Using highest backlight setting for the best calibration accuracy? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 43 Old 01-24-2014, 12:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
On my CCFL TV, using backlight seems to add an equivalent amount of light to my blacks and whites, so my contrast ratio at any backlight setting is almost always the same with a few minor changes. If I were to use backlight setting of 5 during calibration and then change it to 3 - the overall gamma and WB accuracy would stay the same, but the brightness of points of would change.. Would it not make the most sense to crank up the backlight to make it easy for the colorimeter to read lower level blacks more accurately?
MonarchX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 43 Old 01-24-2014, 12:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Gregg Loewen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New England
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 39
yes, providing there is no color shift as you increase the Y value (which there should not be).

President, Lion Audio Video Consultants Inc.
Lead THX Video Standards Instructor
Gregg Loewen is offline  
post #3 of 43 Old 01-24-2014, 12:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I noticed something strange just now - higher backlight increased my CR by 300:1. Then I reduced backlight to 3, which used to give me 100 cd/m^2, but now gives me 115 cd/m^2. Then 5 minutes later to 111 cd/m^2. I figured colorimeter just reads energy patterns and since higher backlight settings heated up the screen, it would take some time for it to cool down. However, after 15 minutes, the result stayed at 110 cd/m^2! Then, I tried lowering backlight to 2, which made the image just too dim, but brought my black level to 0.03 cd/m^2, which is incredibly for a 4 year old CCFL LCD! I decided to stick with 3 again, but this time 3 was giving me only 100 cd/m^2 again, so I waited another 15 minutes and it stayed at 100 cd/m^2. I tried going back to backlight 10, and back to 3 - I was getting 110 cd/m^2 30 minutes later. Setting backlight higher and then bring it up back down somehow increases my white point.... any ideas?

It appears there IS a different in WB and gamma at higher backlight setting, but only with Blue. There is less of it at higher backlight settings, so in the end, it may be best to use the right backlight setting...
MonarchX is offline  
post #4 of 43 Old 01-24-2014, 07:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,056
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 187
you don't need to do anything like that if your meter can read low light levels well enough (like with the D3 family of meters)
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
post #5 of 43 Old 01-25-2014, 05:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,453
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 222
Backlights aren't always linear - though they should be. Variations tend to appear at the lower few adjustment steps and the top few adjustment steps. If you are somewhere in the middle of the range the backlight tends to be the most linear. But that doesn't really matter... blacks that aren't black are a HUGE distraction and the sign of a poor quality video display. Your number 1 concerns should be getting the black level as low as possible while still achieving a satisfying luminance level for 100% white (somewhere in the 30-40 fL range for a dark room, brighter for a room with some light or a lot of light). If the backlight gets non linear at low settings that give the best blacks, you may still be able to get a good calibration at the low setting if the calibration controls have the range to fix the non-linearitiy issues. For viewing in a brighter environment, you'll likely need to increase the backlight setting so it's probably best to calibrate some other picture mode for bright-room viewing (again, this assumes the backlight is non-linear and that raising it will whack your low-setting calibration pretty significantly). If you are lucky, the TV will let you save different calibration settings for a brighter mode along with a higher backlight setting. If you are NOT lucky, it will be more difficult to deal with getting the blackest-blacks

You are still overly obsessed with contrast ratio. You should be obsessed with getting the black level as dark as possible and the 100% white luminance level up to a comfortable viewing level. If you want a high contrast ratio, keep in mind that a TINY improvement in black level can make a huge difference in contrast ratio... for example... dropping the black level from 0.06 cd.m2 to 0.03 cd/m2 will double the contrast ratio for a 0.03 change in black level. To make that much difference in contrast ratio by making the picture brighter you'd have to go from 100 cd/m2 to 200 cd/m2.

But there are lots of reasons you may not be able to use the lowest available backlight setting... severe color shifts you can't fix would be one of them. Not being able to get 100% white bright enough to make the images comfortable for the ambient light would be another reason. But if you can get images you like between say, 5 and 15 (backlight setting), using the 5 setting will make the black level the lowest, so that should be your priority backlight setting for calibrating the display for dark room viewing. When there's light in the room, the light de-calibrates the image a fair bit AND if the room has daylight coming in, the color of the light changes minute to minute... different at 8am, 10am, noon, 2pm, 4pm, etc. Different if you have leaves on nearby trees (summer) or not (winter), and if you get light reflected from a nearby house or other building, that will further contaminate the light. Clouds or lack of clouds changes the light... all that makes it impossible for any kind of accurate calibration for bright-room viewing so all we can do is make the TV accurate without light in the room (while making it bright enough to be satisfying when there is light in the room) so when we increase luminance to compete with artificial or natural light in the room, at least the TV is outputting something fairly reasonable even if it isn't perfect because it's constantly being altered by ambient lighting conditions.
BOTBOTCHAI. likes this.

"Movies is magic..." Van Dyke Parks
THX Certified Professional Video Calibration
ISF -- HAA -- www.dBtheatrical.com
Widescreen Review -- Home Theater & Sound
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #6 of 43 Old 01-25-2014, 06:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Doug, NOTHING you've written in your reply has ANYTHING to do with the question I had. You keep on writing your giant replies without even bothering to look at the question asked.
MonarchX is offline  
post #7 of 43 Old 01-25-2014, 07:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
derekjsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

Doug, NOTHING you've written in your reply has ANYTHING to do with the question I had. You keep on rambling in your giant replies without even bothering to look at the question asked.

As a newer member to AVS it would be good to remember who all these people are that volunteer their time to help others. I know forums are faceless and it is easy to forget what it is like to be civil to others face to face. I know Doug and many others on here personally and they deserve a LOT more respect than that.

Derek

CTO / Founder - SpectraCal Inc.
derekjsmith is offline  
post #8 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 07:59 AM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjsmith View Post

As a newer member to AVS it would be good to remember who all these people are that volunteer their time to help others. I know forums are faceless and it is easy to forget what it is like to be civil to others face to face. I know Doug and many others on here personally and they deserve a LOT more respect than that.

He consistently provides unrelated information (like this thread), can never admit that he is wrong even when many people show him absolute proof (like 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4 threads), and often doesn't have provide accurate information (like PC videocard firmware). If it was his first time replying to my inquiry - I wouldn't be harsh at all, but this isn't the first time. By now I've learned about display devices active posters use and tools they use - Doug doesn't even bother to remember and continues to repeat the same info over and over and over again to the same exact people, even when the question was entirely different. I asked very specifically - would increasing backlight setting of my TV improve colorimeter reading accuracy. It had nothing to do with contrast ratio that Doug said I was obsessed about, or my black level, or day/night mode. At times I wonder if he is a bot of some sort... biggrin.gif

The only disrespectful word I used was "rambling", so I changed that to "writing". The rest was spot-on.
John4721 and ConnecTEDDD like this.
MonarchX is offline  
post #9 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 08:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
derekjsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

He consistently provides unrelated information (like this thread), can never admit that he is wrong even when many people show him absolute proof (like 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4 threads), and often doesn't have provide accurate information (like PC videocard firmware). If it was his first time replying to my inquiry - I wouldn't be harsh at all, but this isn't the first time. By now I've learned about display devices active posters use and tools they use - Doug doesn't even bother to remember and continues to repeat the same info over and over and over again to the same exact people, even when the question was entirely different. I asked very specifically - would increasing backlight setting of my TV improve colorimeter reading accuracy. It had nothing to do with contrast ratio that Doug said I was obsessed about, or my black level, or day/night mode. At times I wonder if he is a bot of some sort... biggrin.gif

The only disrespectful word I used was "rambling", so I changed that to "writing". The rest was spot-on.

I would suggest you re-read Doug's post and really try to understand what he is talking about because he is spot on. Now if you don't want to hear or understand what he is saying then that is up to you. But don't be disrespectful for your own needs.
GeorgeAB and laulau like this.

Derek

CTO / Founder - SpectraCal Inc.
derekjsmith is offline  
post #10 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 08:58 AM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Yeah, OK - I re-read it - he didn't answer my question.
ConnecTEDDD likes this.
MonarchX is offline  
post #11 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rayjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 1,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

I noticed something strange just now - higher backlight increased my CR by 300:1. Then I reduced backlight to 3, which used to give me 100 cd/m^2, but now gives me 115 cd/m^2. Then 5 minutes later to 111 cd/m^2. I figured colorimeter just reads energy patterns and since higher backlight settings heated up the screen, it would take some time for it to cool down. However, after 15 minutes, the result stayed at 110 cd/m^2! Then, I tried lowering backlight to 2, which made the image just too dim, but brought my black level to 0.03 cd/m^2, which is incredibly for a 4 year old CCFL LCD! I decided to stick with 3 again, but this time 3 was giving me only 100 cd/m^2 again, so I waited another 15 minutes and it stayed at 100 cd/m^2. I tried going back to backlight 10, and back to 3 - I was getting 110 cd/m^2 30 minutes later. Setting backlight higher and then bring it up back down somehow increases my white point.... any ideas?

It appears there IS a different in WB and gamma at higher backlight setting, but only with Blue. There is less of it at higher backlight settings, so in the end, it may be best to use the right backlight setting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

Backlights aren't always linear - though they should be. Variations tend to appear at the lower few adjustment steps and the top few adjustment steps. If you are somewhere in the middle of the range the backlight tends to be the most linear. But that doesn't really matter... blacks that aren't black are a HUGE distraction and the sign of a poor quality video display. Your number 1 concerns should be getting the black level as low as possible while still achieving a satisfying luminance level for 100% white (somewhere in the 30-40 fL range for a dark room, brighter for a room with some light or a lot of light). If the backlight gets non linear at low settings that give the best blacks, you may still be able to get a good calibration at the low setting if the calibration controls have the range to fix the non-linearitiy issues. For viewing in a brighter environment, you'll likely need to increase the backlight setting so it's probably best to calibrate some other picture mode for bright-room viewing (again, this assumes the backlight is non-linear and that raising it will whack your low-setting calibration pretty significantly). If you are lucky, the TV will let you save different calibration settings for a brighter mode along with a higher backlight setting. If you are NOT lucky, it will be more difficult to deal with getting the blackest-blacks

You are still overly obsessed with contrast ratio. You should be obsessed with getting the black level as dark as possible and the 100% white luminance level up to a comfortable viewing level. If you want a high contrast ratio, keep in mind that a TINY improvement in black level can make a huge difference in contrast ratio... for example... dropping the black level from 0.06 cd.m2 to 0.03 cd/m2 will double the contrast ratio for a 0.03 change in black level. To make that much difference in contrast ratio by making the picture brighter you'd have to go from 100 cd/m2 to 200 cd/m2.

But there are lots of reasons you may not be able to use the lowest available backlight setting... severe color shifts you can't fix would be one of them. Not being able to get 100% white bright enough to make the images comfortable for the ambient light would be another reason. But if you can get images you like between say, 5 and 15 (backlight setting), using the 5 setting will make the black level the lowest, so that should be your priority backlight setting for calibrating the display for dark room viewing. When there's light in the room, the light de-calibrates the image a fair bit AND if the room has daylight coming in, the color of the light changes minute to minute... different at 8am, 10am, noon, 2pm, 4pm, etc. Different if you have leaves on nearby trees (summer) or not (winter), and if you get light reflected from a nearby house or other building, that will further contaminate the light. Clouds or lack of clouds changes the light... all that makes it impossible for any kind of accurate calibration for bright-room viewing so all we can do is make the TV accurate without light in the room (while making it bright enough to be satisfying when there is light in the room) so when we increase luminance to compete with artificial or natural light in the room, at least the TV is outputting something fairly reasonable even if it isn't perfect because it's constantly being altered by ambient lighting conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

Yeah, OK - I re-read it - he didn't answer my question.

From what I have read...Doug was EXPLAINING to you what is happening with the back lighting and trying to explain your finds.
The reaction that you are taking here is that of a 17 year old kid living at home with Mom & Dad that thinks he knows everything about everything. If I were you..I would take the information that professionals are freely giving you.. and just say "Thank You"

Just my $.02
RayJr
Rayjr is offline  
post #12 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
derekjsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

Yeah, OK - I re-read it - he didn't answer my question.

Yes he did you just don't want to understand it.

You do know many of us in this calibration forum do this for a living, either as a calibrator, reviewer or in my case write the software most use. Many of us are also consultants to the display manufacturers. So yes Doug does know what he is talking about and is really trying to help you. But with responses like this I bet he will no longer in your case.

Derek

CTO / Founder - SpectraCal Inc.
derekjsmith is offline  
post #13 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Cognitive dissonance is real.
GeorgeAB is offline  
post #14 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 12:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
PE06MCG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post

Cognitive dissonance is real.

Define 'Real'.
PE06MCG is offline  
post #15 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 12:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
OK, let us break it down point by point:

Original inquiry - would it make sense to use a higher backlight setting to calibrate lower blacks? YES if backlight is linear. NO if backlight is not linear. We already established that it was not linear before he posted his reply, so using it did not make sense. It would make sense if it were linear because it would be easier for my colorimeter to read low black levels more accurately.
Quote:
Backlights aren't always linear - though they should be. Variations tend to appear at the lower few adjustment steps and the top few adjustment steps. If you are somewhere in the middle of the range the backlight tends to be the most linear.

Yes, I learned that by running grayscale at different backlight settings and I posted that my backlight was not linear - no reason to repeat that.
Quote:
But that doesn't really matter... blacks that aren't black are a HUGE distraction and the sign of a poor quality video display. Your number 1 concerns should be getting the black level as low as possible while still achieving a satisfying luminance level for 100% white (somewhere in the 30-40 fL range for a dark room, brighter for a room with some light or a lot of light).

Really? How many posts of mine did he read and how many times did I say what my black levels are and how my TV is calibrated and has been for a while now? Many! If he even remotely followed any threads I made - he wouldn't be telling me this because my TV was already calibrated properly. OK, its not his job to remember my threads, but my oh my - what is that under all of my posts? Is that a signature??? Yes it is! Does it show my black point and white point? Yes it does! Does it say "calibrated" ??? YES! The only uncalibrated part are the low black levels, which are adjusted by a LUT, a software LUT. Software LUTs read the original low blacks and make adjustments on top of any TV controls. I use BT.1886 gamma and for that a software LUT must adjust my lower blacks. It doesn't do a good job because i1Display Pro does NOT read such low blacks WB accurately, which is why it is advised to use your eyes to adjust blacks with TV controls, but I obviously cannot do that if I want BT.1886 gamma. I do not need to provide all these explanations to anyone - I just wanted an answer to my question, which he did not provide and went into another direction. It should be obvious by now that I asked the original question so that I could correct that tiny inaccuracy in black WB by increasing my backlight to make it easier for i1Display Pro to read blacks accurately, running a LUT calibration, and then decreasing backlight back to where it was before. However, that would only be possible if my backlight was linear, but it isn't.
Quote:
If the backlight gets non linear at low settings that give the best blacks, you may still be able to get a good calibration at the low setting if the calibration controls have the range to fix the non-linearitiy issues. For viewing in a brighter environment, you'll likely need to increase the backlight setting so it's probably best to calibrate some other picture mode for bright-room viewing (again, this assumes the backlight is non-linear and that raising it will whack your low-setting calibration pretty significantly). If you are lucky, the TV will let you save different calibration settings for a brighter mode along with a higher backlight setting. If you are NOT lucky, it will be more difficult to deal with getting the blackest-blacks

My TV is in a room without windows where its pitch-black even during daytime. Nothing in those statements applies to my case. Again, this TV is already calibrated the best it can be, given the tools I have.
Quote:
You are still overly obsessed with contrast ratio. You should be obsessed with getting the black level as dark as possible and the 100% white luminance level up to a comfortable viewing level. If you want a high contrast ratio, keep in mind that a TINY improvement in black level can make a huge difference in contrast ratio... for example... dropping the black level from 0.06 cd.m2 to 0.03 cd/m2 will double the contrast ratio for a 0.03 change in black level. To make that much difference in contrast ratio by making the picture brighter you'd have to go from 100 cd/m2 to 200 cd/m2.

Obsessing with CR is what got me from black level 0.06 cd/m^2 and 1700:1 CR to black level 0.04 cd/m^2 with 2805:1 CR. If I would've listened to his advice on not using LUTs and PC graphics card - i would've stayed with CR 1700:1 because my TV controls are broken when it comes to contrast adjustment. Only a software LUT could fix it and it did. Again, this TV is already calibrated besides a slight inaccuracy in black level WB.
Quote:
But there are lots of reasons you may not be able to use the lowest available backlight setting... severe color shifts you can't fix would be one of them. Not being able to get 100% white bright enough to make the images comfortable for the ambient light would be another reason. But if you can get images you like between say, 5 and 15 (backlight setting), using the 5 setting will make the black level the lowest, so that should be your priority backlight setting for calibrating the display for dark room viewing.

Again, this TV is already calibrated at a luminance level of my liking. I use 3DLUTs so the end-result is near-perfect. I just wanted to fix WB of lower blacks... Again, I do not need to adjust my TV to any ambient light.
Quote:
When there's light in the room, the light de-calibrates the image a fair bit AND if the room has daylight coming in, the color of the light changes minute to minute... different at 8am, 10am, noon, 2pm, 4pm, etc. Different if you have leaves on nearby trees (summer) or not (winter), and if you get light reflected from a nearby house or other building, that will further contaminate the light. Clouds or lack of clouds changes the light... all that makes it impossible for any kind of accurate calibration for bright-room viewing so all we can do is make the TV accurate without light in the room (while making it bright enough to be satisfying when there is light in the room) so when we increase luminance to compete with artificial or natural light in the room, at least the TV is outputting something fairly reasonable even if it isn't perfect because it's constantly being altered by ambient lighting conditions.

Yeah, OK, this TV is already calibrated and those statements do not answer my question or help me in any way. He is not aware of my ambient light environment - why talk about it??? Did I ask about it??? No, I asked one single specific question, which other posters help me with, but he went off talking about something I've known for a very long time now.
MonarchX is offline  
post #16 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 01:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

If he even remotely followed any threads I made - he wouldn't be telling me this because my TV was already calibrated properly.


The irony here is that half the questions you ask are already dealt with in other threads, and most of the time when people point you in the right direction you're still too lazy to do your own reading. Then when someone offers their free insights into a question you've asked, you lambast them for not doing their homework on your personal posting history.


You really come across as an entitled child who thinks the world revolves arounds them.
ConnecTEDDD likes this.
spacediver is online now  
post #17 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 01:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
xvfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

Obsessing with CR is what got me from black level 0.06 cd/m^2 and 1700:1 CR to black level 0.04 cd/m^2 with 2805:1 CR. If I would've listened to his advice on not using LUTs and PC graphics card - i would've stayed with CR 1700:1 because my TV controls are broken when it comes to contrast adjustment. Only a software LUT could fix it and it did. Again, this TV is already calibrated besides a slight inaccuracy in black level WB.

I don't get it. How can software on a computer lower your blacks? Thats down to the panel, no?... You can't turn hardware into something better from software.

It was one of the reasons years ago people raved about LED sets over CCFL.
xvfx is offline  
post #18 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 01:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

On my CCFL TV, using backlight seems to add an equivalent amount of light to my blacks and whites, so my contrast ratio at any backlight setting is almost always the same with a few minor changes.

Your statement here is patently false, and shows a deep misunderstanding of what contrast ratio is. When Doug patiently points out this error in your thinking (shown below), your indignant attitude prevents you from being able to even grasp this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

If you want a high contrast ratio, keep in mind that a TINY improvement in black level can make a huge difference in contrast ratio... for example... dropping the black level from 0.06 cd.m2 to 0.03 cd/m2 will double the contrast ratio for a 0.03 change in black level. To make that much difference in contrast ratio by making the picture brighter you'd have to go from 100 cd/m2 to 200 cd/m2.
spacediver is online now  
post #19 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 01:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Actually, if you did pay attention, I specifically stated "OK, its not his job to remember my threads, but my oh my - what is that under all of my posts? Is that a signature???" I had so many people ask me what my display device is, my colorimeter is, etc. that I decided to show it in a signature, but that didn't help. I actually try to remember who has what as I read threads. I know you have a Sony CRT - I think you also post on HardForums. I know you use a LUT, but not sure you went ahead and tried to use a 3DLUT yet.
MonarchX is offline  
post #20 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 01:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

Actually, if you did pay attention, I specifically stated "OK, its not his job to remember my threads, but my oh my - what is that under all of my posts? Is that a signature???" I had so many people ask me what my display device is, my colorimeter is, etc. that I decided to show it in a signature, but that didn't help. I actually try to remember who has what as I read threads. I know you have a Sony CRT - I think you also post on HardForums. I know you use a LUT, but not sure you went ahead and tried to use a 3DLUT yet.

You're missing the point.

Someone is going out of their way to offer free advice for your own benefit.

That very fact alone demands humility and respect, none of which you have shown. You should perhaps start with the attitude that people like Doug know a great deal more about this field than you do, and that by default, they have answered your question. If it turns out that they misinterpreted your question (which is very easy to do when the person asking questions doesn't have the firmest conceptual grasp of some of the issues), then it is your job to patiently clarify the question.

I still find your posts extremely confusing, which is one reason I didn't attempt an answer (the other is that I am not really in a position to answer these questions given my lack of experience and knowledge). You started the thread with two posts, the first of which contains a flawed premise, and the second of which is rambling, confused, and disjointed.
spacediver is online now  
post #21 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rahzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 145
I have to agree with the others. The knowledge and help that can be found in this forum is invaluable. Whether you find a post helpful or not, have some respect for people trying to help you.
rahzel is offline  
post #22 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 229
+1. I've had some differences of opinion in the past with Doug but I do respect his knowledge, experience, and willingness to offer free advice. He doesn't need us to defend him and quite often his responses are meant to educate, and inform others who may just be lurking here, afraid to post, or just overwhelmed with information overload and don't know what to do. Respect goes a long way in these forums and if you don't like a response, take it for what it is and move on to another forum where the replies are more to your liking.
Otto Pylot is offline  
post #23 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 02:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by xvfx View Post

I don't get it. How can software on a computer lower your blacks? Thats down to the panel, no?... You can't turn hardware into something better from software.

It was one of the reasons years ago people raved about LED sets over CCFL.

My CCFL TV was a special case - my lowest black level could be reached with TV controls, but those controls were truly broken and it was impossible to adjust them to achieve a proper gamma at a high contrast setting, regardless of brightness, backlight, gain & offset, and gamma settings. The best I could do was setting contrast to 68, and brightness to 49 to achieve a 1700:1 CR and 0.06 cd/m^2 BP while keeping an acceptable gamma. As I increased contrast past 68, gamma began to fall past 20% IRE all the way down to 1.6 at 100% IRE. I made a post about it and with dear Zoyd's help (THE most helpful guy on these forums - although I bet he blocked me over being... myself to other people) we figured that contrast control increased B at a much higher rate than G & R. WB controls were unable to fix gamma. Thus, I was forced to use a software LUT which corrected my gamma and allowed me to use a contrast setting of 100, and brightness setting of 46 to achieve a truly awesome CR of 2805:1 on a 4 year old CCFL lady. ArgyllCMS + dispcalGUI were truly amazing at providing extremely accurate LUTs without much grayscale ramp banding. I could go as high as CR of 3090:1 but that only happened when I used a very high backlight setting of 9 or 10. It raised my black point way up, but white point was at about 350 cd/m^2. Backlight setting of 3 was what I used, but it was a bit bright for me - 110 cd/m^2. If I used backlight setting of 2 - I only got 90 cd/m^2, but my black level went below 0.03 cd/m^2 (close to mid/low-end plasma TVs of 2013). If I moved TV in a room where I could open a window behind it - a backlight setting of 4 worked best as it was dark enough to make bezel blacks and display blacks seem equally black.

Given the amount of work I put into it, its low input lag (in Gaming Mode), and a superb image quality even in 2013 - I wouldn't exchange it for any TV other than a plasma like Samsung F8500 or at least Samsung F5350 since no LED TV would be a truly worthy upgrade. Without a 3DLUT, post-calibration color saturation sweeps were all under dE 3, except for orange and orange yellow (dE 4.5 mad.gif). With 3DLUT - there was not a single sweep with a dE higher than 1.0, except for the damn orange-yellow (ColorChecker) dE of 2.5! Factory settings dEs were often above 10, at times as high as 18!!! I had to use almost ALL the colorspace controls in service menu - not just color, tint, saturation, hue, but also mid-color, submid-color, skin tones, mid-skin tones, submid-skin tones and a couple of others. It was nuts! I spent about a month calibrating it, trying this and that, using different modes, learning, using this software, that software, using this LUT and that LUT, etc. etc. etc. Eventually I got it as good as it gets - I will dare to say that no pro calibrator would get it as accurate as I have - none would even bother with a software LUT - most likely just use TV controls and leave me with 1700:1 CR!

Today's TVs are way too easy to calibrate - It only took me 2hrs to calibrate Samsung F5350 plasma TV to get all grayscale under dE 1.2 (one step had dE 1.6....) with 21pt steps and only 10pt controls, create BT.1886 gamma without 10pt gamma controls, and get at least 85% of saturation sweeps, ColorChecker and Flesh tones under dE 1, several at dE 1.5-1.7, and one at dE 2.1 I think. I'm sure a pro could do the same or better on this TV, but definitely not my CCFL one! You can check my results in this thread if you don't believe me - http://www.avsforum.com/t/1509791/cant-get-2-pt-grayscale-controls-on-samsung-pn51f5300-plasma-to-affect-anything-above-60-stim-help . The only thing I do lack to make my calibrations truly accurate is a spectrometer or a profiled colorimeter. If anyone wants to lend me one for a single day - I'll appreciate it!
MonarchX is offline  
post #24 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 02:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacediver View Post

You're missing the point.

Someone is going out of their way to offer free advice for your own benefit.

That very fact alone demands humility and respect, none of which you have shown. You should perhaps start with the attitude that people like Doug know a great deal more about this field than you do, and that by default, they have answered your question. If it turns out that they misinterpreted your question (which is very easy to do when the person asking questions doesn't have the firmest conceptual grasp of some of the issues), then it is your job to patiently clarify the question.

I still find your posts extremely confusing, which is one reason I didn't attempt an answer (the other is that I am not really in a position to answer these questions given my lack of experience and knowledge). You started the thread with two posts, the first of which contains a flawed premise, and the second of which is rambling, confused, and disjointed.

But he didn't go out of his way. In fact, he pushed his way into my thread. He's done it before too! Just read through "4:2:2 vs 4:4:4" thread and you'll see how he completely ignores what others say and pushes his point over and over and over again.

If my post was so confusing - why did the first several replies answered the exact question I asked without any problems? Which flawed premise did the first one contain?

The advice is only valuable if its related to the question asked and if it actually contains new information, not repeat information. I asked about one thing and got a reply that contains absolutely no new information and does not answer the question. I was the one who had to go out of my way and read something I already knew.
MonarchX is offline  
post #25 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 02:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post


Which flawed premise did the first one contain?

the notion that adding equal light to blacks and whites will preserve contrast ratio.
spacediver is online now  
post #26 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 02:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
It does preserve it with backlight setting values of 1-8, only setting values of 9 & 10 increase CR by 300:1, which is a ~10% increase, which you could consider a minor change and I did state "with a few minor changes".
MonarchX is offline  
post #27 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 03:09 PM
Senior Member
 
praz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

I'm sure a pro could do the same or better on this TV, but definitely not my CCFL one!!
This is part of the problem. You think you know as much or more than the pro calibrators or industry professionals do that are posting on this forum. Your basic questions and followup assumptions demonstrate this is not the case. Instead of being appreciative that experts in their field take the time out to assist you more times than not you are argumentative, unappreciative and outright rude. At first it was easy to ignore your posts because they were mostly restricted to the countless threads you would start. But anymore you inject your assumptions in most every thread in this section of the forum. Hopefully the posts in this thread will provide you a hint that your attitude needs self evaluation and this will result in a positive outcome. Although by your responses so far this seems unlikely. If you continue on this course I have a feeling there will be many more people ignoring anything you write.
derekjsmith likes this.
praz is offline  
post #28 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 03:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchX View Post

It does preserve it with backlight setting values of 1-8, only setting values of 9 & 10 increase CR by 300:1, which is a ~10% increase, which you could consider a minor change and I did state "with a few minor changes".

then increasing the value from 1-8 does not add equivalent light to black and white levels, as you stated it did.
spacediver is online now  
post #29 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 03:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 229
I feel a mod intervention is coming.
Otto Pylot is offline  
post #30 of 43 Old 01-26-2014, 03:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
MonarchX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by praz View Post

This is part of the problem. You think you know as much or more than the pro calibrators or industry professionals do that are posting on this forum. Your basic questions and followup assumptions demonstrate this is not the case. Instead of being appreciative that experts in their field take the time out to assist you more times than not you are argumentative, unappreciative and outright rude. At first it was easy to ignore your posts because they were mostly restricted to the countless threads you would start. But anymore you inject your assumptions in most every thread in this section of the forum. Hopefully the posts in this thread will provide you a hint that your attitude needs self evaluation and this will result in a positive outcome. Although by your responses so far this seems unlikely. If you continue on this course I have a feeling there will be many more people ignoring anything you write.

I've asked whether a pro would be able to fix my poor contrast controls on these very forums and I got a reply from several that they wouldn't and wouldn't create a LUT either. I never said I know more than them or as much as them when it comes to general calibration knowledge. I sure as hell do know that they wouldn't be able to calibrate my TV specifically to the same accuracy level because it would take too much time to do so and this TV was incredibly inaccurate. They would calibrate it to an acceptable level (not an optimal level) and they would not even tell me about madVR and its 3DLUTs capabilities. They would tell me that my TV is not accurate and that I need to buy a 3DLUT box to see accurate colors - something several members on these forums will tell you because they would rather you buy an expensive product than use free software to achieve an identical or better effect. I know that too because I asked about it - being a pro calibrator means being a road-warrior and a salesman. It doesn't mean providing the most optimal calibration and telling them "Hey, you don't need all this expensive software. Just buy a ColorMunki colorimeter for $175, profile it with a ColorMunki spectrometer than you can rent for $60, then read this guide here on how to use free HCFR - it can do almost anything other expensive software can do. Better yet - let me show you! By the way, sir, while HCFR does lack the capability of making 3DLUTs, it works perfectly fine with free madVR, which also supports 3DLUTs that can be made using free ArgyllCMS and dispcalGUI. Here's how..."

So I do know - I asked.
MonarchX 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