Just to make it publicly known - I find it almost unnerving to see the kind of attitude all those questions remain glanced over. The reaction that was closest to being "on point" was a mere "so what?".
So let me just sum up what no one here finds problematic or unsettling at all:
- Changing the content reproduction chain mid standard, and doing so without much public recognition. If gamma correction was overlooked for this extensive periods (ten years), it is nothing short of a scandal.
- Reintroducing gamma compensation as part of the "end user realm", instead of accounting for it in post.
(Therefore ruining devices with a perfectly linear gamma (what we are aiming for), that could be set according to room light for example.
- Doing it in a way which produces an even higher variance between displays - dependent on solely their black level.
(The logic behind it, that compensates for black crush on displays where neither 2.2, nor 2.4 would introduces any - but now we are calibrating them at 2.0 and 2.1 at the low end.)
- Not having any opinion on the huge nature of variance in curves that bt 1886 produces (*quote*So what?*endquote*)
- Remaining silent about bt1886 not even adhering to other standards regarding roomlight - in fact brightness remains largely ignored, also gamma always tops out at about 2.35
- Introducing more uncertainty into the calibration process, by approximating an entirely made up approximation.
- Not making clear that bt1886 is used as a compensation curve on end user devices - which deviates in its nature according to the black point (= introduces new errors).
- Using in large parts marketing language to sell others on the concept of it.
I might have not been surprised that some people get a blank stare when they hear the words "algorithmically drawn curve", but just because math is used to present a "solution" it doesnt mean that suddenly all becomes better. It also doesnt mean that you shouldn't look at what is promised and whats actually happening.
Displays with great black points are almost configured at a linear gamma of 2.35, perfectly fit for dark room viewing, where gamma 2.35 in lighter scenes makes perfect sense. I call that a confirmation bias on part of what the standard was aimed for.
Displays with "commercial black points" get a gamma of 2.0 to 2.1 applied to darker areas, but brights still are reaching 2.35 - which makes them problematic for dim room viewing and produces entirely different picture characteristics, even in brighter environments.
When we are introducing gamma variance willfully and thereby changing color targets arent we saying that now all displays with blackpoints that arent excellent also get a penalty on color reproduction just because their tracking should be less linear to go along with a less linear gamma curve? Should we now ask from display producers to compensate for that - therefore also introducing variance, where those displays would have a perfectly similar color representation at a linear gamma function? > Are we making most TV less accurate (color wise). And less suitable for both bright room as well as dark room viewing at once? Well I guess thats also a way to sell new TVs...
The problem regarding local dimming (how its implemented) and plasmas becoming extinct is also known - and with that much resting solely on the black point, we are establishing this standard now - to introduce more variance in calibrations yet again?
And for what? Just so the gamma compensation can be said to be in the end users responsibility - and all previous bluray mastering wasn't inaccurate at all, it was just that we have forgotten to make our perfectly linear gamma devices "more like those old CRTs"...
Also I might emphasize that "postings in a row" without being able to actually establish ANY kind of discourse arent "unhealthy" a priori, as upvoted by some users in here - if they are actually filled with content, arguments, comparisons.
I don't have it in my hand how fast or how on topic others respond to the contemplations I bring forward.
Theres a difference between accusing me of liking my own post showing up and in not responding in any constructive (or even counter argumentative) manner in the first place so my lists of accusations gets longer and longer, and longer - with every bit of additional information I process on my part.
Its a friendly way of saying - "catch up".
But dont worry. As most of the people here gladly are celebrating whenever a default change in the standards they calibrate to occurs and have no ambition whatsoever to understand or discuss the effects of a new "algorithmically drawn curve" to be implemented, I won't bother you much more.
If I don't get any takers - I have to accept it.
With one merit. I can call color calibration (at least for the current home cinema standard) a pseudo science that should rather be denounced than encouraged.
Someone care to sell me on a 3D LUT box?
Last edited by harlekin; Today at 06:41 PM.