Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U
I actually am a perfectionist but I can see others wanting what they might describe as a 'decent' or 'satisfying' picture. But all that is purely subjective and not AV Science so there is no way of objectifying the results you may obtain from such methods. Yes, some TVs like the LGs we have are pretty good out of the box in Expert or Cinema mode and getting the basics right like contrast, brightness, sharpness, and 1:1 pixel mapping can be a great starting point for those wanting to get the best PQ (objectively) from their TVs with a minimal financial investment (like with Disney WOW or AVS).
Trying to remove colored tints from grayscale with a grayscale ramp or steps on the screen and your eyes alone is purely subjective and not a scientific process at all. It can still be done if you can't stand the look of the default color temp preset that is closest to neutral gray/white but it is a compromise at best and could easily make the PQ worse from an objective standpoint. That is all I am saying.
I evaluate PQ objectively with measurable characteristics and so when I talk about optimizing PQ for a given budget/interest level it is based on AV science and not subjective qualities of PQ that vary depending on the viewer of the TV. It's hard to have a technical discussion about the subjective elements of PQ.
Yup. . . we know all of this.Subjective. . . objective. . . etc, etc.
Surely you also realize by now you can not have a technical discussion about accurate picture quality either given that values obtained may or may not express the actual results on the screen. As you have experienced, charts and numbers do not tell all. Also, variations in choice of gamma, starting brightness and white levels etc. . . all play factors so it's pretty much the same thing. Unless a person is there in the room with the you they have no idea how acceptable, accurate, etc the picture quality is.
But never mind. .. this is more of a discussion for you know. .. the Display Cal thread.
I am not debating accuracy. . . . comparative picture quality, etc. You happen to apparently need to HAVE that last ounce of picture accuracy you deem necessary from whatever equipment you keep discovering.
And, as I said, while this is the AVS science forum. . . . many, if not most, come here for simple answers and technical help with their new TV
and equipment. . . at many levels. So it is fruitless to assume ALL want the same level of results that you, I or experts do. You say you understand that others may only want a decent and satisfying picture, but I'm afraid your dialog reveals, because you have delved into this so much and it has become the obsession it can be, and you no longer really can be objective about that.
To you , like many others , it is almost heresy. I go into others homes and think there TV could use even a little basic adjusts. But they are fine with the picture and for the most part it isn;t horrid or unwatchable. It's THEIR TV.
To think or say others are foolish or not discerning in what they accept in picture quality is pretty narrow.
So. . . that is that. Subjective, objective, accurate, acceptable, decent, impressive, etc. . . all terms. If people like what they see based on what they can attain themselves they are happy.
I was there at one time with several interests in detailed accuracy, performance, nuances, etc in everything from audio gear,cameras, computers, TV and associated equipment, and more. I don't feel I've compromised in the least and dare say many others are the same. I just spend more time enjoying now.