What is happening here? Opinions? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-19-2012, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

............but I would still like to know what you feel is a good choice for specific test instruments.


Sorry, I have no experience other than with my i1D3 colorimeter.

If you must know, I am sure the right people can answer your question.
smokarz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-19-2012, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

............but I would still like to know what you feel is a good choice for specific test instruments.


Sorry, I have no experience other than with my i1D3 colorimeter.

If you must know, I am sure the right people can answer your question.
smokarz is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 23
curttard,

I enjoy reading your posts. Very informative, I am learning a lot.
Given how little I know about all things video calibration, I can be safely assigned to the "general public" category. I bet there are many of us who appreciate your and smokarzs efforts to add some objective data to the decision matrix

I knew that screenshots is not a reliable way to gauge performance. But I was surprised to learn that it is simply impossible to capture the full range of black to white. This fact alone brings the usefulness of screenshots for screen evaluation pretty much to zero.
I am curious though what the cause of the limitation is. Why is it not possible to capture the full contrast range? After all most of the material projected on screen was initially shot with cameras, which would imply that at least some cameras under some conditions are capable of doing it. Or is there a fundamental difference between taking picture of an object and taking picture of a projected picture of an object?

thank you
zheka is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

curttard,
I enjoy reading your posts. Very informative, I am learning a lot.


I, too, am learning everyday in these forums.

With the right information and supporting objective data, one can learn alot pretty quickly, without going through the growing pains of trials and errors. I am sure most would find this very helpful.
smokarz is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

curttard,
I enjoy reading your posts. Very informative, I am learning a lot.
Given how little I know about all things video calibration, I can be safely assigned to the "general public" category. I bet there are many of us who appreciate your and smokarzs efforts to add some objective data to the decision matrix
I knew that screenshots is not a reliable way to gauge performance. But I was surprised to learn that it is simply impossible to capture the full range of black to white. This fact alone brings the usefulness of screenshots for screen evaluation pretty much to zero.
I am curious though what the cause of the limitation is. Why is it not possible to capture the full contrast range? After all most of the material projected on screen was initially shot with cameras, which would imply that at least some cameras under some conditions are capable of doing it. Or is there a fundamental difference between taking picture of an object and taking picture of a projected picture of an object?
thank you

I'm no expert, and I'm not sure if it's the camera's limitation or the JPGs. They only have a range of light/dark values of 0-255, which is less than even the lamest projector. Really I have no idea though.

All I know is that if I take a picture of a grey ramp or a checkerboard, either the whites or blacks or both will be clipping. If I use a live histogram's "zebra stripes" to show clipping in the viewfinder, I cannot get both the blacks and the whites within the camera's dynamic range. My camera is not the best but it's good, definitely above "point and shoot" category -- Canon S95, shooting in RAW mode.
curttard is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kirnak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Last time i checked, no one has stated a i1Display Pro voiced a vocal complaint that the Movie looked bad.

I don't know about that. There was a horrible screeching sound from the whereabouts of the box where I keep my i1 Pro when I put the movie "The Grey" on. Now, I can't swear it was the i1 Pro making that noise, but it went away when I moved the box. Stupid me, I should have listened and burned the disc without watching the movie. eek.gif
Kirnak is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kirnak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

I'm no expert, and I'm not sure if it's the camera's limitation or the JPGs. They only have a range of light/dark values of 0-255, which is less than even the lamest projector. Really I have no idea though.
All I know is that if I take a picture of a grey ramp or a checkerboard, either the whites or blacks or both will be clipping. If I use a live histogram's "zebra stripes" to show clipping in the viewfinder, I cannot get both the blacks and the whites within the camera's dynamic range. My camera is not the best but it's good, definitely above "point and shoot" category -- Canon S95, shooting in RAW mode.

Actually, most Bluray material is only in the range 16 - 235. it's not the 16 - 235 scale that's limiting, it's the actual light output at those values. I'm not aware of any cameras that can capture the range of output that a decent PJ can put out. Perhaps a high quality DSLR, but I really don't know.
Kirnak is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

I'm no expert, and I'm not sure if it's the camera's limitation or the JPGs. They only have a range of light/dark values of 0-255, which is less than even the lamest projector. Really I have no idea though.
All I know is that if I take a picture of a grey ramp or a checkerboard, either the whites or blacks or both will be clipping. If I use a live histogram's "zebra stripes" to show clipping in the viewfinder, I cannot get both the blacks and the whites within the camera's dynamic range. My camera is not the best but it's good, definitely above "point and shoot" category -- Canon S95, shooting in RAW mode.

thank you.

when you compare the shots of a grey ramp you made, are the blacks and the whites clipped at the same points both in RAW and JPG versions? in theory RAW files should have wider dynamic range.
zheka is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Actually, most Bluray material is only in the range 16 - 235. it's not the 16 - 235 scale that's limiting, it's the actual light output at those values. I'm not aware of any cameras that can capture the range of output that a decent PJ can put out. Perhaps a high quality DSLR, but I really don't know.

so the problem is the light intensity, the range between the brightest and the darkest is too big for the camera to deal with. in other words the camera may be able to accurately capture grey ramp printed on a piece of paper yet it will be overloaded by the same ramp projected on a screen.
did I get it right?
zheka is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kirnak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Yep.
Kirnak is offline  
Old 12-20-2012, 12:48 AM
Senior Member
 
dlouw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Gentlemen, a tour of the display calibration section of these forums may be of benefit to those who have not been there. The benefits of a display or display and screen combination that has been properly calibrated are well documented by many members. Before and after experiences abound, many finding large improvements they did not know could be had with their existing displays. The performance of a properly adjusted system can often exceed that of a much more expensive system that is not optimized. There are still compromises to be made, but at least we know what they are and can make them intelligently. This is all about more bang for our bucks. To exclude screen performance from this benefit could very well be leaving a lot on the table. The technology is well established and does not have to be expensive. When was the last time any of us saw a decent projector review that did not include calibration data? Would not the same data be valuable in selecting an equally important part of our display system? The science is just a means to quantify and communicate the qualities that we will experience. Excellence has nothing to fear from good communication.
dlouw is offline  
Old 12-20-2012, 06:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlouw View Post

Gentlemen, a tour of the display calibration section of these forums may be of benefit to those who have not been there. The benefits of a display or display and screen combination that has been properly calibrated are well documented by many members. Before and after experiences abound, many finding large improvements they did not know could be had with their existing displays. The performance of a properly adjusted system can often exceed that of a much more expensive system that is not optimized. There are still compromises to be made, but at least we know what they are and can make them intelligently. This is all about more bang for our bucks. To exclude screen performance from this benefit could very well be leaving a lot on the table. The technology is well established and does not have to be expensive. When was the last time any of us saw a decent projector review that did not include calibration data? Would not the same data be valuable in selecting an equally important part of our display system? The science is just a means to quantify and communicate the qualities that we will experience. Excellence has nothing to fear from good communication.


Well said.
smokarz is offline  
Old 12-24-2012, 10:17 AM
Senior Member
 
dlouw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow, there was no intention to kill this thread. eek.gif The intention was to encourage a productive confluence of senses and science that all of us could benefit from. There are obviously some great screens being produced here and many happy users. I good base of data to go along with opinions and screen shots will provide potential DIYers with information and encouragement to follow along or further the cause. Perhaps neutral is not always best? Could a screen media and calibration adjustments make up for deficiencies of a projector? A good look at what is making people happy and why will better allow it to be reproduced and improved. Let’s make this a productive discussion. We all have the same desire for better easier and less expensive pursuit of enjoyment. smile.gif

A Blessed, Warm and Happy Holiday to All,

Derek
dlouw is offline  
Old 12-24-2012, 02:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,246
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Did somebody toss an accusatory zinger at you?

I certainly hope not, because your post was very courteous.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is online now  
Old 12-24-2012, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlouw View Post

Perhaps neutral is not always best? Could a screen media and calibration adjustments make up for deficiencies of a projector?

The thing is, a non-neutral screen is so by reflecting less of one color back at the viewer. In other words it's not somehow pumping up the red, it's absorbing green. So the necessary calibration adjustment would be to bring down the red, which would result in a dimmer picture. At least that's how I think it works.
curttard is offline  
Old 12-24-2012, 09:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,246
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlouw View Post

Perhaps neutral is not always best? Could a screen media and calibration adjustments make up for deficiencies of a projector? A good look at what is making people happy and why will better allow it to be reproduced and improved. Let’s make this a productive discussion. We all have the same desire for better easier and less expensive pursuit of enjoyment. smile.gif

Now "THAT" was indeed well said.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

The thing is, a non-neutral screen is so by reflecting less of one color back at the viewer. In other words it's not somehow pumping up the red, it's absorbing green. So the necessary calibration adjustment would be to bring down the red, which would result in a dimmer picture. At least that's how I think it works.

Guess again (...it was a guess, right? )

While what you stated holds true for conventionally achieved Gray surfaces, as well as a few White ones, it does not hold up as being definitive across all given instances and examples.

A Screen's ability to efficiently reflect light, has enhanced by positive gain, can result to richer, more saturated colors. This can allow for needed attenuation within selected boundaries to balance everything out.

What you describe is a sub-unity gain surface with a tendency to preferentially reflect light of a particular spectrum at the sacrifice of other end of the light spectrum.

With SF, it is the nature of the separate color components, all held in a suspension, to individually and effectively reflect "more" of the light they receive than a mono-is-tic color achieved by the creation of a "solution" obtained by mixing two opposite colors.

Add to that a additional reflective element to enhance gain characteristics, and that is when you get a greater level of performance.

That process has been thoroughly vetted and approved by greater minds that those who have determined it's all back woods alchemy. And it's been proven to be effective in literally hundreds of separate instances.

As such, a non-neutral Screen can indeed make up for deficiencies / variances in a PJ's output. In fact, several popular painted screen solutions were notably introduced to do exactly that, back when DLPs pushed Red and LCDs pushed blue.

As far as PJ performance goes, it's getting much better. But not so much better that calibration is not often needed to reach the desired D65K balance.

A lot of people out there decline to consider the creation of adaptive Screen surfaces as being necessary...or even acceptable. Too bad that...often they simply do not know what they are missing.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is online now  
Old 09-03-2013, 10:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 27
For the person who asked if we could get a screenshot next to the projected image, I'm not sure if this is what he meant, but here is a cap from the bluray next to MM's photo of the projected image:



curttard is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 06:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
IUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks. He noticed. However, my conclusion was I needed a sandbox to hone my painting skills anyways. The issue at this point is more one of can I pull it off. So far stretching the FlexiWhite screen is proving to be a big problem... at some point I should have a side by side of a prototype screen and an untreated screen.
IUnknown is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 06:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,246
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 254
curttard,

I see an image almost monotone in appearance. Also, bear in mind that the image I posted is off a screen that is at minimum 1.3 gain, and the image size is 135" diagonal. Colors are more vibrant, and gray scale detail more....well, detailed.

What was apparent was that the image was so bright on normal lamp using the 8000 that it was difficult to not have the White blow out some.

Not sure why the comparison image was posted...it being so poor and wholly unrepresentative of what the DVD itself produces on even the most basic of screens. I'd ask any / everyone to go look on their own displays...whatever they may be, and report back their own visual comparisons.

I have been taking what I consider accurate Screen shots for a very long time, striving very hard to make them accurate because I was having to do so because of the built-in resistance of those who either could not do so...accurately...or who did not want to see any screen app touted as being exemplary based on such representations.

There is and always will be the "difference" between those who have the experience and equipment, and those who do not, just as there will always be those who for some reason must discount the validity of any such examples. I said it before and now again...to dismiss the potential for accuracy in screen shots is to also dismiss ALL examples of ALL posted Charts showing Gray Scale examples (Checkerboards...Test Patterns, etc.) but for some strange reason that is not to be considered.

BTW, go over to "ScreenShot Wars -CRT" and tell them that their Screenies are essentially false and misleading....seewhere you wind up. biggrin.gif

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is online now  
Old 09-04-2013, 09:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Not sure why the comparison image was posted.

Someone asked for it, if you'll recall.
Quote:
Colors are more vibrant, and gray scale detail more....well, detailed.

If your colors are more vibrant than what I posted, then you are in desperate need of a calibration, because they are not supposed to be that vibrant. More detail? First, I have to laugh at your claim that your photograph of a projected screen has more detail than the actual frame from the bluray that is being projected. Is your screen so magical that it generates new details in shadow areas? Second, you can see in your photo that dark details is completely lost. Compare Pippin's and Merry's coats in your photo to the framegrab I posted, or look at Bilbo's sleeve.
Quote:
it being so poor and wholly unrepresentative of what the DVD itself produces on even the most basic of screens.

I admit I find this hilarious. Can you tell me how on earth an actual framegrab from the bluray can POSSIBLY be "unrepresentative"? This is LITERALLY exactly what is supposed to be reproduced on the screen.
Quote:
I'd ask any / everyone to go look on their own displays...whatever they may be, and report back their own visual comparisons.

No need for them to "go look", because that's the frame from the bluray. In other words, they are looking at it "on their own displays" RIGHT NOW by viewing this thread.
Quote:
I have been taking what I consider accurate Screen shots for a very long time,

If you truly consider your screenshot to be an accurate representation of what you are seeing in the room, then with the framegrab I posted as a reference, all that it is possible to conclude is that your colors are extremely over-saturated as well as inaccurate, your light areas are completely blown out, and your darks are crushed.
Quote:
also dismiss ALL examples of ALL posted Charts showing Gray Scale examples (Checkerboards...Test Patterns, etc.) but for some strange reason that is not to be considered.

As has been said repeatedly, photos are capable of showing some things, particularly RELATIVE differences between two screens or projectors. A photo of two screen solutions on test panels, side by side with a grey ramp or checkerboard projected simultaneously across each, can show which produces brighter whites if the photo is sufficiently under-exposed that the whites are not blown out; a second photo sufficiently overexposed that the blacks are not crushed can show which produces darker blacks. Pretty simple really.

What a screenshot CANNOT show is "this is what the picture looks like". Again, getting back to your screenshot, if that's what the image actually looked like in the room, then the image in the room looks terrible. All light areas are horribly blown out; Legolas looks like a lightbulb. Yet if you were to take a new photo and lower the exposure so that the whites were more accurately depicted in the screenshot, now any marginally dark area would be horrendously crushed. The camera simply does not have the dynamic range to capture what is actually being projected.

Also again, here is my screenshot, as well as the framegrab from the bluray for reference:





As I said, I took as accurate a screenshot as I could to get the best representation of what I was seeing in the room. With that frame still on screen, I looked at my photo on my laptop to make sure it was as close as I could get it. So did I develop the perfect screen solution? The colors are accurate and "pop" in the photo; the brights are bright and the blacks are inky. It would literally be impossible for a plasma tv to produce a brighter white or a darker black in a photograph. And all this with a Mits HC4000 in low mode on a 126" x 54" screen. Should I make a thread with this screenshot under the title "What is happening here?"
Quote:
There is and always will be the "difference" between those who have the experience and equipment, and those who do not,

Am I the only one who finds irony in this contemptuous dismissal of those with lesser cameras coming from a person who scoffs at the necessity or practicality of having a $200 colorimeter? You're essentially saying in one post that there's no need and can be no reasonable expectation for a colorimeter in discussing the accuracy of images or claims; and in another saying that those without expensive cameras have no business talking about how accurate screenshots can or cannot be.
zheka likes this.
curttard is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 01:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,246
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 254
All of the prior being your take on the matter, and neither conclusive or exempt from questioning. You can certainly express what YOU determine to be correct level of color imaging reproduction, but you cannot make that determination for the majority.

I plainly stated that the brightness of the image was causing slight issues in taking the screen shot, yet you choose to twist it around and say I'm claiming the shot is wholly accurate. How convenient for you.

I did not attempt to zoom in to the same reference point your "Grab" is at, and I can easily state correctly that had I done so, the image would have had much more detail shown. That's really so basic, for you to "overlook" such and instead make the derisive comments you made shows up your real intentions here.

Light Engines on various PJs all take content and project it in something other than what is contained within the DVD's own file. A "grab" of a DVD reproduced on any other medium is not exactly as it is within the DVD itself. But it can be used to mislead others and to attempt to prove one's own point...subjective as it may be.

Basically, all your postings are serving to be are attempts to create contentious responses...or the opportunity to word such yourself.

Go have your laugh by yourself, but don't clutter upthe Threads with baiting responses and thinly veiled insults.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is online now  
Old 09-04-2013, 05:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
You can certainly express what YOU determine to be correct level of color imaging reproduction, but you cannot make that determination for the majority.

I think you might be misunderstanding what the image was that I posted. It's the actual frame from the bluray. It's not a picture of the frame, it's not the frame as displayed on a projector, it's not the frame as displayed on a TV. It's the actual, unaltered, digital image on the disc (well, re-sized for the web). It is what the director, cinematographer, and everyone else involved determined the image is supposed to look like. Any deviance from that is by definition "incorrect". When you put in the bluray and project it on your screen, this image is literally what you are projecting. It's what you are trying to reproduce.
Quote:
I plainly stated that the brightness of the image was causing slight issues in taking the screen shot, yet you choose to twist it around and say I'm claiming the shot is wholly accurate.

You made this thread to show how your solution provides such exceptional brightness combined with deep blacks. You are now saying the photos are showing brightness that was not actually produced in the room. In other words, exactly what we've been saying -- that the photos are inaccurate and misleading.

Further, you also spoke rather condescendingly about your experience and exceptional ability to produce accurate screenshots. So why is the picture so blown out, then, if that's not what you were seeing in the room? All you had to do was lower the exposure. I can take a photo of a 42 ftL plasma TV and not have the whites blown out like that. If you can't control exposure then how can we take your screenshots seriously?
Quote:
A "grab" of a DVD reproduced on any other medium is not exactly as it is within the DVD itself.

Again: The framegrab I posted has not been "reproduced on any other medium". It's the frame itself. It's THE SOURCE. The digital image encoded on the disc. If the PC you are viewing this thread on had a perfectly calibrated display, you would be seeing exactly what the filmmaker intended. If your projector and screen produced a 100% accurate image, and you magically managed to take a 100% accurate photograph of it, then the photograph and my framegrab would be indistinguishable on your PC.

{
Quote:
But it can be used to mislead others and to attempt to prove one's own point...subjective as it may be.

An actual grab from a bluray can and should be used as a reference to show all the detail, all the values, and all the colors that are in the image, and thus can be useful to show what is lost in a projected image -- or at least in the photograph of the projected image. Can you give a logical explanation of how this could possibly be used to "mislead" anyone in any way? What can, and is, being used to mislead others are screenshots with clipped blacks and whites, giving the impression that a screen solution can match a plasma tv for brightness and contrast.

Look at my own example in my last post. In what way do your shots show a superior screen solution? My screen is bigger, my projector is dimmer, but my screenshot flat out shows a better image, that is far closer to the source than yours. How do you explain that? Does this mean my screen solution -- a plain piece of Budget Blackout cloth from Joann -- is superior?
Quote:
Basically, all your postings are serving to be are attempts to create contentious responses...or the opportunity to word such yourself.

My postings are attempts to explain and illustrate why screenshots cannot be accurate representations of a projected image.
zheka likes this.
curttard is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 10:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,246
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

I think you might be misunderstanding what the image was that I posted. It's the actual frame from the bluray. It's not a picture of the frame, it's not the frame as displayed on a projector, it's not the frame as displayed on a TV. It's the actual, unaltered, digital image on the disc (well, re-sized for the web). It is what the director, cinematographer, and everyone else involved determined the image is supposed to look like. Any deviance from that is by definition "incorrect". When you put in the bluray and project it on your screen, this image is literally what you are projecting. It's what you are trying to reproduce.

Yet when a PJ / Monitor does reproduce it, it will NEVER be the same as the encoded content. Combine a PJ with any particular Screen and it's a toss up of anywhere between a Foul tip to a Home Run....or maybe just a Walk. Those who spend inordinate amounts of time and expense to obtain reference level viewing often also wind up stating how dull and static such viewing is.

So they search for a different PJ with different Lumen output / Contrast specs and / or a Screen with gain...or a Gray / Metallic surface. And some calibrate to those Screens...a little...a lot...or as best as they can...or not.

Making a Screen that serves to help make an image vibrant and contrasty is the goal on this Forum....few espouse the desire to have a reference White 1.0 gain screen that does nothing.....even with a calibrated $9K JVC...to help them see the image as they want to. Add size to the equation and things go even deeper into "Choice" as well as cause and effect.
Quote:
You made this thread to show how your solution provides such exceptional brightness combined with deep blacks. You are now saying the photos are showing brightness that was not actually produced in the room. In other words, exactly what we've been saying -- that the photos are inaccurate and misleading.

I said nothing of the sort. I said the Image off the screen was so bright that the whites and brightest colors made it difficult for the Camera to capture the shot. But not impossible. I stated I did not try to zoom, and use the attenuation of such action to compensate. Also...as you conveniently fail to note, that image was taken in considerable light, with overhead Cans just ahead of the screen on 3/4 illumination. Nothing about that shot speaks of any intentional attempt to impress...if it were, I would have dumped the lights, and stepped back...zoomed to frame...and shown the screen as it looked in action.

My method of judging a Screen by screen shots does not entail using any setting other than Auto...and Zoom when attenuation is necessary. That's it. Pretty simple...yet unless one knows such simple solutions, or possess a DSLR and manipulates the settings to accomplish something similar, the end result will be similar to the above. That I chose to post that image only shows i was not trying to use it to help anyone make any determination. Read my captions. Then give it a rest. Your seeming quite trite.

Besides, you ignore the actual referenced images I started the Thread with. Your just arguing for arguments sake, and creating your own grist to mill.
Quote:
Further, you also spoke rather condescendingly about your experience and exceptional ability to produce accurate screenshots. So why is the picture so blown out, then, if that's not what you were seeing in the room? All you had to do was lower the exposure. I can take a photo of a 42 ftL plasma TV and not have the whites blown out like that. If you can't control exposure then how can we take your screenshots seriously?

I didn't speak condescendingly, nor made any personal reference...I simply stated a well known fact, one that is lamented by very many members...some of whom I have helps overcome such hurdles.

I can post eye candy that can amaze and delight...but it can also bring out the Hounds who love to chew on a bone until their teeth break. Down Boy. Your teeth are showing. biggrin.gif I never commented at all about that image being a sample to expound upon. It was you who posted it because it served your purpose to do so and then rant, and avail yourself of whatever else you could conjure up. And you are conjuring...creating issues, attributing comments and supposed attitudes to me that simply are not true, where not implied, and never considered. If I had a rolled up newspaper.......... tongue.gif

Quote:
Again: The frame grab I posted has not been "reproduced on any other medium". It's the frame itself. It's THE SOURCE. The digital image encoded on the disc. If the PC you are viewing this thread on had a perfectly calibrated display, you would be seeing exactly what the filmmaker intended. If your projector and screen produced a 100% accurate image, and you magically managed to take a 100% accurate photograph of it, then the photograph and my frame grab would be indistinguishable on your PC.

Your PJ is not reproducing it "as is" nor is your Screen .Photo must be somewhat below 100% accurate....yes?
Quote:
An actual grab from a bluray can and should be used as a reference to show all the detail, all the values, and all the colors that are in the image, and thus can be useful to show what is lost in a projected image -- or at least in the photograph of the projected image. Can you give a logical explanation of how this could possibly be used to "mislead" anyone in any way? What can, and is, being used to mislead others are screenshots with clipped blacks and whites, giving the impression that a screen solution can match a plasma tv for brightness and contrast.

No such intent, nor statement, That particular shot was never "Claimed" to represent anything...your just saying it was.....but truthfully....it's a realization that many on here have expressed...and experienced, the "Bright as -better'n a Plasma" opinion. While not entirely accurate on all fronts, considering size and color / contrast performance...it kills any Plasma you've ever seen...since you have most likely not seen one at 135"+. unless you attended last years' InfoComm. And that biggun' was nothing except big.
Quote:
Look at my own example in my last post. In what way do your shots show a superior screen solution? My screen is bigger, my projector is dimmer, but my screenshot flat out shows a better image, that is far closer to the source than yours. How do you explain that? Does this mean my screen solution -- a plain piece of Budget Blackout cloth from Joann -- is superior?
My postings are attempts to explain and illustrate why screenshots cannot be accurate representations of a projected image.


Closer? Hardly so. Seems over saturated. Whites are blown out in areas. Colors are off. It's also hardly any bigger if at all....just lower on the wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Long story short, I painted my BOC screen with RS-MaxxMudd-LL.

I'm sticking with the RS-MM-LL because it's brighter than my original BOC -- important on a 10.5 ft wide 2.35 screen with a Mits HC4000 -- and like I said, the hassle and expense of painting is enough that I don't want to repaint it. When I move next year, if I have a good wall available and the same projector, I'll most likely paint the wall with the Sherwin-Williams. My new screen is significantly brighter than my original BOC in bright scenes, as I said, but honestly I wouldn't have known it if I didn't have a BOC panel to compare it directly to.
.

I'd like to see you show undisputed that is a raw BOC. Last you stated you had a RS-MM LL screen.Nothing in any of your posts alludes to the screen shown as being BOC. Did you toss it (RS-MM-LL) out? In any case, we must take your word for it....right?

This thread isn't about the merits of calibration....nor is it about using DVD Grabs to judge the accuracy of a screen application. Your posted "Grab" against the shot I took didn't even meet the criteria that was asked for by narhic_fd. It's become only a OT vehicle for you to try to press home your own personal take on a subject that really...the majority on here neither agrees with, nor cares to hear about such limiting and dismissive opinions. Everyone already has heard it all numerous times....so all that can be construed here is that you simply want to stir up a pot of contentious commentary. You went looking for something....with a specific intent that is pretty obvious...and it certainly wasn't intended to illuminate or educate. Just irritate if you could. In fact, there seems to be a undercurrent here that smacks of some "foreign" encouragement. It's all just a bit too "Deja Vu".

That's OK though...as your officially "ignored" from here on. Just remember...don't use that Pro Classic.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is online now  
Old 09-05-2013, 12:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Making a Screen that serves to help make an image vibrant and contrasty is the goal on this Forum.

I was under the impression the goal was to get the best image possible and make the most of the projector's contrast. Not to distort the source. I haven't read many posts where people say their goal is to oversaturate the colors and lose details in lights or darks.
Quote:
few espouse the desire to have a reference White 1.0 gain screen that does nothing.....even with a calibrated $9K JVC...to help them see the image as they want to.

People don't want their image to be too dim -- i.e., for the image to be dimmer than it is intended to look -- if they have a large screen or inadequate projector. They don't want it to be washed out by ambient light -- i.e, for the image to have less contrast, lighter blacks, etc, than it is intended to have.
Quote:
I didn't speak condescendingly,

You said in regards to your screenshots: "There is and always will be the "difference" between those who have the experience and equipment, and those who do not". You are implying that your experience and equipment are superior to others', and the rest of us simply can't take accurate screenshots like you can. Is that not condescending? Especially from someone who is just pushing "auto" on his camera.
Quote:
Your PJ is not reproducing it "as is" nor is your Screen .Photo must be somewhat below 100% accurate....yes?

Of course. My point is that you are implying that the actual SOURCE looks bad. Again, for the 100th time again, the source is the IDEAL. It's truly staggering to see you comment about how "monotone" it is and what a "poor" image it is when it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for any screenshot to be superior.
Quote:
Closer? Hardly so. Seems over saturated. Whites are blown out in areas. Colors are off. It's also hardly any bigger if at all....just lower on the wall.

It is far less over-saturated than yours, less blown out than yours, and the colors are much more accurate than yours (note Aragorn's bluish outfit in your screenshot compared to the almost brown of the source). It's bizarre for you to say otherwise -- the mere fact that you were seemingly so horrified by the "poor" "monotone" quality of the Lord of the Rings source frame makes it clear that you yourself are seeing a huge difference between it and your projected image. My screen is 126" x 54" so perhaps actually a hair smaller than yours.
Quote:
I'd like to see you show undisputed that is a raw BOC. Last you stated you had a RS-MM LL screen.Nothing in any of your posts alludes to the screen shown as being BOC. Did you toss it (RS-MM-LL) out? In any case, we must take your word for it....right?

It's an older screenshot. I have since painted the BOC with RS-MM-LL. Not that I can even conceive of a reason why I would lie about it being BOC, but here is the link to my original post with that picture posted over two years ago: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1331261/official-mitsubishi-hc4000-only-thread/540
Quote:
Your posted "Grab" against the shot I took didn't even meet the criteria that was asked for by narhic_fd.

He said he would love to see a screenshot put side by side with the projected image. Is that not what he meant? I even asked what he meant.
Quote:
This thread isn't about the merits of calibration....nor is it about using DVD Grabs to judge the accuracy of a screen application.

No, it's about you making a claim and posting some photos that do not show what you claim they show, and some of us pointing out why they can't show it (and some discussion whether it's even possible for your screen to do what you claim), for the benefit of those who might not know better.
Quote:
It's become only a OT vehicle for you to try to press home your own personal take on a subject that really...the majority on here neither agrees with, nor cares to hear about such limiting and dismissive opinions.

The majority of people are probably unaware of the limitations of screenshots and unaware of how wildly misleading they can be. There are a few posts in this very thread commenting on how interesting they found my posts and how they learned something. You yourself seem to be in denial as to the literal impossibility of screenshots being accurate.
curttard is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 185
+ about a million on the screenshots being un or even misrepresentative 99% of the time. Does that mean you cannot get really nice screen shots? Of course not. But it DOES mean just what it says.


James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
Old 09-06-2013, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I wish MM weren't ignoring me, I wanted to ask if the off-axis picture of Fellowship is supposed to show off-axis gain.
curttard is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off