Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn
You need to educate yourself about a subject before taking a professional to task for an accurate post... accurate in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.
Some people who share this very forum who were not professional calibrators as far as I know, have already tried calibrating a video display and copying those settings to other samples of the same display. Only 4% of the time did they obtain results that were equal to or better than the default results (using reasonable settings to begin with).That is fact, and that proves that you cannot copy settings between displays and achieve anything useful.
Where do you come up with your 4% FACT. Honestly you just pull that out of think air, and proclaim it to be a FACT that proves your point. What was the survey size to make your fact? Where they apple to apple, same model, AND same model and panel manufacturer (you understand that difference), were they using Plasmas, and how aged were the Plasmas. Maybe you are talking projectors. Its no FACT, and expect better of the reader.
Without a meter you would never know if the copied settings are better or not, but the great unwashed masses (even here on AVS there are under-informed users) are simply not capable of making ANY judgements about whether copied settings are better or not because most people will have a prejudice to THINK the copied settings are better even if they are proven worse by measurements after the fact.
LOL, you really think that? Let me check something.....yup my eyes are a meter. Thanks for posting this techobabble, because it confirms my frustration with your first posting. You are professing that people can not See (ie subjectively measure) a HDTV image, and then make ANY judgement of whether it is better or not....and going further you think the power of suggestion is enough for them to think incorrectly also. Funny stuff indeed. In the end, it is better if the end user thinks it is, the customer or end user. For someone to think that a person wanting or paying for color calibrated HDTV can not be "the judge of it" is amazing. Take this color, my sensor says you must! you are basically at that. BTW I am not talking about soft-proofing for print, where definitions of color are transferred between a monitor, to a printing device, those will be hard numbers, we are talking a person and their AV system.
There aren't many PROFESSIONAL calibrators who can tell you if a video display is accurate or not (without measurements). The chances of someone without training or equipment being able to tell anything beyond gross errors is slim to none.
So if I bring my known source material on a Blue Ray, and run it through several different setups, I can not tell if I think they are good or not. Wait, I can, and that is not using measuring equipment. The ideal of a number beyond the subjective viewer remains laughable.
1- This is a "here we go again" reply because there is an endless stream of people posting similar requests/inquiries in the calibration thread who think like you do because they haven't educated themselves thoroughly on the subject.
This thread is pretty specific, a guy with equipment looking to use it on his TV, fine, and another guy who says, Great to see, tell me your numbers when you get it done. THEN You. Who chastises they guy asking for numbers, and thinks that those numbers would be useless. (Whether or not you sell services does not really play into it at all)
So you are wrong, the numbers will help people, that is why they asked, others are interested, Me for example, and then there is you, trying to stamp down the discussion, stop the exchange of information on the forum, selling whatever. Its simple, if you don't want to answer the question, Don't, but Don't tell the guy he should not ask. And if you are wondering what your reply should have been.....it should have been nothing, read your next thread, move off. Instead you post stuff that is just wrong. What is wrong, that a viewer can not tell IF THEY like an image better or not.
2- Your premise is just plain wrong whether you believe that or not. You can remain ignorant on the topic if you wish, but don't go posting here that you know we are all wrong about this because we aren't wrong about it (copying settings being useful), you are.
So I am wrong of what? You don't bother to say. Copying the settings from a person who used their own hardware to calibrate their own TV, which is identical to your own, IS USEFUL TO SOME. I know you want to sell a 400 dollar personal visit calibration of a HDTV. Fine, more power to those that can afford it, and want it, and need it. But you go way to far when you DECLARE that how others not paying for your services, should discuss and talk about how they are handling the color of their sets. The set in question is a 1500 70inch LED, LCD, with system on a chip designs, and a powersupply. Sorry but there is value in discussing means of adjusting the set WITHOUT paying someone 400 dollars to read a X-Rite. Especially someone who has all the understanding of, ITS WHAT MY MACHINE SAYS, there you go, I am not able to judge without my machine, neither are you, cash or check.
3- You are delusional. TVs are not custom calibrated on a unit by unit basis. If they were, 10 samples of the same model would NEVER measure or look different when you take them out of the box, but they DO NOT match each other. And that is also a fact, just ask anyone who has to calibrate video walls so an array of 10 or 20 or 40 video displays all look the same. None of them match at the beginning of that sort of undertaking, not even if they are Pro monitors (though Pro monitors are a lot closer to each other than consumer models.... and they should be considering what Pro monitors sell for (because they use higher precision components and higher-precision circuits).
The panels and have a definition that is unique to it, after it is defined, it brings the panel to a base point, the generic factory setting (not inside the service menu) on top of an equalized panel. Take two identical Dell PVA montiors, look inside the service menus, and you will numbers set by the factory unique to the panel inside that unit. Start messing with those numbers and you can get lost forever. Lacie monitors, you should be aware of them, cherry picks panels from NEC, and then puts high bit LUTs on them. Sure for consumer level HDTV they put a jig of sensors over the panel, do a quick set, and move on....but its still done. DO YOU honestly think that every single LCD panel, uses the exact same user control numbers, and that is the factory setting? Are you old enough to understand the word potentiometer, you know those things inside the CRTs which you would set, even when the color was controlled with a digital display.
But on his specific Vizio even if you don't believe all of that, they do have a setting called Calibrated Color, what do you think that is? This is new to the Q model, which has all the new nifty feature, which is the topic of this thread.
4- Once again this speculation all results from your un-scientific belief system that you have constructed without industry experience, without training in topic, and without calibration exoerience. You cannot say things like this just because you think they are true. You have no calibration experience so you think it's not particularly useful. Whatever. I feel like I'm carrying 50 lethal weapons and the combined super powers of the entire Justice Leagie and you're standing there with a rubber dagger and a baby chicken. It's not a fair fight, but you apparently don't realize it.
You don't know what my experience is in manufacturing but you do want to profess what you think it is. You can take a wafer of chips, hook up a sensor from AMD, and test the chips on the wafer before cutting the die, that type of automation is used in Korea in the LCD lines too. My trusty DTP94 disagrees with thoughts about me also. If you have a windows 7 driver that is not based on the B model still offered by made by Datacolor, I would be interested. I am not charging people 400 dollars a head to be a monkey with a meter speaking as if I were the hollowed robes of the clergy of the calibration either.
"Lets not agree on the need for professional calibration, or whether or not numbers from same TV can be shared. We know that people take a sensor, test, tweak and that write down these numbers, and charge people 100 dollars for them, don't want them posted, because they obviously won't work. You say they won't work also. Others, who calibrate as hobby, are more than willing to share numbers, on forums like this, because they understand a specific model and class have similarity and these setting are able to be shared an used."
That is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard or read on this topic. Somebody with unconfirmed calibration skills posts numbers others can use so THEY are right, But people educated on the topic who KNOW you can't share settings because it just doesn't work more than 4% of the time (which is PROVEN by the way and possibly right here on AVS) are just trying to protect their turf. Yeah, right. Just another conspiracy hypothesis (there are almost ZERO conspiracy theories, they are 99,99% hypotheses, and there is a very important distinction between theory and hypothesis... a theory explains something real, something true, a hypothesis is essentially an unproven guess, though an astronomer hypothesizing about the origin of the universe isn't on the same level as someone with no education in physics or astronomy claiming astrology is real. Astrology and copied video display settings are about equally real.
Bottle taking for you or what not, I think an automated flame generator has more flare. Your 4% proven, statement does not even pass the statistical error of a sample at that size, even if controlled and still applicable to current technologies and manufacturing.
Your Hall of Justice stuff, is pretty much why I replied, beyond my interest in this actual set. If you don't think a set of numbers is useful, and you are sick of reading posts, just move along, read your next post, let other people share information in this forum as they feel fit. Vizio will be out with there next generation of TVs soon enough that has a blue tooth enabled iPhone apple matched to sensors in each version, that will display a image, which is matched to zone and size as displayed on phone, which will guide the owner through a true and useful calibration minus the professional. Home Theater designers and installers, and tweakers won't be effected, people with complex needs or just want to pay for a turnkey expert Hometheater will still be there. But we are about a year or 3 before APP inside of an Iphone as sensor, connected via Bluetooth is a full solution. Do you at least understand that? Time and how we twist the potentiometer move one. The basic single set calibration with be on your Iphone soon enough, for good reason.
BUT PLEASE, don't go about telling the person looking for the information, that they are wrong to seek it, and it will be useless, because useless is a different thing than not profitable."
This "place" is know as AVS Forums... AVS stands for Audio (&) Video SCIENCE, not Audio Video SPECULATION. And SCIENCE tells us copying settings is not effective and is ESPECIALLY NOT a subject for the calibration thread on AVS because copying settings is not calibration.... not even remotely close to calibration. You are presenting speculation as fact, and you are wrong. We know what the facts are from our own training and experience wth 100s if not 1000s of video displays. I can't even estimate how many different displays I've woked with over the last 10 years or so (I've been involved in imageing systems professionally since 1972 and have been deep into both analog and digital video systems including digital cinema related products for all of that time. As much as digital video eliminates things that were problems in the analog video age,digital imaging in the form of consumer video displays is not an exact science. And video calibration is part science and part art... the art being figuring out how t best hide errors when a TV won't calibrate as well as you'd like and/or how to manipulate the controls in the display when the controls don't work quite right.
Just speak for yourself, you don't need me to speak for everyone that does not agree with you, and I don't think you speak for many who agree with your obvious tact. Tell me about science then tell me about "part art", so at the simplest, why would you chide people to stop talking about using the "part art" in the discussions?
I don't know whats insider your Hall of Justice mind, but as I said, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, just move on. If the discussions is going to go without an answer the thread will die by itself. You know how fast NEC Spectraview can hardware calibrate a LCD2690uxi (yes the true white version)....its coming to an App store near you, Bluetooth connection, now need to dangle the sensor wire.
"If someone could answer the OP question, anyone have numbers they would like to share for a E701i-A3 the Q version with new menus for color management, the 2014 model
I would be interested in read it."
Then go start a "sharing TV calibration settings" thread. That is not a question to ask in a calibration thread because it has nothing to do with calibration. In fact, it is a patently ignorant question to ask in a calibration thread where everybody to checks in here regularly wants to do nothing more than help people understand calibration, calibration issues, and to answer calibration related questions. I'm going to make the astrology thing an issue again because your position on copying settings is very similar to the opinion of someone who believes in astrology. Quite a few debunking exercises have been done on astrology over the decades, perhaps over the centuries. One of the more clever ones I read about studied a fairly large number of subjects, like well over 100 people. For 3 months they each received their horoscope for their particular "sign" and they were asked record before retiring for the evening how often the horoscope accurately related to what happened to them that day on a 1-5 scale. The test went on for 6 months, but the participants were not told that after the first 3 months, the team performing the study took the horoscopes from the same source and randomly mixed them up so someone who was a "Cancer" could receive the horoscope for a "Pisces" one day, while the next day they might receive a horoscope for a Gemini... just a complete random sample of horoscopes. They then compared results from the first 3 months to results for the second 3 months and there was no difference. Most of the people who participated in the study shrugged it off and kept believing that their horoscope was somehow "real". This is exactly the sort of situation you are in here.
You're not likely to find much sympathy for your point of view here.... everybody is entitled to their opinion even if it is wrong. But presenting it as CORRECT when it is NOT... that's what we have a problem with.
Look fellow, this is a discussion forum, which last I checked was for discussing things. If you don't want to participate, don't. I think all the jibberish you wrote right about about Astrology sums up the black art of circle of calibration that your think you need a stinking badge for.. And whom you speak for is only yourself, only yourself. The moonbeam astrology stuff you are selling, I am not buying. You end with that's what we have a problem with
YOU. If you want to read your ranting, I don't see people jumping on board, I don't think, that anyone wants what your are smoking, if the results are obvous. DOUG.
I am interested in some calibration settings that the OP may come up with his newer Q model of the E701i-A3, that has forms of CMS, and more settings that the older version. I and one other poster has asked to see what they may have. Useful info. If you don't want to see it, fine, but don't say its not information worth seeing, Don't try to shut people up.
Skew along now