Originally Posted by htwaits
The 100 hours is part of a procedure designed for those who want to get the most out of D-Nice's settings. His procedure is not related to having a professional calibration, and according to D-Nice his settings are not a replacement for a professional calibration. He says the settings are a starting point. That's true of all posted settings, because, as you point out, every set, of a given model, will be a little different. The aren't grossly different, but they are different.
His settings post say only the following, no mention of "not a replacement for a pro calibration".
QUOTE "This procedure is designed to prepare your display for the reference settings listed for each 2013 North American Panasonic model below by aging all pixels equally with the same content."
He may say that in other posts in other threads, but the original posts do not mention it at all. People read the 2 posts and get the wrong impression of what the slides and settings are giving them. And "reference settings" written here can easily be misconstrued as very accurate/calibrated settings as long as the slides/procedure are followed to the T. That's definitely not the case and it is very misleading.
If calibrations were universal for every TV, manufacturers could easily just set the custom/cinema/HT modes to be 100% accurate before even shipping the TVs out. And there would be no need for pro calibrators to go around and adjust TVs and projectors. And we all know that's not the case...
When D-Nice or any other respected calibrator works on several examples of the same model panel, the settings will be different to some degree, but the charts illustrating the results will be almost identical. The better the TV's controls and build quality, the more consistent the results will be.
My point is not that the calibration results
are bad when done by a pro (because they are very good), or that D-Nice doesn't know what he's doing (he obviously does know what he is doing).
My point is that (and I've posted this quite a few times here and on other threads)----plugging someone else's settings into your own TV will only make your own TV look different or worse. Not accurate, and definitely not "calibrated."
It's a shame that the pros that post their settings don't really mention this at least from a few posts I've seen. (I know that D-Nice has mentioned it here and there in follow-up posts). But it seems like the pros especially should be forthcoming and clear about expectations and caveats for using someone else's settings. I would think pros would even recommend their clients not post the final settings because of the big variances between sets, and the need for a pro calibration to really get the most out of the picture.
Even CNET's own settings page for ST60 only says "My TC-P55ST60 sample was aged 150 hours before calibration and review, but there's no reason you need to similarly break it in before you apply the settings below." No mention that every TV differs and that their settings aren't necessarily good for any other display, and no mention of getting a pro calibration (http://forums.cnet.com/7723-19410_102-590736/panasonic-tc-p55st60-picture-settings/
Even CNET's own settings/calibration page skirts around the issue:
Originally Posted by CNET
Are your settings as good as a professional calibration?
It depends on the TV, and the calibrator. We've heard horror stories about pointless, expensive calibrations, whether from independent contractors or services like Best Buy's Geek Squad, and we've also heard from customers who are very happy with their professional calibrations. Sometimes the CNET picture settings, since they don't address the service menu, can't be as accurate as a professional one that does go into the service menu. When a TV has plenty of user-menu controls, however, the CNET settings can be just as good as a professional calibration, with the significant caveats that of course a pro can make adjustments for you on-site, takes into account your entire system and room lighting condition, and can provide other general advice. We also use the best equipment available and our reviewers are all very experienced calibrators, while some calibration services lack our experience and equipment.
That is what I am lamenting and getting frustrated with, overall.
It could be as simple as D-Nice going back to the original slides/settings posts and updating them with the disclaimers (and even adding the post-300-hour settings in one of his "reserved" posts).
I don't know the thread/link off-hand from the Calibration forum, but a pro had links in his signature to another website with articles, and one of them was a "semi scientific" poll or comparison of "before/after" readings for about 20~ high-end Pioneer Kuro plasmas, all done by pros. I assume the Kuro displays start out being more accurate with a closer tolerance / less inconsistency between panels than the ST60s or other modes.
From those 20~ panels, there was only a 5% / 1 in 20 chance that two displays would start off with similar picture readings. The other 95% of the time the "before" (reaqdings and therefore the calibrated settings to fix the readings) were most likely drastically different. Meaning that using someone else's settings actually makes your picture worse than before, or possibly / less frequently, using someone else's settings made your picture not necessarily worse but just as far from accurate as the default settings. And that's why the default settings are what they are -- they are more or less an average to get the best results knowing how the panels can differ from unit to unit.
This 95/5 ratio is pretty consistent with the inconsistent ST60 "before" readings shown below and in the attached image.
The drift found by D-Nice in his ST60 is a problem with the display, and not a problem with his or anyone else's calibration. D-Nice recommended that anyone wanting a professional calibration should wait at least 300 hours. He did not recommend running the slides for three hundred hours.
I didn't say any of that. My point was that even on his own display, he needed different settings after another 200 hours. So people using random settings from someone else is useless/not accurate.
And again, there's no mention from D-Nice of any of that in those original posts. It's just buried in various threads.
If you have the technical credentials to criticize D-Nice's professional work, do so, but do it on a technical basis. Such a high level technical criticism should be in the calibration forum, because it's off topic here. .
I am not criticizing his work on his own display. I am only calling into question the point of people posting settings, including D-Nice and CNET, because displays differ so much. I do not think it is off topic, because people post here and in the settings thread how they use the slides and settings as their "calibration" and trust them like the Bible. I would rather people be educated and not have a false sense of security that their TV is "calibrated" when it's not, seeing how obsessed people get with the slides and his settings.
And I'm not a pro, just a hobbyist. But I do know a little about calibration/tuning displays / audio / bass (threads here and on other forums -- including a HTPC + DLP/rear pro "how to calibrate by eye" sticky from 5~6 years ago, helping with REW/BFD for subs, etc.).
To illustrate the differences, you can look at the "before" charts in the various before/after calibration reports (D-Nice doesn't have his own before/after report posted, at least in those two posts, only the "after")
From the records you yourself keep in the Calibration forums (and I commend you on your efforts and dedication in maintaining such amazing and thorough records everyone), most of these have the PDFs with before/after PDFs. To make things easier than going to all these links and opening the PDFs, I've attached a jpg showing the "before" greyscale readings from 7 of these that have PDFs and use the consistent format. Caveat: I didn't see whether these were Cinema/Custom or whatever settings.Panasonic TC-PxxST60 (1080p):Chad B for JetsCuseFanChad B for LESeminoleChad B for ricemanvaChad B for Shady195Chad B for shoresguyChad B for TimokeonCharles Cooper for ryansebizGregg Loewen for JSwizzle
Here's them all together:
*You can compare with CNET's report here, which was after 150 hours -- they look partially similar to one of the readings in the jpg, but very different from the others --> http://www.scribd.com/doc/135590606/Panasonic-TC-P55ST60-CNET-review-calibration-results
For example, Mr Smith's before is actually like the readings in the top left (and he doesn't know because he doesn't have the equipment), and he inputs calibration settings used by Mr Jones for the TV on the bottom right, Mr Smith's TV will look much worse
than if he had left the detailed
settings at default. That's the danger...
D-NICE Settings /// CNET Settings
*Caveat that D-Nice's settings are for Custom, and CNET's are for Cinema.
Panel Brightness: Mid
Black Extension: 0
Color Gamut: Normal
W/B Detail Adjustment
W/B High R: 5 /// 6
W/B High G: 0 /// -1
W/B High B:5 /// 1
W/B Low R: 3 /// 1
W/B Low G: 0 /// -1
W/B Low B: 1 /// 0
(W/B) More Detail Adjustment
10 W/B R: -20 /// -10
10 W/B G: 0 /// -10
10 W/B B: 13 /// 10
20 W/B R: 5 /// 3
20 W/B G: 0 /// -4
20 W/B B: 14 /// 0
30 W/B R: 7 /// 0
30 W/B G: 0 /// 0
30 W/B B: 4 /// 0
40 W/B R: 6 /// -3
40 W/B G: 0 /// -4
40 W/B B: 2 /// -1
50 W/B R: 3 /// 0
50 W/B G: 0 /// 0
50 W/B B: -4 /// 0
60 W/B R: -3 /// 0
60 W/B G: 0 /// 0
60 W/B B: -8 /// 0
70 W/B R: -2 /// 0
70 W/B G: 0 /// 0
70 W/B B: -7 /// 0
80 W/B R: 6 /// 0
80 W/B G: 0 /// 0
80 W/B B: -1 /// 0
90 W/B R: 1 /// -1
90 W/B G: -1 /// 1
90 W/B B: 2 /// 2
100 W/B R: -11 /// -4
100 W/B G: 0 /// 0
100 W/B B: 4 /// 3
Color Detail Adjustment
R-Hue: 2 /// -8
R-Sat: -39 /// 4
R-Lum: -9 /// -3
G-Hue: 12 /// 3
G-Sat: -50 /// 12
G-Lum: 0 /// 10
B-Hue: -22 /// 10
B-Sat: 8 /// 10
B-Lum: -8 /// -10
Gamma Detail Adjustment
Gamma: 2.6 /// 2.2
(Gamma) More Detail Adjustment
10 Gain: -33 /// -10
20 Gain: -15 /// -20
30 Gain: -6 /// -20
40 Gain: -3 /// -20
50 Gain: -2 /// -6
60 Gain: 3 /// 0
70 Gain: 3 /// 0
80 Gain: -1 /// 0
90 Gain: 0 /// 2
100 Gain: 0 /// 0
I apologize for the lengthy post, and apologize if anything here comes off as antagonistic or standoffish. Again, my intention is to try to balance out the obsession with the slides/settings, which I personally think are dangerously (admittedly too strong a word) misleading. There is definitely a lot of confusion around the slides, settings, and what expectations should be, as evidenced by the FAQ that was suggested and started, maybe finished/maybe discontinued...