AVS Forum banner

Panasonic PZ80/PZ85 Calibration Thread (Updated first post)

550K views 2K replies 370 participants last post by  AVfile 
#1 ·
Please keep all talk to calibration settings and related topics. Everything else should be in the owners thread.


AVS Calibration Disc
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=948496


Tom's Settings - Keep in mind he has adjusted his service menu (if you live in the Baltimore/DC area you should hire him to come out!)


Cinema

Picture: 60

Brightness: 52

Color: 41

Tint: -2

Sharpness: 50

Color Temp: Warm

Black Level: Light




Here are my settings using a PS3 via HDMI with DVE Blu-ray and of course by eye. RGB is set to full on the PS3. I have not done anything in the PZ85 service menu.


Cinema settings:

Picture: +70

Brightness: +48

Color: +44

Tint: -3

Sharpness: 0

Color temp: Warm

Color mgmt: Off

x.v.Color: Off

C.A.T.S.: Off


Advanced Picture Settings:

Video N/R: Off

Black level: Light

HD size: Size 1


Standard: - Use for Bright room

Picture: +70

Brightness: +44

Color: +46

Tint: -3

Sharpness: 0

Color temp: Warm

Color mgmt: Off

x.v.Color: Off

C.A.T.S.: Off


Advanced Picture Settings:

Video N/R: Off

Black level: Light

HD size: Size 1
 
See less See more
#1,259 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Obas /forum/post/15001172


i'm too scared to touch the service menu settings

Yeah it's not really hard to get in there and change the settings but for someone that is fairly comfortable with computers and programming it's a piece a cake. I just wrote down everything before I changed anything and then went from there and I can say that I am really happy because my picture got noticeably better and I have elway to thank for that.
 
#1,260 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LBFilmGuy /forum/post/15001506


Interesting observations.


I'll try to crank my picture up some more the next time I watch a BD and see if I notice anything major.

Always worth evaluating different points of view. I am still on the fence as to the "clipping over 235" in the digital realm issue.


Even Chris Wiggles threw his opinion in...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15004483

QUOTE - "It is not surprising then, that in well mastered content, excursion beyond 235 is minimal, but it still remains for peak white features, and is visibly degraded when that detail gets clipped off in the playback chain. Less stringent terminology describing 235 might leave many mastering houses trying to push nominal whites well above that all the way close to 254 in a "brightness" war kind of like the loudness wars in audio which we all despise. But read fully and understood more completely, it is very explicit that occassional excursion beyond nominal white 235 is not only allowed, but expected, and that headroom is explicitly designed into video standards to maintain the integrity and quality of the content. Ideally, we'd all be watching on reference CRTs, which don't clip, and on playback systems that don't clip, but for many reasons CRTs have fallen out of favor for home viewing since the viewing environment and needs are often significantly different.


The question of where to set a digital display's clip point is unique, again because in the studio on a CRT this problem is not confronted because the CRT doesn't clip, doesn't have the hard white point like a digital, and everything to 254 is preserved and displayed on the CRT.


So when confronted with a different white-point behavior on a digital display, you have to make a tradeoff between preserving small amounts of peak white details, versus higher contrast ratio (which is often a limitation on digital displays). How you reach this compromise depends on how important peak white detail preservation is to you (for many it is minimal), versus slightly increased CR performance.


But it is important to understand that when you have a digital video source, usually it is not as if 235 is a hard peak white point, there will be values above that, even if there aren't very many. Is this a big deal? I guess it depends on your perspective. But stating that one should simply align their digital display's peak white point to 235 and hard clip or being to colorshift detail above that (even if rare) is oversimplified and somewhat misleading. However, that may be a reasonable setting one might arrive at, I just hope they arrive at that setting understanding the compromise they necessarily are making on their digital display, just as someone aligning to 254 should understand that particular compromise. Or anything in between.


And as I've said before in many previous threads, I don't advocate one particular choice for digital users since I use a professional CRT, and I don't encounter this compromise in my own viewing. When I calibrate digital displays, I generally leave a few clicks above 235. But since I don't live with these settings on my own system, I don't offer this as a prescriptive suggestion, since that would vary on the display I was using. But since I'm viewing on a CRT, and nothing clips, I don't really face this problem." - END QUOTE


My personal question then in that thread is, since you can go either way with this arguement, this...

QUOTE - The second compromise to lowering contrast appears to be the negative effect on how a 235 reference white is handled by your display as a result and the accuracy of the white you see versus the white on the disk.


EXAMPLE...


At the time of mastering, a DVD is encoded with a reference white pixel in a given scene to be sent up the chain to the display as a level 235 reference white on the digital video levels scale (16-235). At the end of the day, it should be a reference white pixel when it arrives and when it is displayed. This is how my brain sees it. This is a truth. Right?


Now if the user has lowered the overall contrast of their digital display to expose whites above 235 on the scale, they have not actually created brighter pixels in the above white zone. They actually have in fact lowered the intensity of the original level 235 in order to see or "notice" white levels above it. It (235 white) had to become dimmer so that the 5% above white (243?) would show next to it or be "apparent" to your eye. The truth then is that it no longer is a 235 White pixel on the screen. you've knocked it down. It's now more like 227 or whatever. The only pixel on the screen now that is the intensity of a 235 reference white is the 5% above white signaled pixel. Mathematically, there is no other way to look at this as far as I can see knowing digital the way I do.


So is this not an error? A de-calibation? The Reference White Point on your display is now in an uncalibrated state? What I see and what the telecine operator expected me to see are now 2 different things. Is that not exactly what will happen?


That to me logically, is the other compromise to lowering contrast to expose above white. You unintentionally knock white out of calibration versus the content on the disk. - END QUOTE


That said, there are DEFINATELY situations when anything over 70 is overpowering expecially to the eyes and that is when I am on my TV analogue connections. The set handles Contrast like Brightness. When over HDMI from my BD30 it is not like that. Contrast only seems to change the white bar representation. I said that before I think. Sorry.


I am checking with some friends for a light meter. I want to see technically if 60 to 90 (talking HDMI sources only here) contrast has any extra light output that can be measured from an all white screen. My eyes say no. But they can be wrong. But if a light meter confirms that there is no real difference? then really there is no "eye strain" arguement either. It might just be a calibrators preference dependant on which theory to side with. Kill 235 to force a digital to behave kind of like a CRT for a few extra highlights in the whites? Or leave 235 in tact the way the disk is encoded and actually keep the Contrast where the ratio is maximized and you get the contrast ratio the mfg sold you. Every penny's worth! Or somewhere in between.


C.
 
#1,262 ·
Do any of you guys know how to get to the THX calibration in the new Indiana Jones blu-ray? I always thought that all Lucas films/THX had this as a feature, but I can't seem to find it. I heard that the THX calibrater in other Lucas films was very good, so I would like to try it on my 42pz85u.
 
#1,263 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcramer /forum/post/15007983


Do any of you guys know how to get to the THX calibration in the new Indiana Jones blu-ray? I always thought that all Lucas films/THX had this as a feature, but I can't seem to find it. I heard that the THX calibrater in other Lucas films was very good, so I would like to try it on my 42pz85u.

I own the Blueray Indiana Jones and it is missing the THX Calibration Utility. But so is my Indiana Jones Temple of Doom DVD that was not part of the trilogy package yet all of my Indiana Jones DVD's inside of my Trilogy box have the ultility. All of my Starwars episode 1, 2 and 3 and my Starwars trilogy 4,5 and 6 have it.


The tool works pretty damn good too. For what it is. Need the glasses or the Lee Filter Tokyo Blue for the color/tint calibration though.


C.
 
#1,264 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElwayLite /forum/post/15007342


TomHuffman already stated that the difference in foot lamberts between 60 and 90 in Cinema was barely anything, and his final comment was that there is no reason to set it high.


In cinema mode, I got eye strain at 65-70 on bright Bluray screens.

That's right you told me that before. I guess one may have to not only consider the light output of WHITE but the other colors will in fact be more brilliant or intense with a higher Contrast. I forgot about that part of my eyestrain arguement.


I also now understand that deciding to clip or not to clip above white with a given contrast setting is indeed a preference and there is no written in stone convention in the digital realm for this versus how it was handled in the CRT world.


In terms of "viewer comfort", I have also come to understand that prefered Contrast will vary dependant on ambient light in the room and the wall behind the TV and what feels good to the viewer and so on. As long as you stay within a given calibration range, (on the 42PZ85U it apears to be ok from 60 to 90 with my equipment) it's up to the owner to decide which he or she likes best.


Thankfully, setting brightness/black is easy and there is a written in stone rule as well as the color calibration (make it as close as possible with Getgray, DVE, THX or hire a pro).


C.
 
#1,267 ·
Has anyone experienced a hazy picture on their 85U? It just started today where the colors aren't nearly as vibrant and the picture is not as sharp, kind of like when you are looking at the hills through less than pristine air quality. I also tried Ironman on Blue Ray with the same outcome. None of my picture settings have changed but the picture is signiicantly worse than the Samsung in the front room. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
#1,268 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barracuda13 /forum/post/15026545


Has anyone experienced a hazy picture on their 85U? It just started today where the colors aren't nearly as vibrant and the picture is not as sharp, kind of like when you are looking at the hills through less than pristine air quality. I also tried Ironman on Blue Ray with the same outcome. None of my picture settings have changed but the picture is signiicantly worse than the Samsung in the front room. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Very odd. No not here.


Settings?


I use 90 Contrast (NOW 85... Lowering over time until 5% over white starts to show in calibration patterns), 55 Bright and 44 Color with tint at +1. Sharpness is 50. Cinema and Warm. It's the deepest and richest setting in my setup for BD and DVD over HDMI so far. Jurasic Park is a good test of Contrast Ratio I am finding. The opening scene and the one in the dark projector room sitting around the table seems to not like the Higher Contrast settings of 90 and above. The overall presentation of the scenes are a touch milky with that setting. At least when played off my BD30 BD player. Of course these settings are only when playing BD's and DVD's. I have to use a completely different set of settings in STANDARD mode with my TV vieing. Cinema looks horrible with my non-hd feed over coax.


I assume you are over HDMI and all that. Same player all along.


Is this a disk you have viewed before?


C.
 
#1,269 ·
I also have never experienced this and I've been running my PZ85U since April. There was a time when I was watching Late Night with Conan and it seemed to be in a fog. I changed the channel to CNNHD (one of the gold standards in picture quality on my Comcast system) and the picture was wonderful so I chalked it up to the source. NBC is inconsistent, imho.
 
#1,270 ·
I'd also add that whenever something like this arises the first course of action is to switch to a reference source such as BD or upconverted DVD. This way you eliminate the possibility of there being an actual problem with the panel. That's not to say there couldn't be a hardware or software problem, but if your BDs look good then you know it's somewhere else in the line, like your OTA or cable feed.


It also helps a bunch if you state exactly what your set-up is.
 
#1,271 ·
has anyone every used that selection to watch stuff on TV ??


I switched to that and left it at the default settings while watching NFL Games today and it didn't look bad.


Brighter Picture and skin tones I thought looked pretty good


Just curious if anyone has tried watching stuff at the default game mode settings for any period of time..
 
#1,273 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElwayLite /forum/post/15036485


Too bright for me

Too everything for me!
 
#1,275 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErieMarty /forum/post/15036474


has anyone every used that selection to watch stuff on TV ??

No, since only the Cinema mode has a decent gamma profile, the other modes have a wierd gamma causing artifacts that I see in people's faces. I use only Cinema mode now for everything, and calibrated the settings with the Avia DVD.
 
#1,277 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErieMarty /forum/post/15036474


has anyone every used that selection to watch stuff on TV ??


I switched to that and left it at the default settings while watching NFL Games today and it didn't look bad.


Brighter Picture and skin tones I thought looked pretty good


Just curious if anyone has tried watching stuff at the default game mode settings for any period of time..

I would have to check my settings...but properly adjusted, it's a nice option for playing my Wii. You have to knock down brightness and contrast for sure. Using the default setting and I feel the TV's lifespan slipping away
 
#1,278 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErieMarty /forum/post/15040971


thanks for the input on this subject..


wonder why they give us all these Settings..when Cinema is viewed by 99.9 % of the people on here as the best setting to use..

It's a bit of a paradox actually.


These sets are geared more toward videophiles than not. That being the case you have to wonder who is buying plasma and then running it esentially in LCD mimic mode. Obviously there are many people who do this, and that's fine, but they would be better off with LCD. Not only is the picture more what they are looking for but the set will last longer.
 
#1,279 ·
#1,280 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErieMarty /forum/post/15040971


thanks for the input on this subject..


wonder why they give us all these Settings..when Cinema is viewed by 99.9 % of the people on here as the best setting to use..

It depends on source. They all seem to work best in different situations...


CINEMA is best for my HDMI based BD and DVD content by far. The default WARM in Cinema is the most accurate if you are picky but a few people like NORMAL temp. Cinema looks like crap on my Digital TV signal from COAX. I would have to guess that a true HD TV source like HD Satalite feed with everything over HDMI would look right in Cinema as well.


STANDARD looks like right on my basic Digital TV over COAX viewing. Using STANDARD looks almost exactly like the RCA 27" CRT I have upstairs. A few bumps in Contrast from the default and a few clicks lower on the color and it looks great. Every channel presents a little different and nothing can be done about that.


GAME looks the most vibrant and PC like for my 360 and seems to be set to closely mimick PC output. Looks good when all the lights in the room are on and a game is played. Only problem is that is starts to hurt my eyes if I play for more than an hour or so i nDIM light. In which case my Cinema mode is good too. It changes depending on if I use COMPONENT or HDMI as well IIRC.


I have not played with CUSTOM. I would NEVER use VIVID in anything but GAME mode and I am still debating on that one.


C.
 
#1,281 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan_McDougal /forum/post/14423508


The only difference that I noticed was the very dark reds were not as deep on the pz80u. The greens were also very good, nearly on par with the pz800u. The color gradation of grass was very good, much better than before and a spot on match with the px800u. The only thing missing with the pz80u's green was in underwater scenes. The pz800u exhibited a faint green hue in the shallow water that the pz80u did not match. In the deep water it did match the pz800 with the green hue. The blue on both tv's were identical.

Duncan, nice post



Looks like you could now try increasing Red-Cut and Green-Drive.
 
#1,284 ·
Could someone tell me what the 'super-white' setting is on the PS3 and do you use it with the pz85?


Thanks!


Also, I think I'm going to settle w/ normal color temp. I just like my whites to actually be white, and not eggshell/almond/bisque whatever you want to call it.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top