Check this previous post in the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15713188#post15713188 .

Is it worth adjusting 2:35 letterbox bars to the 10% level?

If they can't be masked, I would want them to match the TV's screen frame.

Check this previous post in the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15713188#post15713188 .

im not very technical with this stuff and i dont really get what ure saying in that post. I just want to know since i just received the hd basics dvd and i still dont have my idealume yet, can i still start to calibrate my tv in total darkness. When i do receive my IL will the recalibrating process be completly different from the one i did without the light the first time.
Cause calibration is a time consuming process and i dont want to have to redo it when i receive the bias light, so my question in all this is the following:
do u think I should just wait to receive the light first and then start calibrating or go ahead and start now without the light?

My pz800 is the 58 inch model, and the wall behind the television is green. With the bias lighting I do notice less eye fatigue, but it seems to make me notice the deficiency of my black levels more than if I had no bias lighting. This may be more of the limitations of my set than the bias lighting, but the not-so perfect black levels bother me with the bias lighting on. I admit that I might have to let my eyes adjust to the bias lighting because I had to do the same thing with my calibration.

go ahead and start now without the light?

The referenced post says
1) Calibrate (or adjust) with the bias light off.
2) Adjust bias level.
3) Re-check black level (because the ambient illumination has changed).

So you need a bias light before you can do two and three. I'd wait and do everything at the same time but it's up to you since the bias isn't going to change the appropriate white level, grayscale, gamma or color adjustments.

im not very technical with this stuff and i dont really get what ure saying in that post. I just want to know since i just received the hd basics dvd and i still dont have my idealume yet, can i still start to calibrate my tv in total darkness. When i do receive my IL will the recalibrating process be completly different from the one i did without the light the first time.
Cause calibration is a time consuming process and i dont want to have to redo it when i receive the bias light, so my question in all this is the following:
do u think I should just wait to receive the light first and then start calibrating or go ahead and start now without the light?
Perhaps you failed to understand the post I linked to because you didn't read the question it was responding to. The question was posed in the post directly above. Here's the question:
Hi, just for clarification, do I need to calibrate my HDTV with the Bias Lighting on or off? I'm thinking on because that is how I am going to view the HDTV.
For review and clarity, here's my answer:
Calibrate without the light in a dark room. Then adjust the light to 10% of peak white on the screen using a bias light level test pattern. Very slight adjustment of black level might be needed after the bias light is adjusted.
Perhaps I need to be less "technical."
"Calibrate without the light...." means: use your new 'HD Basics' Blu-ray Disc to adjust your TV without the Ideal-Lume on.
"....in a dark room." means: turn all lights off in the room and have no daylight or adjacent room light illuminating the area either.
"Then adjust the light....." means: after the TV is adjusted for viewing in the dark, the Ideal-Lume itself can be adjusted for the correct level of illumination it shines on the wall behind the TV.
"....to 10% of peak white on the screen...." means: the amount of illumination on the wall should be only 1/10th as bright as the brightest white the TV has been adjusted to (by using your new calibration disc to adjust the TV's contrast control).
"...using a bias light level test pattern." means: your new calibration disc includes a test pattern for adjusting bias lights. Select that test pattern, display it on the TV screen, turn on the Ideal-Lume, then adjust the light until the amount of light on the wall looks similar to the amount of light depicted in the pattern on the TV screen.
"Very slight adjustment of black level might be needed after the bias light is adjusted." means: you might need to adjust the 'brightness' control (more correctly known as the black level control) on the TV after you finish installing and adjusting the Ideal-Lume. Remember, this is still in the context of viewing in a darkened room.
....my question in all this is the following:
do u think I should just wait to receive the light first and then start calibrating or go ahead and start now without the light?
Start without the light.

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

My pz800 is the 58 inch model, and the wall behind the television is green. With the bias lighting I do notice less eye fatigue, but it seems to make me notice the deficiency of my black levels more than if I had no bias lighting. This may be more of the limitations of my set than the bias lighting, but the not-so perfect black levels bother me with the bias lighting on. I admit that I might have to let my eyes adjust to the bias lighting because I had to do the same thing with my calibration.
Double check that you have actually implemented the product correctly. I can't tell from your post if you have followed all the instructions completely.

I ordered an Ideal Lume Standard for my Samsung 61 LED DLP. I also just removed my old wallpaper from behind the TV as we are painting the walls. My wife isn't thrilled about the idea of a neutral gray color on the wall so its looking like some type of white or cream is the color desired. To get the best use of the backllighting, would anyone recomend a white/cream or lighter color to use, in other words, besides gray what would work best for the backlighting? much thanks

in other words, besides gray what would work best for the backlighting? much thanks

Shades of gray range from black to white.

Go here (http://www.cinemaquestinc.com/ive.htm) and search for Munsell.

I ordered an Ideal Lume Standard for my Samsung 61 LED DLP. I also just removed my old wallpaper from behind the TV as we are painting the walls. My wife isn't thrilled about the idea of a neutral gray color on the wall so its looking like some type of white or cream is the color desired. To get the best use of the backllighting, would anyone recomend a white/cream or lighter color to use, in other words, besides gray what would work best for the backlighting? much thanks
Stick as close to neutral as possible. As you move farther away from neutral, color perception is affected more. Just remember, neutral goes with every color scheme. There can be no color conflict with neutral. Patterns and textures composed of neutrals can look much more interesting than what many people picture in their minds when considering a gray wall (battleship, prison cell, concrete wall, etc.).

I have been evaluating a DIY setup with a gooseneck lamp and a proper 6500k daylight bulb. Because my TV is in a corner, the light seems to envelop the room. The color seems OK by the DVE standard. The walls are off white. I still get a bit of eye strain as I did with no bias lighting.

If anyone has a similar setup and have tried the same DIY arrangement and did the subsequently went with the Ideal Lume, what was your experience? I am inclined to go for what is best, and Ideal Lume seems to be the way to go.

I just don't want to make a change and end up with the same result. Comments?

Who needs that much velcro?


Why would anyone need that much velcro? These guys sell it by the roll and is
hook and look and velcro the same thing?

I'm having a bit of a challenge adjusting my ideal lume standard. I'm trying to match it with the DVE test pattern for maximum ambient light. It seems like the reference point on the screen for 10 percent of maximum output, is pretty bright. I would think it should look more like a 10 ire pattern, but it's brighter than that.

I also think I have two challenges, one is my tv is about 3-4 feet off the back wall so the light really spreads evenly across the whole back wall, rather than just haloing the tv. Secondly, the walls are unfortunately not a neutral color, kind of a paprika. It's just hard to visually match it to the screen, and it really does light up the whole back wall. Any tips or ideas?

The 'DVE' test pattern is correct. 10 IRE is not 10% of visible light. Illuminating the whole wall is fine.

Got the Ideal-Lume standard setup today for my Sammy 61A 750 LED DLP, because the tv sits about a foot+ away from the wall on a stand, when I turn the light on it's lighting up the entire back wall rather than the "halo" effect I see on some of the pics from the thread. I have a flat cream color wall and I've tried different positions with the light, but because the TV isn't up against the wall the light projects more.

Is this OK to receive the best use of the light? I thought about mounting the light onto a wide piece of cardboard and mounting that against the wall to create the "halo" effect and lessen the projected light against the entire wall?

There's nothing wrong with having the whole wall illuminated.

any a suggestions. my tv is set in front a window in my apart. ( that the best spot for my surround sound setup). but i have a black curtain behind it to keep out most of the light during the day( working well). what kind or how would i set up any light behind my tv. my tv is a 52in and the window is not as wide my tv. the tv has about 5-6 of wall and either side behind it. im wondering by placing lighting behind i dont think it would spread evenly with the curtain not being flat. HELP!!!!

If I'm understanding what you have attempted to say, you will still get plenty of benefit from a single bias light. It may help to move your TV a little bit farther out from the curtain.

Hello, everyone!

Here's a bias lighting dilemma that I haven't seen yet in all these postings (...and there are MANY!:o). Given a wall cabinet installation that limits how wide a new TV can be, is it better to go with the largest possible screen or to go smaller in order to allow for bias lighting on the sides? A related issue is whether or not the TV should be elevated within the cabinet to allow for bias lighting along the bottom edge. For the benefit of others who may have a similar situation, please respond with some general suggestions; but I'll also give you my specific concerns, as follows (just in case you would like to help me out even more!). Thanks in advance.

Lynn
My details:
I am planning on replacing my Sony 37" XBR tube (CRT) TV with a new LCD HDTV, and I need to decide how large I can go. Unfortunately, the only place the TV can go is back into the existing built-in cabinets, which allow only a maximum width of 49" (42.5" as-is, but I can remove the slide-in doors to get some extra width). I haven't decided for sure on the TV, but I'm looking closely at the 46" Samsung. This set is 44.5" wide, allowing only about 2.25" on each side for bias lighting. The 40" Samsung is 39.2" wide, allowing for more lighting, but much less viewing "real estate." What would you do?

A second issue is the cabinet color...they're DARK (cherry wood). It may be a losing battle to try and convince anyone around here that the insides need to be painted a nice, neutral gray! Will I gain a whole lot by trying to change the color,or should I save that fight for another day? Thanks again for listening to my problems. I feel better already, just getting them off my chest.

BTW, if you've read this far, I forgot to mention that I'm also going to need your help with moving the old Sony out of here, because that sucker must weigh over a hundred pounds!

Get the larger TV then just do the best you can with ambient lighting. Perhaps there is space between the top of the cabinet and the ceiling. Just providing SOME supplemental illumination within your field of view when watching the TV at night will help. Using the right color of light and keeping it behind the frontal plane of the screen are beneficial as well.

Photos of the cabinet in the room would help. What would look great is centering the new TV in the cavity so that space above and below are equal and equal space on the left and right sides. That might require installing a false back (closer to the front of the cabinet face) with a wall mount bracket instead of using a pedestal base.

If you end up with minimal space around the TV, it's likely the color of the interior surfaces won't be visible much anyway without illumination. You can consider covering the interior surfaces behind the TV with a darker shade of gray, which should appear black during the day, when the bias lighting wouldn't necessarily be used. Bias light would still illuminate the darker gray, just as it would the dark cherry color, but now it would be neutral instead of having an orange character.

That Sony is probably closer to 200 pounds. Have fun.

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Thanks, Alan. Assuming I can win the battle to lose the cabinet doors, I'll follow your advice and install a false backboard for wall-mounting the new 46" TV. Hopefully, I should be able to figure out the best depth/setback, considering that I'll also need to re-do the shelves for the accessories. A new Blu-ray disc player is also on my Menu, so I'm excited about making all the changes.

I remember reading somewhere here about the paint specs, so I'll try to find them and paint the backboard (and maybe the sides) accordingly. I'll also use one of the Idealume fixtures, as folks here have recommended, and try to follow your excellent instructions for adjusting the light output.

Next I have to decide on the TV itself. I haven't visited those forums for awhile, so I'll go see if the Samsung is still the top recommendation for my size. Finally comes the fun of shopping for the TV, including installation, warranty and calibration, but I suppose the members here still know best about that, too.

In any case, thanks again for your help.

Lynn
PS: I couldn't quickly see how to imbed a photo with this posting, so my cabinet photos are within the attached Word doc. Later on, I'll show you the end results.

The new Panasonic G10 series plasmas look very promising. They have a 46" model. I prefer plasma over LCD for overall image fidelity. Match a photo gray card or maybe a little darker in your case. Flat latex should suffice, or fabric perhaps.

The new Panasonic G10 series plasmas look very promising. They have a 46" model. I prefer plasma over LCD for overall image fidelity. Match a photo gray card or maybe a little darker in your case. Flat latex should suffice, or fabric perhaps.
If you have not purchased a TV as yet, have to agree with Alan's advice on selecting a plasma over an LCD. While the soon-to-be-extinct Pioneer Kuro is the best out there, they do not make anything smaller than 50". The 46" Panasonics are nice alternatives and having installed several of those for friends they are a great value.

Who needs that much velcro?


Why would anyone need that much velcro? These guys sell it by the roll and is
hook and look and velcro the same thing?

Velcro is a trade name. Hook and Loop I believe is generic and describes how it works (sometimes / kind of). There are also different types. Some need 2 different parts (a hook piece and a loop piece). Some types can stick to themselves. Cable organizers have part "A" on one side and "B" on the other so it can wrap around and stick to the backside of itself.

I prefer Samsung LCD's LN 6 series and 8 series over plasma....i went from panny plasma to these ....plasma cant even compare in image quality. the glossy screen makes ALL the difference...not even the same as matte LCD's TOTALLY DIFFERENT tv's. JMO

for anyone wondering i bought these 6500k LED light rope.....from here: http://www.orangetreetrade.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=417

looks AMAZING and does not even get warm.. my wife said i was crazy for getting this and now she is a believer. I have a 46" and the 10 ft was great, especially for me with a 1.25" wall clearance. i would take a pic but no digi camera except my phone and it wont show up good. I also have a slate/dark blue wall....looks kick arse!!!

See post #1469 in this thread. That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition. At least we're back to the topic of this thread.

See post #1469 in this thread. That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition. At least we're back to the topic of this thread.

Your post in 1469 references "blue" and 13000K. In the information from the link provided, they reference "white", and 6500K. How do you get to your conclusion?

Here is the info from the link;

"Pure white LED, with color temperature 6500K, is similar to cool fluorescent white but shaper. It is manufactured by InGaN technology which is trustable and sophisticated, producing the exact white color we expect."

How do you get to your conclusion?
By studying human perceptual factors as they relate to video imaging, researching consumer lighting solutions for over a decade, understanding that inaccurate claims of color temperature are rampant across that industry (especially among Chinese LED suppliers), ordering a sample of the product from the company for testing, then measuring the illumination with a spectroradiometer in lab conditions.

By studying human perceptual factors as they relate to video imaging, researching consumer lighting solutions for over a decade, understanding that inaccurate claims of color temperature are rampant across that industry (especially among Chinese LED suppliers), ordering a sample of the product from the company for testing, then measuring the illumination with a spectroradiometer in lab conditions.

I wasn't questioning your credentials, simply asking how you reached the conclusion that the referenced rope lighting was 13000k or twice the 6500k advertised by this vendor. Looks like their claim is inaccurate at best.

In your post 1469 you did not state that you had "purchased and tested" their product. What you said was, "Even the "white" LED option from orangetreetrade has been measured to be about 13000K."

You asked me how I "got to" such a conclusion. I gave you a comprehensive yet concise answer. Those points are not my credentials. They are all the basic steps that brought me to my conclusions and stated analysis.

You asked me how I "got to" such a conclusion. I gave you a comprehensive yet concise answer. Those points are not my credentials. They are all the basic steps that brought me to my conclusions and stated analysis.

Your conclusion was, "That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition."

The last statement you made in your reply to my post, was how you reached your conclusion; "ordering a sample of the product from the company for testing, then measuring the illumination with a spectroradiometer in lab conditions."

The rest of your statement; "By studying human perceptual factors as they relate to video imaging, researching consumer lighting solutions for over a decade, understanding that inaccurate claims of color temperature are rampant across that industry (especially among Chinese LED suppliers)," is more about you, not any testing that led to your conclusion.

I have read through this thread and you have provided valuable information the subject of bias lighting. You have a vested interest in this discussion, so I hope any conclusions you reach are not self serving.......... Nuff Said.

I read the #1469 post , which may or may not be accurate ..personally i think it looks awesome and i have a very dark wall behind it. As far as the 6500K being accurate to cinemaquest specs is fine and dandy , but for me i needed it for reduced eye strain. I think it looks amazing and i have found from years in these types of audio and visual forums is this..its up to the individual. i for instance HATE most of the preferred HDTV calibration settings on my model of TV and have found i like it the way i like it with the colors to POP. where most like a more drab picture..no thanks. I also believe that my LCD looks better than many plasmas out there as i had a panasonic and most of my friends have plasmas and they seem to prefer my GLossy screen Samsung LCD makes theirs look bad. it has same vibrant glossy plasma like screen but sharper detail..truly must be seen to appreciated especially the Samsung TOC 800's and 46 and 50 650's...AGAIN personal preference which is why buy and use what you think looks good... so if you are looking to reduce eyes strain and get a nice glow, and have a flush wall mount and are not extremely ANAL about specs....lol then this is a good option.

The specs aren't my company's. They are the entire video production world's. I am simply an advocate for reference quality in video. There are consumers (especially in this forum) who appreciate image fidelity, who make the extra effort to align their display system according to industry standards and best practices. Then there are seemingly the majority who prefer their own individual concept of picture quality. This forum was founded with an appreciation for imaging science, hence its name. Along the way it has become populated by plenty of members who find it appealing to diminish such appreciation for technical precision, faithfulness and excellence. You are free to consider such appreciation laughable. Perhaps you would find this other "sticky thread" helpful: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021933 .

Your conclusion was, "That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition."

The last statement you made in your reply to my post, was how you reached your conclusion; "ordering a sample of the product from the company for testing, then measuring the illumination with a spectroradiometer in lab conditions."

The rest of your statement; "By studying human perceptual factors as they relate to video imaging, researching consumer lighting solutions for over a decade, understanding that inaccurate claims of color temperature are rampant across that industry (especially among Chinese LED suppliers)," is more about you, not any testing that led to your conclusion.

I have read through this thread and you have provided valuable information the subject of bias lighting. You have a vested interest in this discussion, so I hope any conclusions you reach are not self serving.......... Nuff Said.
Sorry about dashing your hopes, but my conclusions are largely self-serving. Not just because I manufacture technically superior solutions for videophiles, but because I AM a videophile and have an abiding personal interest in imaging excellence. My contributions to this forum go far beyond this bias lighting discussion, because I am an imaging science advocate for the elevation and education of the home theater community at large. I enjoy helping others in response to the help others have given me over the years.

The "rest of my statement" described specifically the process through which anyone may learn to discriminate between poor ambient lighting practices and that which authentically enhances video viewing. Also, how I concluded that what I measured was excessively blue in spectrum, then also why LED claims of 6500K should be suspect and needful of independent verification.

What you consider is 'enough said' about this topic differs from my perspective. Potentially hundreds of forum members are subscribed to this thread, and it has been made a "sticky" because of the ongoing educational value within it. It is read by many thousands of people other than you and I. I endeavor to be clear, informative, and precise when adding to the thread. When I see misleading statements, I submit corrections. Why do you persist in challenging and misrepresenting what I've contributed in this discussion? Am I right in perceiving a bit of defensiveness and cynicism in your attempted intervention?

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Just a reminder that whatever your personal preference and even if you don't find the often accepted assertions about the CinemaQuest products to be as precise or specific as you might like this is the 6500 thread. If you have some facts, tech, science or even informed opinion about standards based bias lighting then please share but if you want to share other things then there are better threads to be found or started.

Am I right in perceiving a bit of defensiveness and cynicism in your attempted intervention?

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate
"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


Why is asking a question about your conclusion defensive and cynical? You are the "expert", on this subject, and I am a novice, trying to learn. My post stated that I have learned a lot from reading your posts. My "nuff said", has nothing to do with this thread. It was regarding the subject of your "conclusion".

I don't know what the hell you mean by. "attempted intervention". Since when is asking a question in a public forum an intervention? Who is being defensive? This forum is for experts, novices and those in between. Because you are the expert, it doesn't mean this thread is your personal sandbox, and questions about your conclusion become "intervention".

I wasn't questioning your credentials
Where did you find that I was suggesting such a thing? This appeared to me to be a defensive response.

You have a vested interest in this discussion, so I hope any conclusions you reach are not self serving
What's wrong with any conclusion being self serving? This statement of yours was not a question and appeared cynical to me.

Your sudden entrance into the discussion about boyo3221's LED back light recommendation appeared to turn confrontational for no particular reason. I can accept that you weren't intervening on anyone's behalf. It's evident we just don't understand one another very well.

I don't lay any claim to the thread, but the topic is my chosen field of interest and study. Until such a day that I would be blocked from contributing, I'll maintain a subscription to it and comment when I perceive a need. Perhaps we can have a more congenial dialog in the future.

[QUOTE=GeorgeAB;16085725]


Your sudden entrance into the discussion about boyo3221's LED back light recommendation appeared to turn confrontational for no particular reason. I can accept that you weren't intervening on anyone's behalf. It's evident we just don't understand one another very well.



What "sudden entrance" did I make. BOYO posted that he was very happy with his rope lighting solution. You replied to his post, stating; "That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition.

I didn't make a "sudden appearence", by jumping from behind a black curtain, I simply asked how you reached the conclusion that the advertised 6500k product became a 13000k product.

I guess I should ask the question to Orangetree, since it is them who are misrepresenting their product, not you. At least BOYO is happy.

[QUOTE=GeorgeAB;16085725]


Your sudden entrance into the discussion about boyo3221's LED back light recommendation appeared to turn confrontational for no particular reason. I can accept that you weren't intervening on anyone's behalf. It's evident we just don't understand one another very well.



What "sudden entrance" did I make. BOYO posted that he was very happy with his rope lighting solution. You replied to his post, stating; "That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition.

I didn't make a "sudden appearence", by jumping from behind a black curtain, I simply asked how you reached the conclusion that the advertised 6500k product became a 13000k product.

I guess I should ask the question to Orangetree, since it is them who are misrepresenting their product, not you. At least BOYO is happy.
This thread is not about being "happy"... it is about attaining lighting conditions that match the standard that video content was authored. The subject can be very "dry" and at times difficult to follow.

I keep an eye on this thread and see the regular challenges to Alan's information perceived as "self serving" due to the product his company offers. Even if he does benefit directly or not, the science of what he is attempting to educate us on is not of his making. It is what the industries use to master video; like it or not. If someone elects to ignore the "facts" in favor of personal preference - that is okay. Just don't expect to achieve the optimal results.

(and, yes, I elected to purchase, install, and use the Ideal-lume product behind my 60" Kuro panel after researching in and out of this thread - not just taking Alan's word on it.)

[QUOTE=GeorgeAB;16085725]


Your sudden entrance into the discussion about boyo3221's LED back light recommendation appeared to turn confrontational for no particular reason. I can accept that you weren't intervening on anyone's behalf. It's evident we just don't understand one another very well.



What "sudden entrance" did I make. BOYO posted that he was very happy with his rope lighting solution. You replied to his post, stating; "That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition.

I didn't make a "sudden appearence", by jumping from behind a black curtain, I simply asked how you reached the conclusion that the advertised 6500k product became a 13000k product.

I guess I should ask the question to Orangetree, since it is them who are misrepresenting their product, not you. At least BOYO is happy.
I'm in favor of moving on from this. We aren't communicating very successfully about this incident and it's long past becoming tedious. At least we have video standards that can be agreed upon. That is their intended purpose and benefit.

[QUOTE=rstand;16086860]
This thread is not about being "happy"... it is about attaining lighting conditions that match the standard that video content was authored. The subject can be very "dry" and at times difficult to follow.

I keep an eye on this thread and see the regular challenges to Alan's information perceived as "self serving" due to the product his company offers. Even if he does benefit directly or not, the science of what he is attempting to educate us on is not of his making. It is what the industries use to master video; like it or not. If someone elects to ignore the "facts" in favor of personal preference - that is okay. Just don't expect to achieve the optimal results.

(and, yes, I elected to purchase, install, and use the Ideal-lume product behind my 60" Kuro panel after researching in and out of this thread - not just taking Alan's word on it.)

Jeez Duck, lighten up sorry I used the word HAPPY. You don't know whether BOYO's setup is ideal, nor do I. I am doing the same research as you did, and will very likely end up with the Ideal-Lume behind my panel.

That said, I am not naive enough to believe there are not other lighting alternatives that will also provide "optimal results".

[QUOTE=rstand;16086860]
I'm in favor of moving on from this. We aren't communicating very successfully about this incident and it's long past becoming tedious. At least we have video standards that can be agreed upon. That is their intended purpose and benefit.

We can agree to agree on this.:)

[QUOTE=rstand;16086860]
This thread is not about being "happy"... it is about attaining lighting conditions that match the standard that video content was authored. The subject can be very "dry" and at times difficult to follow.


(and, yes, I elected to purchase, install, and use the Ideal-lume product behind my 60" Kuro panel after researching in and out of this thread - not just taking Alan's word on it.)

So how do you like having 5800K bias lighting behind your Kuro instead of 6500K bias lighting?

What product are you providing, BeachComber?

I recently purchased a 67" Samsung (hl67a750) and after some tweaking am completely satisfied with my purchase.

I will be adding some bias lighting. It will either be one or two gooseneck lamps or one or two 18" fluorescent bulbs.

My question is, with a TV this size, is two way too much, or reasonable?

Thank you.

What product are you providing, BeachComber?

The one he stated he was using


(and, yes, I elected to purchase, install, and use the Ideal-lume product behind my 60" Kuro panel after researching in and out of this thread - not just taking Alan's word on it.)

I recently purchased a 67" Samsung (hl67a750) and after some tweaking am completely satisfied with my purchase.

I will be adding some bias lighting. It will either be one or two gooseneck lamps or one or two 18" fluorescent bulbs.

My question is, with a TV this size, is two way too much, or reasonable?

Thank you.

I would start with one, Measure against the 10% standard on the DVE disc, (do a search of this thread), and go from there. Make sure the bulbs are 6500K and of sufficient wattage.

Your sudden entrance into the discussion about boyo3221's LED back light recommendation appeared to turn confrontational for no particular reason. I can accept that you weren't intervening on anyone's behalf. It's evident we just don't understand one another very well.



What "sudden entrance" did I make. BOYO posted that he was very happy with his rope lighting solution. You replied to his post, stating; "That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition.

I didn't make a "sudden appearence", by jumping from behind a black curtain, I simply asked how you reached the conclusion that the advertised 6500k product became a 13000k product.

I guess I should ask the question to Orangetree, since it is them who are misrepresenting their product, not you. At least BOYO is happy.

Regardless of what anyone else has told you, this product is close to 6500K out of the box. It looks much better than the Chryon LED which is about 1000K over 6500K.

Even though it is close to 6500K, its not perfect by any means as the Spectral Balance is rather uneven and the RGB balance is off.

The other unknown is how long it lasts at 6500K before the doping applied to the LEDs wears off - as does all LEDs to achieve 6500K.

As can be seen by Y, its the most dim in terms of light output of all the options listed thus far (which is good for bias lighting).

Regardless, its certainly is NOT 13000K as some people have claimed in recent posts.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4058/orangetreeledropelights.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orangetreeledropelights.jpg)

Photoshop is nifty. Provide some verified scientific proof of your claims.

Thanks for the reply, Beach, looks like the veracity of your information is being questioned!!

Thanks for the reply, Beach, looks like the veracity of your information is being questioned!!

Corwin is the real troll who refuses to accept any scientific fact except for those associated with a company in question as can be seen from his past posts. If a Company says it about their product, its true in eyes.

He is a classic example of what went wrong in DC and Wall Street because the lemmings followed blindly.

Yet, as he does not believe that the bias light he purchased is not D65, he continues to make up responses that results are a results of photoshop and even conveniently overlooks posts concerning the same:


Sample to sample swings in color from our various lamps over the years have ranged about +/- 500K. Several independent readings from customers, in several nations, have reported better results than yours. I have seen readings similar to yours in some random samples. The exception has been the lamp we use in our Ideal-Lume Pro model. It's much more precise and consistent.

What instrument did you use, with what methodology, and under what ambient conditions? If you can find any tolerances stated in the technical literature for bias lighting, I would be happy to have the information. The closest I've come to anything is from the companion document, SMPTE RP167-A.14, which only states tolerances for SMPTE C primaries being +/- 0.005 x/y. Our Pro model performs within those tolerances from D65.

As was noted earlier, I had a regular IL which measured between 5800-5900K that had been on for roughly 1500 hours.

A brand new IL Standard was tested and the results where very spot on the D65. However, within 100 hours it had fallen 100K and in less than 500 hours it was well below 6000K.

I have now seen and recorded the same results on 4 different IL purchased at random times over the past 12 months.

JRCorwin is apparently mad that someone got something that was more accurate than he did for a cheaper price.

He didn't pay a higher price. He spent $20. He paid less for an inferior product. Basically, you get what you pay for. Another $40 for the Ideal-Lume would be a wise choice and investment.

Corwin is the real troll who refuses to accept any scientific fact except for those associated with a company in question as can be seen from his past posts. If a Company says it about their product, its true in eyes.

He is a classic example of what went wrong in DC and Wall Street because the lemmings followed blindly.

Yet, as he does not believe that the bias light he purchased is not D65, he continues to make up responses that results are a results of photoshop and even conveniently overlooks posts concerning the same:



As was noted earlier, I had a regular IL which measured between 5800-5900K that had been on for roughly 1500 hours.

A brand new IL Standard was tested and the results where very spot on the D65. However, within 100 hours it had fallen 100K and in less than 500 hours it was well below 6000K.

I have now seen and recorded the same results on 4 different IL purchased at random times over the past 12 months.


Yet again, what scientific facts have you offered? You have offered no facts...none...zilch. You have offered mere theory. Just some random screen caps which have not been verified and tests which which were conducted under unknown conditions/circumstances. It's likely that your testing ability and lack of knowledge on the issue are to blame for your test results.

We know who supports the Ideal-Lume claims:

Professional client list: the National Institute for Standards and Technologies(NIST); the Imaging Science Foundation(ISF); Joe Kane Productions; Display Mate Technologies; CNET Labs; Stewart Filmscreen; the Metropolitan Museum or Art; Industrial Light and Magic(ILM); THX, Ltd.; Deluxe; E-Film; Universal Studios; CinRam; Electronic Arts(EA); Image Entertainment; Radical Games; Factor5; High Moon Studios; Zombie Studios; Deluxe Digital Studios; Microsoft Corp; Audyssey Laboratories.Who supports your claims?

Your "facts" have been proven to be false before. Flaking LED's?

JRCorwin is apparently mad that someone got something that was more accurate than he did for a cheaper price.According to whom exactly? Some random person on a message board with test results that have not been verified. Keep trying...

Yet again, what scientific facts have you offered? You have offered no facts...none...zilch. You have offered mere theory. Just some random screen caps which have not been verified and tests which which were conducted under unknown conditions/circumstances.

We know who supports the Ideal-Lume claims:

Who supports your claims?



As noted above, GeorgeAB admitted he had seen similar results.

Furthermore, those listed above support the $300 PRO IL, not the $40 version that you and others are buying.



Your "facts" have been proven to be false before. Flaking LED's?

According to whom exactly? Some random person on a message board with test results that have not been verified. Keep trying...

I guess you think that ghbliss and Spectracal are just random people and businesses on message boards?:rolleyes:

As noted above, GeorgeAB admitted he had seen similar results.

Furthermore, those listed above support the $300 PRO IL, not the $40 version that you and others are buying.



I guess you think that ghbliss and Spectracal are just random people on message boards?:rolleyes:
...deflecting the attention away from your own claims I see. :rolleyes: Predictable. You tend to make wild claims, yet lack the proper information to back them up. Reminds of the flaking LED's issue again.

Note: I never mentioned a particular model. I didn't realize I would have to point out something to you that is so simple.

jrcorwin

I guess you think that ghibliss and Spectracal are just random people on message boards?...deflecting the attention away from your own claims I see. Predictable. You tend to make wild claims, yet lack the proper information to back them up. Reminds of the flaking LED's issue again.

Note: I never mentioned a particular model. I didn't realize I would have to point out something to you that is so simple.

jrcorwin,

What specifically do you contend to be a "Wild Claim" from the post of beachcomber? He is using a high bandwidth spectroradiometer as well as a NIST traceable White Reflectance standard to measure the lamps with. This happens to be the proper methodology to use and provides accurate repeatable results. The data he has provided the people viewing this thread has been completely above board and is the only independent scientific analysis submitted regarding the accuracy or lack thereof of a variety of lamps being used for display back-lighting applications.

Beachcomber has been kind enough to take it upon himself at considerable cost to purchase a wide variety of lamps to test and provide everyone with his findings. All of the lamps were tested in the same manner using the same high end reference test equipment with all of the data displayed for everyone to see. The majority of the lamp manufacturers do not even provide this type of data so I fail to see precisely what it is that you are questioning regarding the validity of the data.

Who do you feel is more impartial to perform independent testing of a product such as this that you would trust? Most manufacturers lack the very tools needed to perform the very tests that beachcomber has provided us with. He has been impartial throughout the testing and provided strightforward factual documentation which I find highly credible. Your comments seem to be quite harsh to say the very least since you have not provided one iota of factual data regarding the entire back lighting subject. Your pointed comments and complete lack of understanding of the spectral data plots which have been provided show that you are unwilling to take accept the information constructively and use the forum as a learning tool as many users do.

Unless you can show a single reason why the information provided is not credible then I would respectfully request that you refrain from commenting as you have nothing constructive to offer the members of the forum following this thread!

jrcorwin



jrcorwin,

What specifically do you contend to be a "Wild Claim" from the post of beachcomber? He is using a high bandwidth spectroradiometer as well as a NIST traceable White Reflectance standard to measure the lamps with. This happens to be the proper methodology to use and provides accurate repeatable results. I don't know that and neither do you. The validity of his tests were verified by....no one.

The data he has provided the people viewing this thread has been completely above board and is the only independent scientific analysis submitted regarding the accuracy or lack thereof of a variety of lamps being used for display back-lighting applications.The data has been used merely to attack the integrity of one and only one person. Rather than attempting to assist other members, he has chosen to attack one in particular at every available opportunity.

Beachcomber has been kind enough to take it upon himself at considerable cost to purchase a wide variety of lamps to test and provide everyone with his findings. All of the lamps were tested in the same manner using the same high end reference test equipment with all of the data displayed for everyone to see. Again, the validity of this is unknown.

Unless you can show a single reason why the information provided is not credible then I would respectfully request that you refrain from commenting as you have nothing constructive to offer the members of the forum following this thread!BeachComber has a history of making wild claims without providing credible information to back those claims up. Outside of this topic, the recent LED flaking topic comes to mind...

To bring this full circle. This is the comment that he has chosen to use against me:

He didn't pay a higher price. He spent $20. He paid less for an inferior product. Basically, you get what you pay for. Another $40 for the Ideal-Lume would be a wise choice and investment.

You'll notice that my comment about the other product being inferior...had absolutely nothing to do with 6500K. I didn't even mention it. My opinion all along has been that the Ideal-Lume products are superior for more than one reason. Two of the main reasons being build quality and versatility.

I have stated this opinion many times. BeachComber has spouted off several times about how I refuse to accept scientific fact...which is false. Show me actual scientific fact or proof which disproves the opinion I just stated and I will gladly accept it. Show me why I am not able to have my own opinion on this matter rather than accepting BeachComber's opinion as an absolute truth.

You should also know that this is based on an argument from more than two months ago. I have attempted to bury the hatchet with him several times and find some sort of common ground. He has outright refused to do so...wouldn't even consider it. He has clung to this ridiculous claim that I refuse to accept scientific fact and that is false.

jrcorwin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghibliss View Post
jrcorwin



jrcorwin,

What specifically do you contend to be a "Wild Claim" from the post of beachcomber? He is using a high bandwidth spectroradiometer as well as a NIST traceable White Reflectance standard to measure the lamps with. This happens to be the proper methodology to use and provides accurate repeatable results.
I don't know that and neither do you. The validity of his tests were verified by....no one.


As a point of reference I can personally attest to the accuracy of the instrument which beachcomber tested the backlight lamps with as my company manufactured and calibrated the piece individually which is NIST certified. The reference instruments used in the calibration process are all NIST traceable instruments as well!

If you have followed the course of this thread you may have viewed comparative data collected by beachcomber that included a spectral distribution chart showing the performance of each of the lamps which was quite revealing as to how they each perform in real life. More then one document has been posted outlining what the ideal spectral response of the lamps should be so determining which lamp lies closest to the reference plot should have been quite easy for even a lay person to deduce.

You'll notice that my comment about the other product being inferior...had absolutely nothing to do with 6500K. I didn't even mention it. My opinion all along has been that the Ideal-Lume products are superior for more than one reason. Two of the main reasons being build quality and versatility.

I have stated this opinion many times. BeachComber has spouted off several times about how I refuse to accept scientific fact...which is false. Show me actual scientific fact or proof which disproves the opinion I just stated and I will gladly accept it. Show me why I am not able to have my own opinion on this matter rather than accepting BeachComber's opinion as an absolute truth.

You should also know that this is based on an argument from more than two months ago. I have attempted to bury the hatchet with him several times and find some sort of common ground. He has outright refused to do so...wouldn't even consider it. He has clung to this ridiculous claim that I refuse to accept scientific fact and that is false.



You state that you feel that Ideal Lume products are superior due to build quality and versatility! Ideal Lume is a turn key solution which provides a good option for a number of users to turn to. The actual performance of the lamps being sold which Beachcomber tested are sold in most cases as a "lamp only" requiring the user to supply their own fixture, ballast etc. Beachcombers conducted tests strictly on lamps where I find it very difficult for you to make a claim as to how much better one lamp is over the other without performing extensive testing.

It seems that you will not believe the test results unless Price Waterhouse or some other accredited independent firm oversees all testing as well as the handling of the measurement data. Please specify exactly what is required for you to find any test data to be accurate and reliable. The data provided seems to be acceptable to the majority that are viewing this thread.

He has clung to this ridiculous claim that I refuse to accept scientific fact and that is false.


It would appear that beachcomber is correct that you are unwilling to accept scientific fact as his testing data is quite conclusive and quite scientific as well. Very few users on this forum have a White reflectance standard which to measure the light from the lamps properly with let alone a high spectral bandwith and high resolution spectroradiometer.

jrcorwin
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghibliss View Post
jrcorwin



jrcorwin,




As a point of reference I can personally attest to the accuracy of the instrument which beachcomber tested the backlight lamps with as my company manufactured and calibrated the piece individually which is NIST certified. The reference instruments used in the calibration process are all NIST traceable instruments as well!

If you have followed the course of this thread you may have viewed comparative data collected by beachcomber that included a spectral distribution chart showing the performance of each of the lamps which was quite revealing as to how they each perform in real life. More then one document has been posted outlining what the ideal spectral response of the lamps should be so determining which lamp lies closest to the reference plot should have been quite easy for even a lay person to deduce.



You state that you feel that Ideal Lume products are superior due to build quality and versatility! Ideal Lume is a turn key solution which provides a good option for a number of users to turn to. The actual performance of the lamps being sold which Beachcomber tested are sold in most cases as a "lamp only" requiring the user to supply their own fixture, ballast etc. Beachcombers conducted tests strictly on lamps where I find it very difficult for you to make a claim as to how much better one lamp is over the other without performing extensive testing.

It seems that you will not believe the test results unless Price Waterhouse or some other accredited independent firm oversees all testing as well as the handling of the measurement data. Please specify exactly what is required for you to find any test data to be accurate and reliable. The data provided seems to be acceptable to the majority that are viewing this thread.



It would appear that beachcomber is correct that you are unwilling to accept scientific fact as his testing data is quite conclusive and quite scientific as well. Very few users on this forum have a White reflectance standard which to measure the light from the lamps properly with let alone a high spectral bandwith and high resolution spectroradiometer.
You can say it as many times as you wish, but it won't make it true. You have no way of knowing if his test results are valid. You do not know for a fact if those instruments were used and/or used properly. You are simply taking his word for it and nothing more. I do not question the accuracy of your product. I question the manner in which it was used...if it was even used at all. No one was there to validate these results. I have been give absolutely no reason why I should trust these results.

My opinion about the ideal-lume was posted before his claims were made...not after. My opinion has nothing to do with his "tests" or claims.

His results are conclusive only if you trust the manner in which the tests were conducted. Based on his conduct within this thread and others...I have no reason to. Again, he has made other claims as well. Claims which were not based on any evidence and he quickly slipped away once he was proven to be wrong without ever acknowledging it. It's a simple pattern of behavior. You must keep in mind that when I stated my opinion...I mentioned nothing about the 6500K standard. That was BeachComber's assumption and he decided to attack without taking the time to review the situation. Again, a pattern.

Yes, I believe that the Ideal-Lume is superior based on build quality, versitility, and other such factors. You point out that he tested lamps only. I'm well aware of this. I stated my opinion independent from his claims. My opinion had/has nothing to do with his claims. My opinion was not only about the lamps, but the entire product being offered. You would have been aware of this had you been involved in the conversation. You were not and seem to be here because he cannot defend himself. I am more than welcome to my own opinions...as are you and BeachComber as well. The problem arises whenever he attacks me for having an opinion at all rather than proclaiming his opinion to be absolute fact.

You're defending someone who has done the following: Sought me out in other threads regarding very different topics...having nothing to do with bias lighting...only for the purpose of attacking me for not agreeing with his opinion. He has done this more than once. In this situations he does not attempt to discuss the topic at hand, but instead focuses on attacking me. I am the one who has attempted to offer an olive branch serveral times and I have been turned down each and every time.

The bottom line is this, I believe that we should all be free to have our own opinions and be comfortable with our very own buying decisions. BeachComber seems to believe that his opinion is the only one which matters and any purchase he does not agree with is rubbish. That is the behavior you are defending.

Thanks for the reply, Beach, looks like the veracity of your information is being questioned!!

Well, I guess we'll see.

Interesting how G. Alan Brown takes the word of a THX Graduate in Denmark with a $500 meter - yet JRCorwin disputes the word of one in the USA with $10k worth of far superior equipment who only works with Broadcast Operations and has measured light temp in many News Studios.

Please define "close," and where do you see any statement in the ad that claims any color temperature? Are you guessing? Over recent years, every white LED product I have purchased and tested has measured anywhere from 7500K to 16,000K. These were all claiming to be 6500K or within 500K of that color temperature.

The only exception has been the Ikea white Dioder product, which measured 5200K. This was reported to me by a THX calibrator in Denmark. Ikea does not make any color temperature claim in their online ad. His reading of an Ideal-Lume Panelight came in at 6540K.

I'm growing weary of spending money and time on uncovering repeated marketing hype, uninformed guesswork, and outright lies about so-called 6500K white LED products. If anyone wants to order these, test them with reliable instruments and report back on your findings, I'll take an interest. Until that happens, I'll assume they are no where near the right color, likely way too blue, especially since they don't even claim to be correct.

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

As can be seen from the fL output, the Orangetree product puts out much less light than any of the others because of LEDs spaced every 2 inches. This is good in that it gets you much closer to 10 IRE on a set, but the question can become does it put out enough to provide that in some instances.