Having just revisited CRT FP recently I liked a lot of what I was seeing. I went back to my digital and tried to set it up a little different to emulate the CRT in some ways but not much can be done there and many would say why. It then got me thinking which of these is most accurate? We know each display technology interjects its own flavor which colors the
final image we are seeing. Lets not forget the chain of source equipment the room and choice of screen which also shift what we see but lets leave these out of this and talk displays.
Regardless if each display were ISF calibrated, if we were to use a same brand Blue Ray player loaded with the same movie the out come would still be the same, we would all be seeing something different from our displays.

First we would need a reference to compare. What is reference? Is it film?
If we were to throw an ideal 35mm presentation on an identical screen side by side with each electronic display technology I wonder which one would fair the best. If the original Film producer were in the room I am sure he could find reason to argue each displays fault and say to each what he is seeing is not what he intended. If in his presence we were to re adjust each display bringing the image closer to original film version and to his approval I am sure the display would then no longer meet ISF spec while giving a closer and more accurate representation of the film.

So does it matter which technology we choose be it new or old, how high or low we paid for it or whether it's to be ISF calibrated or not. Saying mine is better then yours or I wish I could have that, does that bring us closer to accuracy. I think we are all looking at some level of inaccuracy.
The loaded question, where do we go from here? With out the perfect reference and knowing each display falls short on delivery perfection do any of the current standards mean anything.
Maybe a better definition of accuracy ( knowing there is none ) whether you consider yourself a videophile or a casual viewer would be everyone meeting their own satisfaction with their viewing experience and forgetting everything else.

By the way, mine is and will always be better then yours:)

Happy holiday to everyone!!

Awesome post, Alan.

I agree with you about the subjectivity of image quality. However, I think it is fair to say that a projected image has to reach a certain level of quality before anyone would argue that it is "reference class." I don't know if it can be measured by CR or brightness or color "accuracy", but I'm pretty sure a vast majority of people would agree that many "low-end" projected images aren't in the same league as the reference-class displays that you refer to. Even I know that my Panny AE700U isn't in the big leagues. :)

I expect that some might argue that a reference display is one that can produce an image that most closely matches what one sees when looking out a window. You could almost imagine a Turing test for displays, in which a display is considered to be "reference" if a human could not distinguish it's image from reality. The problem with this approach is art is usually not intended to perfectly simulate reality, and most of what we watch on our display devices is art in one form or another.

Us geeks here at AVS love to debate the numbers and the technology, but at the end of the day, most of it is highly subjective. Our eyes work differently, our brains work differently, our environments are different, our tastes are different, etc.

Heck, I wonder what this guy considers "reference"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKd56D2mvN0

Reference = reality

I want a display that most closely resembles what I see in real life.

My current pj very much resembles film - exception being that it doesnt quite match the same color performance. Yet without an immediate comparison, it is difficult to notice.

I want something that far exceeds film. I preferred my NEC CRT in a lot of ways over film but of course digital has many advantages.

Bottom line: reference = reality

Reference = reality

I want a display that most closely resembles what I see in real life.



Bottom line: reference = reality


This is a completely redundant criteria to judge a video display on.
The psychovisual experience of looking at a piece of video is completely different to experiencing reality. You are looking at a an abstract visual language which has very little to do with reality and how human beings visually experience it.

You may as well say that bird song is a good benchmark to judge music by.

If you viewed a good 35mm print next to a digital projector showing a 1080p version you'd notice a couple of things.
The whites on the digital display would exhibit a far harsher clip ( assuming fairly normal image contebt) than the film exhibition. The film version would also exhibit way more intensity detail towards black and the entire exposure range would seem far more consistent fom shot to shot and scene to scene.

Viewing 2k 10bitlog or Dcinema material on a good 2k projector would give you an expeience very similar to the film exhibition albeit with more stability , sharpnesss and some aliasing.

Don't kid yourselves. The current 1080p video formats just scream their limited video intensity range. If you are familiar with the way film looks 1080p video is not even close to being mistaken for 35mm.

I have shown experienced ISF acredited calibrators 35mm in a professional screening room ( that I would actually describe as softer than average) and had them exclaim that they did not realise film looked like that.

The only digital projector I've seen that I would be happy to use as reference is a Barco DP100 wich if well calibrated is good enough to sign off final film imagery on asuming a sub 20ft diagonal screen. ( although the reds are still slightly oversaturated on the barco)

Alan,

philosophizing on Christmas?

Mr.D


If you viewed a good 35mm print next to a digital projector showing a 1080p version you'd notice a couple of things.
The whites on the digital display would exhibit a far harsher clip ( assuming fairly normal image contebt) than the film exhibition. The film version would also exhibit way more intensity detail towards black and the entire exposure range would seem far more consistent from shot to shot and scene to scene.


I am fortunate to get to attend some private 35mm screenings of some of the same content we are experiencing on BD/HD DVD ( currently the best we have for HT ) and I am in agreement with you. I can go into further detail ( films color gamet ) but no need. Without a direct side by side comparison most would feel our HT projectors rival film in every way.


Viewing 2k 10bitlog or Dcinema material on a good 2k projector would give you an expeience very similar to the film exhibition albeit with more stability , sharpnesss and some aliasing.

That would do more for home cinema then a new projector. Bring it on:)



The only digital projector I've seen that I would be happy to use as reference is a Barco DP100 wich if well calibrated is good enough to sign off final film imagery on asuming a sub 20ft diagonal screen. ( although the reds are still slightly oversaturated on the barco)

Sadly not practical for most here. I still feel your comment viewing 2k 10bitlog or Dcinema material on our current crop of projectors would do more for us then owning the Barco with our current HD DVD/BD.


Alan,

philosophizing on Christmas?

Hi Tryg

I gotta drain the Brain :)



Bottom line: reference = reality

Cant wait for 3-D.
Id love to have Megan Fox reach out and touch me:)



Us geeks here at AVS love to debate the numbers and the technology, but at the end of the day, most of it is highly subjective. Our eyes work differently, our brains work differently, our environments are different, our tastes are different, etc.


Good summery!! I like the subjective part.

By the way, mine is and will always be better then yours:)


The reference is our ego in this hobby. Or any interest for that matter.

Without social influences I'd bet we would be happy watching anything on any system. We love this stuff as we keep coming here every day. The details we pontificate about is just a manifestation of this love.

reference = reality

lcos have the better motion and also the more noise free image.

in all other aspects dlp is the better display.

thats how i see it TODAY.

alan 3 d is more easy than you may think.
the biggest investment is the secound pr. and the time you have to spend
till you know how to do it.
the camera for picture you can get for about $ 1200.

I think I agree with Mr.D.

I don't think the movie directors wish us to see reality, but the movie they made as they made it, so I would think the aim would be to see things as they were intended by the director, and not reality.

There are plenty of standards out there which the movie makers use to ensure we get to see things as the director intended, and if we adhere to those (and perhaps exceed film in some cases such as black level), then we get to see things as they are intended to be seen.

Looking out of a window is not how we view movies so I don't think that's an analogy we can use either, since a projected image is much darker and in a darker room, plus the content is often presented quite differently to reality, so again I think we're back to seeing the content as the movie makers want us to see it.

There are limits to film and to the displays we use, but as long as the result is as close to the movie the makers want us to see, I think we're close to how it should be IMHO.

Gary

Seems clear to me that the "reference = reality" statement makes sense. Film is not reality, video is not reality, but the closer the display is to "reality", the fewer limitations in the way of making the image displayed resemble film or any other standard desired. I don't consider film to be "the reference" anymore. It is just one reference.

I think it is pretty simple...The function of the display is to as accurately as possible reproduce what has been recorded on the medium which is being played back without introducing any biases of its own. That is, the display is supposed to be a "straight wire with gain" as applied to video. It should not change the CR, the sharpness, the colors, or any other aspect of the recorded media and should simply reproduce it EXACTLY as recorded, right or wrong, whether it looks like reality or not. Not all media is supposed to look real!

If you are looking for the consumer display device that comes closest to that goal RIGHT NOW, different units will prevail in different areas. Nine inch CRT is the closest in on/off contrast, DLP is the closest in ANSI contrast, 1 chip DLP is the closest in sharpness, and just about any projector other than the RS-1/RS-2 will be the closest in color accuracy :p

If I were to choose the one unit that attains most of those goals or comes closest to total perfection (in my opinion, of course) it would probably be the Sim2 HT-5000. Once again, I am talking consumer level units only, as I have zero experience with pro gear.

This is a cop out but the reference should be reproduction of the source as true as possible. If that is reality (eg a football game) then that is what should be reproduced,if it is film it should look like a pristine first generation film print.We have a hundred years of film behind us that I want to look like a good commercial theater presentation of in my home.

We are fortunate to have plenty of folks here who go outside and we are equally fortunate to have experienced people in the film industry. From this we can conclude we aren't there.

I will also say that we have technology available to us now that betters all but the best film presentations in our homes.



Art

Let's face it..."reality" is just a figment of our imagination, and thus we are held in the A/V Matrix that Has Us....and I didn't even smoke weed!

Basically, if you really want a reference, go outside and bask in the Sun and watch those colors in the trees....Film is FAR from this "reality", that's why people go to theaters and buy expensive projectors; we want to escape this thing called reality. Film is just a medium of expression, thats all.

Reference, to me, is basically any picture that looks better than the theater. As a general consumer who doesn't really have any friends with high-end gear (or projector anything), and no industry contacts to show me a so-called "reference" picture then the best I have to go by is what I see at the movie theater.

If my upcoming home theater can provide a better picture than the theater, then that is better than reference to me.

I've been watching closely at the quality of the cinema lately, now that I am looking for a projector. I saw "Sweeney Todd" recently which was a great movie but the black levels were horrible. I could easily tell the difference when the screen went black to the material surrounding the screen. It was sad, for that movie with such a great dark/gray-dark motif to have bad black levels. If my RS-2 produces better black levels, I might not go back to the cinema!

I saw "Charley Wilson's War" today (what's with all the name-y movies?) in digital and there were two vertical stripes at either side of the theater which had very good black levels, and then the square picture in the middle had middling black levels. I could tell the outside had a better picture which was distracting, but again, that is "reference" to me and I have no control over how good the picture looks!

James

Great topic.

The answer depends much on what you want the projector to be used for. In either case I think it does not matter really much, whether you want to watch movies or self made videos.

reference = reality

This is the answer of somebody who also likes to make his/her own videos of travel, family etc.

I think it is pretty simple...The function of the display is to as accurately as possible reproduce what has been recorded on the medium which is being played back without introducing any biases of its own.

This does not sound so different but is the answer of a true cineast who regards movies as an art form and wishes to ascertain the concept of 'hifi' to the artist's original product.

Again, I am not sure whether one reference or the other really makes so much differnce in the end.

the camera for picture you can get for about $ 1200.
Interesting. Could you give us a picture of the camera, or some links?

I'm not worthly to post in the $3K and up forum.

For a long time now? Reference for me is my own system(s). :)
I judge everything as either as good as mine, worse than mine, or better than my own.



My own four 1080p projector shootout in my own theater revealed one thing clearly. My experience was that all the projectors were obviously making a serious attempt at being accurate and it showed.

The differences between the four were subtle at best. I suspect in truly blind tests? There would be no consistancy in answers at to the "best" or which was which or anything else about the PQ.

I think it is pretty simple...The function of the display is to as accurately as possible reproduce what has been recorded on the medium which is being played back without introducing any biases of its own.
Sounds simple. But I think it's simply not true. The same answer used to be given some years ago for audio. And then let's look now at the discussions of those - ehem, let's call them freaks - in the above 20k section :p

I thinks Tryg's remark in post #7 - to which nobody chose to react :D - comes closest to the underlying realities of what is the real function of the display ;)

Why would you not want a theoretically perfect display? If you care to manipulate it such that it resembles film, you could. If you want it to look like a window on reality, you could. Video is the kicker - there is no reference for it. Who would really choose a less than perfect display if you had the option of a perfect display that could be manipulated (and you always can manipulate sources) to look whatever way you wanted? If you are a purest and your reference is film, then get a film projector - there is no other way at this time.

The details we pontificate about is just a manifestation of this love.



I thinks Tryg's remark in post #7 - to which nobody chose to react :D - comes closest to the underlying realities of what is the real function of the display ;)

Tryg tripped me up with that one, I had to get out the dictionary. I wish he would return to using the avatar with the science lab coat and glasses. That was classic.

Tryg tripped me up with that one, I had to get out the dictionary.
That made me curious, when even a native American needs to look. My dictionary then told:

pontificate
verb |pänˈtifiˌkāt| [ intrans. ]
1 (in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop, esp. at Mass.
2 express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic : he was pontificating about art and history.

Not too bad a description (at least sometimes) ... :rolleyes:

If you are a purest and your reference is film, then get a film projector - there is no other way at this time.

I recently watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) on 35mm and immediately watch my HD version I recorded a few years back when the bit rate was still a decent number. Ive always been fond of the HD cut I have. After watching the film I noticed the difference between both medias.
The film showed perfect detail top to bottom. Perfect lighting and shadow detail. The blacks were not crutched. A tweed jacket looked real like you could touch it in the film or like someone glued the material to the screen but smoothed over in HD with colors missing. Overall unless doing a direct side by side you would never pick up on this stuff and as a lot of us here feel our HT systems rival film I have to say in many ways it does but in may other it still short. We are not quit there yet.
Many here would get a kick and an eye opening humbling experience seeing a side by of the very best of both formats.

I've mentioned a few times that it was probably my familiarity with really good film projection from pristine sources (when working in film picture production/post production) that delayed my getting into HT front projection as much as anything else. Up until a few years ago consumer HT projection just looked to crude and video-like for me to get too excited about it. It was around the introduction of 1080p models (e.g. the first Sony SXRD 1080p projectors) when I started feeling like I could really get a more film-like impression for DVD viewing. And of course the new HDM brings it even closer.

As to what the reference should be that's a tough one. I like the "chameleon" approach as an ideal; a display that can replicate the look of reality when called upon to do so or the look of film (or whatever) at other times. I think a great projector may be the closest to a "chameleon" display in that sense.

But when people speak of wanting their displays to "look like reality" I would disagree when it comes to most movies. (And a lot of people are using movies to decide how realistic a display can look). I find a too-real look can detract from not only the typical directorial/DP intent, but also to the viewing experience. If an image looks too real, it usually does not look like images captured on film.

I don't really want it to look like I'm on the set, watching the actors. When you are part of the movie-making process, and you are on set, you know what I mean. There is a de-romanticised aspect of seeing the acting in real life, right in front of you. When watching actors on a set, or in filming a scene you have to sort of imagine how it is going to look whe commited to film, and it's more mediated, artistic quality that helps
elevate the look of the mundane. A too-real looking movie image to me can be like watching the actors on set instead of in a "movie," or looking at an HD-cam video assist
monitor on the set...always less convincing.

Interestingly I recently saw the new Sony LCD flat panels with their new 120 hz motion
processing, that really sharpens up the image even during moving images. I watched the Blu Ray of Fantastic Four. It was just crazy-sharp and palpable looking. Perhaps the most window-like image I've ever seen. It was fascinating and hypnotic for that reason. But it also suffered the lack of romanticism that I describe above.

Who knows, maybe if such images become the standard quibbles like the ones I've made will seem quaint....

Well since we are giving opinions I'll give mine. I for one enjoy the 3-d effect of a well calibrated CRT. Screen size does not become as important when the image has the proper depth and weight. A Super sharp digital image is good and similar to being in the supermarket with 1000s of watts of flouresent lighting, but most of my life is spent looking at images that have smoother edges with reduced lighting. I don't care if I can see the extra button on a jacket, an actor is wearing, if the scene and his body is 2-D.

I have seen the current batch of digital projectors (minus a few) and they are missing something. Just like some people will still enjoy hours of records I will probaly always need my what my CRT gave me.

Joey

how 'bout LaserDisc? Video wasn't there, but the sound, especially when they brought in AC-3 it was sound heaven. Only DVHS can rival what audio did for LD. As for records, I Agree. Video? Let's wait another decade and will take numbers then;)

After reading alans post I notice the differnces when comparing fabrics with digital or CRT. Herringbone tweed is very hard for a digital projector.....weird I know. and also wools look better on a CRT.

makes a difference in conveying the realness everyone is commenting on...

Joey

*bump*


the camera for picture you can get for about $ 1200.
Interesting. Could you give us a picture of the camera, or some links?

First off, I'd like to comment that there's no such thing as "ISF Spec". ISF don't create specifications, they educate in how to use existing specs. Having a set "ISF calibrated" isn't about adhering to some other dude's opinion about how the picture should look, it's about making sure the display follows the standards that the source material is made with.

Now, what people need to realize, is that there's a difference between quality and standards. Some aspects of picture quality has to do with adhering to standards, others are about avoiding degradation in the basic quality of the picture. As an example, white balance is part of a standard, contrast is a matter of quality. If you want the best possible picture, white balance is non-debatable, if you want the best possible picture from a particular source, you need to display the picture in the way the source was produced to be displayed. Think of it this way: If a display has a native resolution of 480P, noone here would say that display is HD. It simply doesn't meet the requirement for displaying HD material. I say that any display not meeting other HD specifications, like D65 white balance, is no more HD than a 480P display. HD is a complete specification that includes resolution, but also a lot more than that. So, the accurate picture isn't about quality, it's about displaying the source materail accurately, at whatever quality the display is capable of. Accurate doesn't equal quality, you can certainly have one without the other.

While there's often debate about whether or not displaying the pictures according to spec is the way to go, I personally feel these discussions are based on misunderstandings. People see a poor display calibrated to standards, and think that's what "accurate pictures" look like - so, they now believe "accurate pictures" look dull, fuzzy or whatever. However, I believe that if you show people a high-quality, accurate picture, 99,9% of the population will tell you that's the best picture available. However, as soon as there are limitations involved, there will be a discussion about whether or not it's better to live with poor contrast or poor white balance. Since no display is perfect, there will always be limitations to discuss.

So, back to the original question: What is the reference? Some, including the ISF, say that the producers monitor is the reference, that's what we need to emulate. I'll tweak that statement a little: The reference is in the producer's mind. Think of it this way: The producer of the source material is trying to show you a picture, just like a painter is trying to show you a picture. The painter has the luxury that you'll eventually be looking directly at the painting, so you'll see exactly what he created. However, the actual experience is fuzzied by not only the painter's skill, but also the materials available to the painter. Perhaps some colors that the painter would like to express, isn't available in the type of paint that the painter chooses to use, or whatever. Perhaps, he just chooses to obscure reality in a way that makes you think about the painting, to make sure you even look at it in the first place. So, the painter alters the picture to create the sensation that he feels matches the expression that he wants to use. He doesn't create an exact copy of reality, he works with the materials at hand, to create a certain effect.

A movie producer works in the same way: He has some certain materials at hand (the video standard), _within which_ he can create a certain expression. To be sure that what you watch on your display is what he intended you to see, your display _must_ use the same "material", the same standard. You can't create an exact replica of the Mona Lisa using watercolour.

Some debate that the reference for HD pictures is film. I disagree. With film, the "material" isn't the same as with HD. When playing film, the reference is film, when playing HD, the reference is HD. The producer _should_ create the best possible expression of his imagination for each type of source, within the limitation that particular source provides. The limitations for film vs HD are different, so you'll never make HD look exactly like film. Film can do certain things that HD can never do. However, it's not your job to try to "emulate" film using the HD limitations - that part is up to the producer of the source matieral. If he chooses to make HD look like film by manipulating the picture to look "right" within the HD spec, all you need to do is follow that spec, and do it at the best possible quality. Sure, there are things that 35mm film reproduction will do better in reality, and there are things that HD will do better, but it's not our job to make HD look like film. Our job is to make HD look like HD. Making HD look like film is the movie producer's job.

Conclusion: The reference for HD pictures is the imaginary "perfect" reproduction of the HD spec. Simple in theory, extremely difficult in reality.

Love this post. I remember when the tirade against Turner Co. was made about colorizing movies and destroying the integrity of the director's intent. And what about those who say watching a film on anything other than going to a movie palace is the 'intent'?
Do you alter the experience by pausing a movie to go get a soda at home or at the theater? What about scratches on prints? Did the director want that? What about dye fading? What about difference color renditions during the lab processing? Even commercial cinemas have different size screens and brightness levels. In the early 60's I used to help a union-paid projectionist and he was always having to adjust the welding-torch rods and the brightness varied greatly. How about focus - who's using a standard for that? What about kids talking and destroying the dialogue? What about cell phones?(Yes some do turn them off but still text message with the bright screen) Do we think a THX certified theater is really within a plus/minus tolerance of even 5 percent for following the rules of audio and video? What if a customer complains about the way-too-loud level (as I have) and they turn down the sound? Don't you dare open a door or turn on a light and destroy the intent. What size screen did the director want? How can we all sit in the ideal spot that Speilberg would set his behind on? Finally, how many directors really are concerned about the calibration standards? Could it just be that they are really more interested in the story/plot/acting? Perhaps the cinemaphotographer might have more to say about that than the director.
But to use the words of another great poet; I pontificate too much...so many questions, so little answers; so little time.

This is exactly why I said that there's a difference between an accurate picture and a quality picture. We will always have to accept certain deficiancies in quality, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for the best we can get, within the limits presented to us. I for one don't concider myself an extreme purist, even though I have a purist approach to watching pictures, I will certainly accept minor errors in some areas, if it means I can gain something in other, more important areas. I don't think that renders the discussion of what the theoretical reference is, moot.

Reach for the moon, you'll never get to Mars. Reach for Mars, you may get to the moon.

Without social influences I'd bet we would be happy watching anything on any system. We love this stuff as we keep coming here every day. The details we pontificate about is just a manifestation of this love.+1 I would add that most any HT folks have here (or at least in this thread) is FAR SUPERIOR to most any local commercial theaters. So we should all be very, very happy with how very far Home Theater has advanced from the early days of laserdiscs and TV sets.

As for Reference although it might be fun to simply to pick one i.e. select as Reference some combination of display, program, ambient conditions, calibration, etc. etc. it would hardly be something any of us could duplicate and compare-to (heck, even your Reality is different from mine); but it would leave us all with lots (more) to argue about, which is what we really like to do anyway!!! ;)

Excellent posts, Otto! :)

The reference is our ego in this hobby. Or any interest for that matter.
Love Hates
-----------
We come here to punish ourselves by paying dearly for the pleasure of viewing the latest technology under the false assumption that it will improve our lives.
A good example is HDMI compatibility issues. It's great whenever it decides to allow the picture through.:eek:

A movie producer works in the same way: He has some certain materials at hand (the video standard), _within which_ he can create a certain expression. To be sure that what you watch on your display is what he intended you to see, your display _must_ use the same "material", the same standard. You can't create an exact replica of the Mona Lisa using watercolour.

I am not sure who you are referring to when you state that we should be seeking to emulate what the "movie producer" has done.

You appear not to be referring to those people who decide what a movie would look like in a theater. If this is what you mean, I have to disagree.

Let us assume that you were looking for the truest reproduction of the Mona Lisa that one could have. In seeking to reproduce that painting, would you use as your model the original painting or a copy that was reproduced by a forger that only had at his disposal certain of the colors that are in the original? The answer to this hypothetical is obvious: you would seek to emulate the original.

The problem for us is that it is impossible to emulate the original. It is only possible to emulate the copy. This is so because the only standards that exist are those used by the "forgers" that convert film to video. I am not knocking those standards. They are necessary for the industry to function. Without them, we would see all kinds of awful color choices made and the results of these bad choices on the legions of "inaccurate" displays would be even worse.

I agree with you when you write that standards do not equal quality. The choices that telecine colorists make are necessary evils given the current state of things. Hopefully, it will soon change and colorists will have at their disposal all of the tools necessary to reproduce what is shown in theaters. Since standards do not equal quality, I think it is valid for us home theater hobbyists not to be constrained in the same way that the colorists are. Thus, I choose "quality" over "standards."

So, to answer the original question, until we can emulate film in theaters, my reference is my eyes.

Having just revisited CRT FP recently I liked a lot of what I was seeing. I went back to my digital and tried to set it up a little different to emulate the CRT in some ways but not much can be done there and many would say why. It then got me thinking which of these is most accurate? We know each display technology interjects its own flavor which colors the
final image we are seeing. Lets not forget the chain of source equipment the room and choice of screen which also shift what we see but lets leave these out of this and talk displays.
Regardless if each display were ISF calibrated, if we were to use a same brand Blue Ray player loaded with the same movie the out come would still be the same, we would all be seeing something different from our displays.

First we would need a reference to compare. What is reference? Is it film?
If we were to throw an ideal 35mm presentation on an identical screen side by side with each electronic display technology I wonder which one would fair the best. If the original Film producer were in the room I am sure he could find reason to argue each displays fault and say to each what he is seeing is not what he intended. If in his presence we were to re adjust each display bringing the image closer to original film version and to his approval I am sure the display would then no longer meet ISF spec while giving a closer and more accurate representation of the film.

So does it matter which technology we choose be it new or old, how high or low we paid for it or whether it's to be ISF calibrated or not. Saying mine is better then yours or I wish I could have that, does that bring us closer to accuracy. I think we are all looking at some level of inaccuracy.
The loaded question, where do we go from here? With out the perfect reference and knowing each display falls short on delivery perfection do any of the current standards mean anything.
Maybe a better definition of accuracy ( knowing there is none ) whether you consider yourself a videophile or a casual viewer would be everyone meeting their own satisfaction with their viewing experience and forgetting everything else.

By the way, mine is and will always be better then yours:)

Happy holiday to everyone!!

Hi Alan,

Really interesting question. I own a single chip DLP on a 2:35 screen and I love it. BUT, if money were no object and I had the resources to have a top technician give it the constant love and care it deserves and needs and I wanted what for me represents the most natural looking image and the most authentic, I would get a new or re-tubed 9 inch CRT projector with a Snell & Wilcox Interpolator Gold II and project it on a 4-way masking StudioTek 130 screen no larger than 72" wide and in a room that could get absolutely dark. Now this image would not be as tack sharp as a 3-chip 1080p DLP showing Blu-Ray over HDMI, but it would be more pleasing IMO. And while I don't claim to know the science, I have read that a CRT projector's gamma curve most accurately recreates the traits of human vision. Also, I believe that a CRT's stacked lines is more like film grain (ie-not a grid) and therefore feels more 'organic'. If you wanna argue light output and white field uniformity, etc., then 3-chip DLP wins. But that's not the question ;)

IMHO.........Reference= Transparency. Where the signal processing chain becomes simultaneously invisible, irrelevant and devoid of influence on the resultant image

Scott,
You could mitigate the light output and white field uniformity issues by using a Torus screen.

72" is too small. I am running a 110" with XG and is plenty bright even with some ambient. I think a good size for CRT is 100" diag with about 1.3 gain.
Yes for best shadow detail total black out with all LED's masked is needed or they stand out and distract.