calibrator this is something worth noting.

Unfortunately, this prediction has not come to pass as yet.

Here you can see 5 years ago in 2004 Kevin Miller upset because a no name HDTV was close to specs which is bad for his calibration buisness.
Pro HDTV calibration: rip-off or money well spent? (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5153490-1.html)

Just the other day, I passed our A/V room, and there was Miller standing in front of a 42-inch ViewSonic plasma, chaffing, "You son of a bitch." I thought he was having trouble getting into the special technician's service menu and asked him what was wrong. It turned out that something right was bothering him: one of the set's preset picture modes was actually producing a good picture.

"This is bad for business," Miller said. "Bad for my business."

He does warn that the industry is rife with charlatans. "A lot of the clients I deal with are pretty clueless about home theater, and some jerks out there take advantage of that."

According to Miller, "Some companies are making more of an effort to get it right out of the box than others--or to at least make it easy for qualified technicians to calibrate the set."

In fact, not long after Miller reviewed Hitachi's 50V500 for us, the company hired him for a short consulting gig to educate product managers on how Hitachi could make their sets even better. In other words, they brought Miller in to tell them how they could help put him out of business.

Here you can see 5 years ago in 2004 Kevin Miller upset because a no name HDTV was close to specs which is bad for his calibration buisness.
Yes, he was so upset he decided to help them.

Bottom line is that even 5 years later, very few HDTV's are calibrated correctly out of the box, and very few end users have the experience and equipment to do it correctly.

That is precisely what I mean by ignorant bliss.

Yes, he was so upset he decided to help them.

Bottom line is that even 5 years later, very few HDTV's are calibrated correctly out of the box, and very few end users have the experience and equipment to do it correctly.

That is precisely what I mean by ignorant bliss.

Well I used AVS and other resources to do research before I purchased my last set to find one that is so close to specs with many user adjustable parameters that a professional calibration is not needed.

The fact is if their was not manufacturers that made and strived to make accurate tv's, nobody would buy their junk. Well, maybe some. The top flat panel manufacturers sony-samsung-pioneer- even lg now- all come very accurate with just a few tweaks. Manufacturers have gotten much better at this. Some have been doing it for years like sony, maybe throwing out a dud here or there. That said, no matter how good the manufacturer makes them, color wise, they are still in 'torch' mode imo.

Well I used AVS and other resources to do research before I purchased my last set to find one that is so close to specs with many user adjustable parameters that a professional calibration is not needed.

...in your opinion. You forgot to mention that.

The fact is if their was not manufacturers that made and strived to make accurate tv's, nobody would buy their junk. Well, maybe some. The top flat panel manufacturers sony-samsung-pioneer- even lg now- all come very accurate with just a few tweaks. Manufacturers have gotten much better at this. Some have been doing it for years like sony, maybe throwing out a dud here or there. That said, no matter how good the manufacturer makes them, color wise, they are still in 'torch' mode imo.
No matter how good the manufacturer makes them...improvements can still be made with proper calibration.

Well I used AVS and other resources to do research before I purchased my last set to find one that is so close to specs with many user adjustable parameters that a professional calibration is not needed.Great the set is close, that's probably as good as many end users would expect. I'd leave it as is. It's unlikely you can make it better by eyeballing it.

Just for you Zues, looks like that neutral density filter is really screwing up my color


Did you remove it? :D

No matter how good the manufacturer makes them...improvements can still be made with proper calibration.


Sure, a minor tweak to the white balance, or finding that cms control that improves the picture, but the main thing is dropping color, which not many will do. Can you say oversaturated?

Sure, a minor tweak to the white balance, or finding that cms control that improves the picture, but the main thing is dropping color, which not many will do. Can you say oversaturated?
Before you can judge saturation....you must first understand it. This is where you have failed.

Before you can judge saturation....you must first understand it. This is where you have failed.


Lmao.

Lmao.
^^^ Ignorance is bliss I suppose. ^^^

^^^ Ignorance is bliss I suppose. ^^^

Then Zeus must be beatific...

^^^ Ignorance is bliss I suppose. ^^^


You got that right DLP fan boy.

I am always amazed and amused when people come to a forum dedicated to AV science, but are in fact opposed to science.

You got that right DLP fan boy.
I am a fanboy of any display tech. Get it right.

I am always amazed and amused when people come to a forum dedicated to AV science, but are in fact opposed to science.

Whatever you are doing is not science.

I am a fanboy


No need to tell me.

No need to tell me.

Ahh...the juvenile practice of editing my posts when quoting them.

Now for the correct comment:

I am a fanboy of any display tech. Get it right.

This is going nowhere, topic closed.