Professional Calibrations = Overrated!!! - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 176 Old 02-07-2012, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilG View Post

As they say "Ignorance is bliss"
If someone is perfectly happy with their tv and think it's perfect then it is(to them).
Don't show them a calibrated tv however, you wouldn't want to educate them and break their bubble .

well said
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 04:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I can see the point in calibration to standard for a screen/monitor used in mastering the film/video.
I can see the point in a consumer setting up / calibrating a display correctly so it is not hindering the content by say having a too high black level or tinted grey scale or odd gamma curve.
But ultimately if the people who mastered the film/video did not bother to use correctly calibrated screen/monitors it seems to me partly an exercise in futility and self delusion. The whole validity of calibration in my opinion is dependent on the mastering.

When the mastering has been done on calibrated displays and their has been a artistic intent. The question then comes down to if I view film/video as a work of art to be respected and admired like a picture in a gallery. I do not think the director expected most people to see their work of art on calibrated displays. I think they wanted people to go see the film at commercial cinemas, or watch the TV show on first airing on network TV on their TV at home. That is people predominately seeing his work on displays not to the standards. If the picture being true to artistic intent does not significantly increase my enjoyment of the content, the story, the action, the emotion, etc... I would say it is not very important to me.

I prefer to adjust to taste I want the most pleasing picture to me, natural looking color, image depth illusion of third dimension and solidity of objects, etc... If that makes it looks similar or dissimilar to the artistic intent I do not care. I do not give two hoots what the director saw, the blighter might not even have watched it on a calibrated display and would not of expected most of his future audiences to see his work on calibrated displays. I would not get a smug warm feeling inside knowing my display is as accurate to standards as possible, if I believed adjusting the picture would create a more pleasing image to my eye.

The way I see it most people are not watching the film in a viewing environment that is correct to standards. They are also using displays with different black-white contrast, MTF perceived contrast of things from texture detail to image depth, gamma curves, color primaries, etc... Home video formats and displays are not commercial cinema formats or displays or video mastering monitors, etc... If home cinema used the same format as commercial cinema and home cinema dispays had similar picture qualities to commercial cinema, I coud see more validity in calibration as a means of reaching the goal of seeing what the director saw.

The mastering of the blu ray may have added contrast expansion, sharpening, smoothing, some color tweaking, etc... The blu-ray player and display may have their own image processing to tweak the picture, etc...

For consumer displays the pursuit of calibrated to the standards seems to be a preoccupation of a minority.


Is calibration overrated I think that depends on what it is claimed to do.
Getting the most out of the display by having the display set up as close at it can manage to industry standards. I can see that as being truthful.
Seeing the film/tv show as the director intented true to artistic intent or having the best picture quality. I think are things I would take with a pinch of salt.
dovercat is offline  
post #63 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 06:16 AM
 
Phase700B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
^ ^ ^ And. .. . there can be accuracy issues and trade offs with the kind of colorimeters, spectrophotometers, and other equipment used in calibrating a TV. Not to mention age of said equipment, date of last recertification, as well as the skill level of a technician and his familiarity (or lack) of the TV make/model being calibrated. Indeed, a "good" set of calibration charts might be accomplished but it may not translate to desirable viewing results with material being watched.

Not to say one shouldn't pursue an attempt to get the best picture accuracy if that is what is desired. But one shouldn't be led to believe either that a consumer grade TV can be made to look as good as a studio mastering monitor costing many times more. It, for sure , is a pursuit of a minority. . . and perhaps those who want some level of assurance that their TV is close to ideal. However illusive that my be.

Like everything else, there are trade-offs.
Phase700B is offline  
post #64 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 93
A poem for all the naysayers, low aimers, compromisers, pessimists, cynics, skeptics, scoffers, defeatists, etc., throughout the history of the AV Science forum:

'Good Enough'

My child, beware of good enough,
It isn't made of sterling stuff;
It's something anyone can do;
It marks the many from the few.
The flaw which may escape the eye
And temporarily get by
Shall weaken underneath the strain
And wreck the ship, the car or plane.
With good enough, the car breaks down,
And one falls short of high renown.
My child, remember and be wise,
In good enough, disaster lies.
With good enough, the failures rest
And lose the one who gives the best.
Who stops at good enough shall find
Success has left them far behind.
For this is true of you and your stuff
Only the best is good enough.


Author Unknown

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
GeorgeAB is offline  
post #65 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 93
2 April 2008

From Allen Daviau, ASC [ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005679/ ]

"Today's cinematographers go to great lengths to insure that all of the richness, range, and detail of their original images reach the home screens of the viewers. Throughout the photo-chemical laboratory processes and the full range of digital manipulations, the cinematographer who cares wants to ensure that every step taken is in the best interest of the look of that motion picture.

This has been the case for some time, but with the real arrival of a High Definition television system and the subsequent enlargement of the home image size, the responsibility has a greater intensity. We, and all of the technicians who work with us, want you to feel all of the power of those images that so many people, in front of and behind the camera, fought to achieve.

I think that you would be very pleased with the intensity and precision of our efforts. In return, we make an important request of you. Please be very sure that your home viewing screen is capable of displaying all of the quality that has gone into the motion picture that you are viewing. You may own a very high quality system, but if it has not been properly calibrated, you would be shocked at how much you are missing.

Starting with the quality of your incoming signal, be it from an antenna, cable, satellite dish, or disc, it should be capable of delivering everything in the original master. The adjustment of your display device should be done to insure that it is accurate in terms of contrast, brightness, color temperature, and color intensity.

Unfortunately, the manner in which displays are adjusted at the factory is to ensure that it gets attention in a store, surrounded by many other screens. It has not been adjusted to display the qualities that the filmmakers considered important. If you have these adjustments made properly, your enjoyment of those images will greatly increase. You will be seeing what we intended you to see, and all of us, the creators and the audience, will be very much happier.

It is well worth your time to be certain of your investment."
: http://www.jkpi.net/allen_daviau.php
GeorgeAB is offline  
post #66 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 10:24 AM
 
Phase700B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

If you find a good ISF/THX certified calibrator with lots of experience, the points made in your first paragraph are not relevant.

Not relevant to some I suppose. Not sure how you can speak for everyone in this regard.

Furthermore, many TVs can be calibrated to match the reference standards very closely or even exactly in terms of what are (our?) eyes can and can not perceive

Interesting point because if our eyes can not perceive it then it may , indeed, not be relevant.

and so in some respects a consumer grade TV can look a lot like a studio mastering monitor.

Yes, if a "lot" means the TV picture has brightness, contrast and color. Not sure "a lot like" is a measurable value since when talk of calibration usually means exacts.

Only a minority might be concerned with professional calibration but the same could be said for other things people care about on this forum like input lag, panel type, backlight uniformity, banding, DSE, etc. That is always the case with the technical details that only a handful of the population care about or are even aware of.

Getting the most out of your display is not an illusive goal and clearly you don't believe in the value of professional calibration based on this post. You are just looking for issues and tradeoffs and so I wonder what your true agenda is.


No agenda, other than to contribute to comments others have made. Seems you did not object to the poster I made comments to. I only am agreeing with and acknowledging his comment. Why pick me and not his original comment?

Agendas?

Those who fairly advocate calibration state it's benefits and also indicate it is the TV owner's prerogative whether they wish to attain any benefits that it may have.

Those who find getting the best and acceptable picture they can by their own adjustments and means may also see calibration valid for "image fidelity", but do not choose it for themselves.

Simply a flipside of the same coin. . . TV Picture Quality.

There are fallacies to both approaches. But to say one has warts and the other does not would not be the truth. So some speak from one perspective and others from another. That is all
Phase700B is offline  
post #67 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 10:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sotti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post

A poem for all the naysayers, low aimers, compromisers, pessimists, cynics, skeptics, scoffers, defeatists, etc., throughout the history of the AV Science forum:

'Good Enough'

My child, beware of “good enough,”
It isn’t made of sterling stuff;
It’s something anyone can do;
It marks the many from the few.
The flaw which may escape the eye
And temporarily get by
Shall weaken underneath the strain
And wreck the ship, the car or plane.
With “good enough,” the car breaks down,
And one falls short of high renown.
My child, remember and be wise,
In “good enough,” disaster lies.
With “good enough,” the failures rest
And lose the one who gives the best.
Who stops at “good enough” shall find
Success has left them far behind.
For this is true of you and your stuff—
Only the best is “good enough.”


Author Unknown

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Good enough is always the standard.
Good enough means beyond acceptable tolerances.
Good enough means gets the job done.

Life is full of compromise, the decision isn't if you should compromise, but what.

Joel Barsotti
SpectraCal
CalMAN Lead Developer
sotti is offline  
post #68 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 11:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SOWK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
Posts: 3,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 83
I agree with the thread topic if they can't get brightness and contrast set correctly...

Haha.
SOWK is offline  
post #69 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 11:06 AM
Member
 
EmilG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
'Good enough' isn't!
EmilG is offline  
post #70 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 12:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
Smackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post

I do not think the director expected most people to see their work of art on calibrated displays. I think they wanted people to go see the film at commercial cinemas, or watch the TV show on first airing on network TV on their TV at home.

Given that directors and cinematographers and editors spend hours upon hours to get the look of a film just right, from trying different film stocks, to cameras, to lenses, and lighting methods, and then post-production work to make sure everything stays exactly the way they intended it to look, I'm fairly certain they intended for things to look a certain way. That's a project they're dedicating years of their life to, and most of them want it done a specific way, down to the last detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post

I prefer to adjust to taste I want the most pleasing picture to me, natural looking color, image depth illusion of third dimension and solidity of objects, etc... If that makes it looks similar or dissimilar to the artistic intent I do not care. I do not give two hoots what the director saw, the blighter might not even have watched it on a calibrated display and would not of expected most of his future audiences to see his work on calibrated displays.

So just say that calibration isn't for you. Say you don't care about what someone wanted it to look like, or anything else, but don't go out and denigrate the idea of calibration, or suggestions that the people creating the content don't care about how it looks. The idea that any of these production houses aren't using calibrated displays is also a bit ludicrous. Having taken a tour of Sony's production studio (Colorworks) in 2010, they care about everything there. From making sure that the colors are just right on films that are coming to theaters in a couple years, to mixing the soundtrack (including both theater and home mixes, that can be different), to making sure the depth on 3D images are correct, to every other minute detail. They aren't sitting there, editing these films on some TV they just pulled out of the box from Best Buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post

The way I see it most people are not watching the film in a viewing environment that is correct to standards. They are also using displays with different black-white contrast, MTF perceived contrast of things from texture detail to image depth, gamma curves, color primaries, etc... Home video formats and displays are not commercial cinema formats or displays or video mastering monitors, etc... If home cinema used the same format as commercial cinema and home cinema dispays had similar picture qualities to commercial cinema, I coud see more validity in calibration as a means of reaching the goal of seeing what the director saw.

The mastering of the blu ray may have added contrast expansion, sharpening, smoothing, some color tweaking, etc... The blu-ray player and display may have their own image processing to tweak the picture, etc...

The Blu-ray mastering of a title will always be different than the theater mastering. DCI cinema has a different colorspace than Rec 709, and so that has to be adjusted. It uses a different gamma curve than most home theaters do, and a different lighting level. The mastering of the Blu-ray is intended to make that digital copy as close to a copy of the theater experience as possible. The greens might not be the same, since the green primary is different in the two models, but it's going to be as close as you can get. Many directors or cinematographers will come back and look at the Blu-ray mastering to make sure it's as close as it can be and make changes if they need to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

^ ^ ^ And. .. . there can be accuracy issues and trade offs with the kind of colorimeters, spectrophotometers, and other equipment used in calibrating a TV. Not to mention age of said equipment, date of last recertification, as well as the skill level of a technician and his familiarity (or lack) of the TV make/model being calibrated. Indeed, a "good" set of calibration charts might be accomplished but it may not translate to desirable viewing results with material being watched.

All of these can be accounted for by the calibrator, and any calibrator that knows what they are doing also knows you can't just rely on charts alone. I can calibrate a display to get perfect charts and a horrible image, and then I can get a chart that's not as good, and a far better image. One doesn't necessarily mean that the other is right, but that's why all good calibrators will go back and forth between the two, getting it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

Not to say one shouldn't pursue an attempt to get the best picture accuracy if that is what is desired. But one shouldn't be led to believe either that a consumer grade TV can be made to look as good as a studio mastering monitor costing many times more. It, for sure , is a pursuit of a minority. . . and perhaps those who want some level of assurance that their TV is close to ideal. However illusive that my be.

Like everything else, there are trade-offs.

You can get much closer to reference with a calibration than you can without one. With well designed displays you can get close enough that the errors that are remaining can be small enough that your eyes won't notice them. Home displays still fall short in certain areas, often with contrast ratios, but they keep getting closer, and the image gets better all the time. Seeing that progress usually isn't possible without setting it up correctly.

And of course there are trade-offs. However, these trade-offs really come into play as soon as you leave the reference standards. At the reference standards, you are getting the best contrast ratios, dynamic range, grayscale, shadow detail, and highlights that you can. You're getting smooth, natural colors. If you decide you want more pop to your image and brighter highlights, and brighter colors, then you are going to start to introduce trade-offs by losing shadow detail, or accurate colors, or dynamic range. You can improve any of these things, but not without a negative impact on the other items.

Chris Heinonen
Senior Editor, Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity, www.hometheaterhifi.com
Displays Editor, AnandTech.com
Contributor, HDGuru.com and Wirecutter.com
ISF Level II Certified Calibrator, ReferenceHomeTheater.com
Smackrabbit is offline  
post #71 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 12:29 PM
 
Phase700B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smackrabbit View Post


And of course there are trade-offs. However, these trade-offs really come into play as soon as you leave the reference standards.

The trade-offs I mention are not because of tweaks you may do after doing a calibration but with the process itself. As you mentioned earlier, a good chart does not always mean a good picture. So trade-off, fine tune , etc. But the trade offs I meant were things such as:

What others have referred to a few post above:

" . . .many TVs can be calibrated to match the reference standards very closely or even exactly in terms of what are eyes can and can not perceive."

Some may ask, what is the benefit if they can not perceive the accuracy of luminance values, dE, and other values. As you've also said, TV's keep getting better and better. As I've mentioned before, I've gone back to issues of Sound & Vision magazine and looked at what calibrated TV values looked like just those few short years ago. The point? Errors were MAGNITUDES worse than what can be obtained using the S&M or some other disc on many TV today. You have to look at the scale of the charts to see it in these older (2006-2007) magazines. And those TVs were top of the line back then. ... . touted as being "accurate".

So the trade-offs to many are the cost of a calibration be it a service or equipment and value obtained on a $500 to $1,200 TV. To a few it can represent value. To others, not so much.

In a way, a calibration is like buying insurance. Except you don't need a calibration to get a decent picture with informed adjustments and media. And, like insurance, you never really know what the value is. With insurance it would be when you have to collect a claim and see what you get. With a calibration it may indeed look good, but will you be able to tell " in terms of what are eyes can and can not perceive". So it may be more in the mental mind set that a person just "knows" the TV is set to "reference standards". A valid pursuit as I've said, but still two sides to the coin.

Lastly, this can and has been argued and pondered back and forth many times before. It is a perception and value judgment.

And, actually, I am wondering what happened to the OP? Sometimes I wonder if the post was made just to drum up some dialog and publicity in the otherwise fairly quiet Display Calibration threads.
Phase700B is offline  
post #72 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 12:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
airscapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

And, actually, I am wondering what happened to the OP? Sometimes I wonder if the post was made just to drum up some dialog and publicity in the otherwise fairly quiet Display Claibration threads.

Um.. please note the definition .. he is no longer getting a rise so he moves on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
airscapes is online now  
post #73 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 02:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

^ ^ ^ And. .. . there can be accuracy issues and trade offs with the kind of colorimeters, spectrophotometers, and other equipment used in calibrating a TV. Not to mention age of said equipment, date of last recertification, as well as the skill level of a technician and his familiarity (or lack) of the TV make/model being calibrated. Indeed, a "good" set of calibration charts might be accomplished but it may not translate to desirable viewing results with material being watched.

Not to say one shouldn't pursue an attempt to get the best picture accuracy if that is what is desired. But one shouldn't be led to believe either that a consumer grade TV can be made to look as good as a studio mastering monitor costing many times more. It, for sure , is a pursuit of a minority. . . and perhaps those who want some level of assurance that their TV is close to ideal. However illusive that my be.

Like everything else, there are trade-offs.

The points you make in the first paragraph would only be relevant if you didn't take the time to do your homework and find a calibrator that has reference grade equipment which is properly maintained. A skilled, experienced calibrator that has plenty of experience calibrating displays in general and also with your particular display would do an excellent job. They would also know that they have to verify what the charts/graphs show with reference material to make sure the display not only measures correctly but actually looks correct with known reference material. A good calibrator will have lots of positive feedback from their clients and plenty of experience, not to mention reference grade equipment that is properly maintained and certified.

In other words, none of these points are valid if you choose a good calibrator.

Regarding your second paragraph, a consumer grade TV can look nearly as good as a studio mastering monitor in terms of meeting the reference standards very closely or exactly. Many TV calibrate very closely to reference standards meaning any deviation from those standards will be beyond human perception with real program material. So, if any remaining errors post-calibration exist, they are likely to only be picked up by meters and by looking at test patterns. In the cases where some visible errors with real program material still remain, those errors are very small and the picture is still greatly improved after the calibration compared to before. So, consumer grade TV can adhere to reference standards just as well as a studio mastering monitor and even if they don't, they are typically quite close in terms in errors you can actually see with your eyes watching real program material.

Calibration is the pursuit of a minority in terms of owners of consumer grade TVs used in the home (for personal use), but that doesn't make its purpose any less significant/valid. Making your display match reference standards as closely as possible isn't an elusive goal, unless you are not willing to spend the money and time required to get it done properly by a professional or yourself. There are no trade-offs in this context to getting your TV professionally calibrated.
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
post #74 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 02:42 PM
 
Phase700B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
There really is no end to this.

So, in case you missed it:

Those who fairly advocate calibration state it's benefits and also indicate it is the TV owner's prerogative whether they wish to attain any benefits that it may have.

Those who find getting the best and acceptable picture they can by their own adjustments and means may also see calibration valid for "image fidelity", but do not choose it for themselves.

Simply a flipside of the same coin. . . TV Picture Quality.

There are fallacies to both approaches. But to say one has warts and the other does not would not be the truth. So some speak from one perspective and others from another. Edit: You know this is true from your own experience purchasing a meter. No real guarantees having someone do it for you either.

It's a person's choice. Period.

That is all
Phase700B is offline  
post #75 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 02:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
Smackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

" . . .many TVs can be calibrated to match the reference standards very closely or even exactly in terms of what are eyes can and can not perceive."

Some may ask, what is the benefit if they can not perceive the accuracy of luminance values, dE, and other values. As you've also said, TV's keep getting better and better. As I've mentioned before, I've gone back to issues of Sound & Vision magazine and looked at what calibrated TV values looked like just those few short years ago. The point? Errors were MAGNITUDES worse than what can be obtained using the S&M or some other disc on many TV today. You have to look at the scale of the charts to see it in these older (2006-2007) magazines. And those TVs were top of the line back then. ... . touted as being "accurate".

I think you believe that using a calibration disc can do far more than you think it can. What I can do with a calibration disc is:

- Get brightness and contrast correct
- Get the red luminance correct
- Get the cyan tint correct
- Set Sharpness

That's it. That's also only the first 10 minutes or so of a 3-4 hour calibration. Fixing brightness and contrast doesn't make your grayscale more accurate, and it doesn't let you know which preset is most accurate. Your gamma is just as bad as when you started. Your red luminance might be correct, but you also might have messed up the other luminance values and would need to correct them, or your adjusting of the tint messed up the values of the other secondaries or primaries.

I can look at recent sets that I calibrated and see that the dE of the grayscale went from over 10 across the spectrum, which is easily visible, to under 2, which is not visible. That is what we are talking about when we say you can't perceive the difference. If I have a set with a dE of 0 and one with a dE of under 2, virtually no one would see a difference in the two. Now if you put the one with the dE under 2 next to the one that you used a test disc on, you're going to see the difference and see it instantly. The dE is still going to be well over 10 across the grayscale. That's ignoring the color errors and gamma errors that are present.

Going back to a Sound and Vision review from 2005, as you suggest, shows a TV that measured over 9000K out of the box, and with calibration can get down to 6500 +/- 150K across the spectrum. I'm pretty sure that's going from being horribly inaccurate to close to accurate. The fact that we can be even more accurate now after calibration than 7 years ago means that technology has improved, as you would expect it to. The display I measured out of the box, in its best mode, was still around 7300K for a grayscale so things are better, but that's still an error that anyone can see. In the factory preset, it would have been even worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

In a way, a calibration is like buying insurance. Except you don't need a calibration to get a decent picture with informed adjustments and media.

Once again, this is how you define decent. A lower dE than you started with? Without instruments, how do you know? A picture that you enjoy more? Then that's not a calibration, that's saying "I like this more". A picture that's as close to reference as you can get? Simply not possible by copying settings, or with a disc.

Chris Heinonen
Senior Editor, Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity, www.hometheaterhifi.com
Displays Editor, AnandTech.com
Contributor, HDGuru.com and Wirecutter.com
ISF Level II Certified Calibrator, ReferenceHomeTheater.com
Smackrabbit is offline  
post #76 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

There really is no end to this.

So, in case you missed it:

Those who fairly advocate calibration state it's benefits and also indicate it is the TV owner's prerogative whether they wish to attain any benefits that it may have.

Those who find getting the best and acceptable picture they can by their own adjustments and means may also see calibration valid for "image fidelity", but do not choose it for themselves.

Simply a flipside of the same coin. . . TV Picture Quality.

There are fallacies to both approaches. But to say one has warts and the other does not would not be the truth. So some speak from one perspective and others from another. Edit: You know this is true from your own experience purchasing a meter. No real guarantees having someone do it for you either.

It's a person's choice. Period.

That is all

In video industry terms, "picture quality" has very specific, internationally acknowledged criteria. There is scientific precision, unity, standards, quality control, and objective repeatability

In viewer preference terms, there are no industry wide standards or best practices. It's each man for himself, left to his own devices, trial and error is his quality control, with only subjective judgement as the final arbiter.

If image fidelity is the objective, only the first methodology can approach it with any reliability. Much confusion, consternation, and frustration is encountered among video consumers who do not seek image fidelity, but engage in value judgements about calibration services outside of that context.
GeorgeAB is offline  
post #77 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 03:51 PM
 
Phase700B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smackrabbit View Post

I think you believe that using a calibration disc can do far more than you think it can. What I can do with a calibration disc is:

- Get brightness and contrast correct
- Get the red luminance correct
- Get the cyan tint correct
- Set Sharpness

That's it.


I don't agree with that and neither do many other users of calibration discs. For instance. If there is visible tint in gray scale as you suggest further on on your previous dialog, and an owner has a simple 2-Point available, there are ways to correct for this. Will it be totally accurate without a meter? No. Will it visibly look better? Yes.


Believe me, I see your perspective. I worked on commercial video x-ray systems that utilized 64 point gray scale far more critical than a 10 or 20 point TV.

But that is not really the point. I, and others here aren't arguing that calibration to reference standard can not have merit.

It's a choice and both are dependent on other factors.

Moving on . . .
Phase700B is offline  
post #78 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sotti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

I don't agree with that and neither do many other users of calibration discs. For instance. If there is visible tint in gray scale as you suggest further on on your previous dialog, and an owner has a simple 2-Point available, there are ways to correct for this. Will it be totally accurate without a meter? No. Will it visibly look better? Yes.

The only tint you can detect is in reference to the white that is the brightest shade of gray on the screen.

That's why when red clips and the brightest white goes blue, your eye tells you all the lower swatches just turned pinkish.

Your eye can be sensitive to see if the grayscale is consistent, but it doesn't have a clue what the whitepoint is.

Joel Barsotti
SpectraCal
CalMAN Lead Developer
sotti is offline  
post #79 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 05:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

I don't agree with that and neither do many other users of calibration discs. For instance. If there is visible tint in gray scale as you suggest further on on your previous dialog, and an owner has a simple 2-Point available, there are ways to correct for this.


This is just plain wrong, yet you continue to repeat it in this forum and in the LCD forum. It not a valid alternative to actual calibration in the same way copying settings isn't. You want to convince yourself and others this is a valid option and you refuse to accept the facts stated by many in this thread.
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
post #80 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 06:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

There really is no end to this.

So, in case you missed it:

Those who fairly advocate calibration state it's benefits and also indicate it is the TV owner's prerogative whether they wish to attain any benefits that it may have.

Those who find getting the best and acceptable picture they can by their own adjustments and means may also see calibration valid for "image fidelity", but do not choose it for themselves.

Simply a flipside of the same coin. . . TV Picture Quality.

There are fallacies to both approaches. But to say one has warts and the other does not would not be the truth. So some speak from one perspective and others from another. Edit: You know this is true from your own experience purchasing a meter. No real guarantees having someone do it for you either.

It's a person's choice. Period.

That is all

If you're not interested in calibration, why bother posting here? I don't see any point to your post here.

Not interested in calibration? Don't post in the calibration forum. Simple.
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
post #81 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 06:46 PM
 
Phase700B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

This is just plain wrong, yet you continue to repeat it in this forum and in the LCD forum. It not a valid alternative to actual calibration in the same way copying settings isn't. You want to convince yourself and others this is a valid option and you refuse to accept the facts stated by many in this thread.

Well this is interesting:

Post #1683 in the xxLK520, xxLK450 Thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

First of all, I wouldn't use any copied settings as no two TVs use the exact same settings from the factory (sometimes not even close). As far as eyeballing grayscale goes, I don't recommend it but if you see visible color tints on either the bright or dark gray inner patterns and it bothers you, you can make adjustments by eye until it looks neutral to you. If the contrast pattern looks whitish that is not a colored tint and so there is nothing to fix.


Never say never I guess. . . . except sometimes.

And I never said I was not interested in calibration, since, as you well know I have owned two meters as well as my technical back ground in my work. However, I did not initiate the thread, but others on AVS apparently also have similar observations regarding calibration vs. media assisted user settings. A choice. . . that is all. Both have merits. A reasonable person should be able to accept both.

That is all.
Phase700B is offline  
post #82 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 06:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

If you're not interested in calibration, why bother posting here? I don't see any point to your post here.

Not interested in calibration? Don't post in the calibration forum. Simple.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post21386693
GeorgeAB is offline  
post #83 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 09:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 186
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
post #84 of 176 Old 02-08-2012, 09:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

Well this is interesting:

Post #1683 in the xxLK520, xxLK450 Thread:




Never say never I guess. . . . except sometimes.

Perhaps you missed the "I don't recommend it" part.
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
post #85 of 176 Old 02-09-2012, 07:31 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

reasonable

This is the most overused (primarily by you) yet ultimately irrelevant term in the calibration forum. It is completely subjective and can (and does) have a different meaning from person to person. Your constant declarations of what is supposedly reasonable and what is not are pointless as that is your personal opinion alone. Your opinion has no bearing upon calibration principles or the well-established imaging science that it is built upon.

This forum exists so that people can learn about calibration, not personal techniques for tweaking their display by eye, which is not calibration (regardless of what anecdotal or subjective information you care to offer up). The goal of this forum is to present factual information so that end users can make informed decisions; any person who reads the calibration-related information here is and always has been free to determine whether or not they want to put that information to use in their home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

That is all.

Yet you keep posting...not sure what the purpose of constantly making this statement is if you fail to adhere to it.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #86 of 176 Old 02-09-2012, 07:35 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

Perhaps you missed the "I don't recommend it" part.

He also missed (or, at least has yet to respond to) this valuable information regarding making adjustments by eye:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

The only tint you can detect is in reference to the white that is the brightest shade of gray on the screen.

That's why when red clips and the brightest white goes blue, your eye tells you all the lower swatches just turned pinkish.

Your eye can be sensitive to see if the grayscale is consistent, but it doesn't have a clue what the whitepoint is.

My suspicions are that it will go unheeded.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #87 of 176 Old 02-09-2012, 08:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Calibration is not a pursuit of excellence it is a pursuit of standardization, repeatability. That everyone is looking at the same image. It is important in mastering content that is adjusting the source content to taste for best picture most pleasing image, before the final version is distributed. Especially if multiple people and multiple displays were being used during the mastering process.

Calibration to me is something for precision instruments used in the manufacture of products. It is important to mastering content, it is the reference point.
A reference point around which consumer products and consumers can adjust to taste if they wish. Unless they only want good enough they only want a picture as good as, the same as was seen in the screening room, commercial theater, studio monitor. They hold seeing what they think the director saw as the goal not getting the picture to look it's best to their own eyes.

For consumer formats and displays in my opinion calibration would be better described as correctly setting up the display to the format. The format has a black level, a white level, a grey scale, color primaries, etc... Setting up the display so it is correct to the format results in the image being displayed properly not distorted. If calibration is sold on that premise it is not overrated in my view.


But if it is sold on the idea of producing the picture the director saw or the best picture I think it is overrated.

In the consumer domain with different standards to those used in cinemas and different display technologies being used. The idea that everyone should be looking at precisely the same image the director saw or was seen in a commercial cinema I think is flawed. The idea that everyone should be looking at precisely the same image is also flawed given the variety of home display technologies and the variation between displays.

Displays in different viewing environments, being viewed at different angles, occupying different amounts of the viewers field of vision, with different black levels and white levels, different MTF curves and different boundary contrast, are all going to look slightly or greatly different as far as impact, contrast, color, even if they all have been set up correctly for black-white level, grey scale, color primaries, gamma. Add to that some displays that have non standard primaries or non standard color decoding, or use dynamic contrast, etc... They are not going to be indistinguishable.

A pursuit of calibrated to standards is also in my view not neccessarily the same as a pursuit of best picture quality.

A pursuit of excellence or the best picture quality is not in my view achieved by trying to replicate the picture as seen in the screening room or commercial cinema or studio monitor. That would be a pursuit of good enough. Pursuit of image excellence to me is pursuit of best most pleasing picture quality.
From the start point of having the display correct to format I see nothing wrong in tweaking the picture to taste as I am not dogmatic, I want the picture to look it's best to my eyes.

What would someone prefer accurate to standards grey scale and color or less accurate but better black level and four times the contrast and superior MTF and a image four time the size. The most correct to standards display is not guaranteed to have the be the best picture quality for home entertainment.

Given the choice between a home cinema projector setup in a dedicated room and a commercial cinema, I would prefer the home cinema because in my opinion it can achieve a more pleasing picture. Likewise I would not choose to decorate and light my home like a mastering studio and watch a studio monitor, because in my opinion modern flat panel displays can give a more pleasing picture
dovercat is offline  
post #88 of 176 Old 02-09-2012, 08:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Dovercat, etc., are perfectly free to enjoy whatever distorted version of video reality they prefer. They can accept or reject any aspect of imaging science and display calibration according to the own whim or "taste." Redefining decades of internationally recognized proven practice can occupy their time. However, this section of the forum is dedicated to helping people learn how to achieve image fidelity, via display system calibration, according to those industry reference standards. It's all about preserving the art, not altering the art.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021933
GeorgeAB is offline  
post #89 of 176 Old 02-09-2012, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
 
wyen78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philly, PA
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I am one of those who does think pro-calibration is a good thing. Alas I am on a budget and my displays are budget level purchases (LG 50PW350, and optoma gt750). I have bought an eye-one meter and am trying to learn how to use it, not because I think I can get the same results as a pro-isf certified experienced calibrationist but because I can get closer to the standard at a fraction of the cost (and I can keep checking as the displays age without spending 300 bucks each time).

But here's another point to ponder. People don't all see the same. Our eyeballs are shaped different, different numbers or responsiveness of rods and cones, and then there is the uniqueness of our brains and how it perceives the stimuli that our eyes receive. If this is the case we can never see exactly what the director intended (what if the director is color blind?). Let's say that what you perceive as primary blue is different from what the SMPTE primary blue is....should your calibration be setup so that your screen shows primary blue that follows SMPTE definition, or so that what your eyes see is primary blue?

Is it more important to have the screen show what the director intended or for the person to see what the director intended?

Anywho, I find a set that has been "calibrated" even if it's only with a disc or cheap meter to look better and it gives me the warm fuzzies knowing that my greyscale is closer to being correct. I also don't think the emotional/artistic merit of a movie is so dependent on minute differences in hue, saturation, luminance etc.

wyen78 is offline  
post #90 of 176 Old 02-09-2012, 10:02 AM
Member
 
ZandarKoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyen78 View Post

I am one of those who does think pro-calibration is a good thing. Alas I am on a budget and my displays are budget level purchases (LG 50PW350, and optoma gt750). I have bought an eye-one meter and am trying to learn how to use it, not because I think I can get the same results as a pro-isf certified experienced calibrationist but because I can get closer to the standard at a fraction of the cost (and I can keep checking as the displays age without spending 300 bucks each time).

But here's another point to ponder. People don't all see the same. Our eyeballs are shaped different, different numbers or responsiveness of rods and cones, and then there is the uniqueness of our brains and how it perceives the stimuli that our eyes receive. If this is the case we can never see exactly what the director intended (what if the director is color blind?). Let's say that what you perceive as primary blue is different from what the SMPTE primary blue is....should your calibration be setup so that your screen shows primary blue that follows SMPTE definition, or so that what your eyes see is primary blue?

Is it more important to have the screen show what the director intended or for the person to see what the director intended?

Anywho, I find a set that has been "calibrated" even if it's only with a disc or cheap meter to look better and it gives me the warm fuzzies knowing that my greyscale is closer to being correct. I also don't think the emotional/artistic merit of a movie is so dependent on minute differences in hue, saturation, luminance etc.

Yeah, who cares about what colors are coming off the screen, what about calibrating to correct for errors in the human eye? Is X-rite coming out with an i1 eye one (hey, it's consistent with their current naming conventions). I'd imagine you'd have to stab the i1 eye one into the back of your skull in a Matrixesque fashion...
ZandarKoad is offline  
Reply Display Calibration

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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