Open letter to InfoComm CEO David Labuskes about the PISCR standard and InfoComm 2015 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 8Likes
  • 1 Post By darinp2
  • 2 Post By mark haflich
  • 3 Post By mark haflich
  • 1 Post By mark haflich
  • 1 Post By darinp2
Thread Tools
post #1 of 27 Old 06-12-2015, 12:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Open letter to InfoComm CEO David Labuskes about the PISCR standard and InfoComm 2015

Note: The following contains my personal opinions, positions, and perceptions.

To David Labuskes,

I enjoy reading your blog off and on. You seem like somebody who cares about doing things the right way.

InfoComm 2015 is next week and I hope the show goes well, but I am very disappointed that one more InfoComm show will be coming up with InfoComm not doing anything about problems with the PISCR standard. I tried to get your organization to do something about the standard before InfoComm 2014 as I thought one more show of misinforming people was too many, and now it looks like there will be at least one more with the same.

I know that this standard was not created on your watch, but you are in charge now and so I think it would be fair to say that the accuracy of this standard and other standards your organization sells are ultimately your responsibility.

This goes back years and I can go into more detail later, but for now I will say that I first tried to warn somebody on the PISCR team over 5 months before PISCR's release not to make the mistake of assuming that differences were due to ANSI CR and not sequential CR, then about 1 year after release when I saw it I told them about a mistake made in the testing for PISCR if they wanted to blame ANSI CR for problems they saw. I believe it has been about 3 years since the person I think it is fair to say is InfoComm's main contrast ratio expert at the moment got my email about problems with PISCR and 2 years since I explained problems to one of your employee's in the standards group.

At this point I am thinking it was a mistake to give your organization so much time to do something about the issues with PISCR and not do more to warn the public while your organization continued to sell it and promote it.

My biggest disappointment with your organization and at least one person representing it isn't what I see as a lack of technical competence by some in the contrast ratio area, but a lack of ethical actions. In all the discussions I've had I don't believe anybody from InfoComm has run a single test I have suggested. Maybe some people from this forum will since there are clearly some here who care about this kind of thing and I think doing the tests will bear out what I say.

If you imagine what it would be like to try to get the Flat Earth Society to test something that goes against one of their claims, then I would say you have probably imagined something with a certain amount of similarity to my experiences with your organization. Unfortunately, some of it has felt a little like being the customer in the famous Dead Parrot Monty Python skit.

Here are a couple of things from a CTS ethics document:

"I ... will consistently promote and encourage the highest level of ethics within the industry"

"I will admit and accept my own errors when proven wrong, refraining from distorting or altering the facts in an attempt to justify my decisions."

I wish I could say those fit the actions I have seen from your organization, but sadly, they do not in my book. I decided to not continue being a volunteer with InfoComm largely because I have my own ethical standards and your organization hasn't lived up to them.

I think that one of your employees may be the victim of misinformation themselves, but with a position of responsibility comes ... responsibility. Even a person who has been misinformed has the ability to do tests, have somebody do tests, or have tests shown to them (when offered, which I did, including offering to fly somewhere at my expense to show the problem in person). They would need to care enough about whether they are party to misinforming people though.

I wonder if any InfoComm representatives would be willing to state publicly that they don't need to do a single test I suggested to see if PISCR is right because it doesn't matter if it is wrong. ANSI not requiring you to change it until it has been out for 60 months even if it is wrong seems like a pretty poor excuse to me and not in keeping with high ethics.


At this point I would give people with high influence with InfoComm who I've talked to a high grade for being nice, a poor grade for technical competence, and a failing grade for trustworthiness.

I can go into more detail later about why after more experience with InfoComm I now believe the problems with the InfoComm standards group go beyond just a misunderstanding about contrast ratio. These aren't ethical things, but about ways of going about getting to the truth while avoiding mistakes.

Okay, I've tried to make my case that your group should do some tests like I tried to get some of them to run and you could just do some of the those tests and see for yourself (I am happy to provide some suggested tests), but I've gone on long enough without getting to the technical details.

The contrast ratio subject can confuse a lot of people, so I will try to start with something on the simpler side where you (and others) can test to see if I am right or whether they should just go with what PISCR and one of your experts has claimed, if desired. These issues apply to real images too, but I'm starting with test patterns InfoComm included for PISCR because they are fairly simple.

People can get some test patterns from InfoComm by going down to the entry that starts, "Appendix 4 Optional HTML Test" from this location:

http://docdev.infocomm.org/apps/group_public/documents.php

These test patterns are meant to give a visual idea of the range of system ANSI CR a particular system falls into.

I asked InfoComm's main contrast ratio expert about a year ago if these test patterns would work when shown full screen (F11 in at least some browsers) in a case like a church that has 40:1 system ANSI CR mostly due to white walls and with little to no light from sources other than the projector. Also, whether the detail the PISCR team saw go missing with real movie images would disappear in systems like this, like they did when the PISCR team shined lights at the screen to get down to system ANSI CRs around the same level. It was made clear to me that my example was considered a good example for PISCR and that PISCR should work for cases like that, including both missing detail in the test patterns and the movie scenes tested.

So, what actually happens in a case like I described? Does shining lights at the screen and seeing detail disappear as system ANSI CR goes under 80:1 mean that the same detail would disappear at the same system ANSI CR values if the problem was light colored surfaces in the room, instead of lights from a source or sources other than the projector? Is it valid to assume that detail would disappear the same no matter the reason for low system ANSI CR?

I'm guessing some of those who saw a presentation I gave to an industry group last week would be able to answer that well. I'm not sure if that presentation will be posted publicly by the group I made it for, but I've included a couple of pictures from my latest version of that presentation.

If people don't know the answer of course testing in the real world is a great way to find out and I have done testing like that, but I will try to explain some of the principals first here.

The picture I've attached of 4 glasses is my attempt to show the kinds of things that happen by using water to represent the light we want for our images off a front projection screen and yellow food coloring to represent contamination light (either from light sources other than the projector or from reflections of light that originated in the projector).

The first glass is meant to represent the ANSI CR test, where the average luminance level is 50%, although my glasses may be a little small for 1 cup of water to make them 50% full. The second glass has 1/4th of a cup of water and here the contamination level was kept constant, like having lights on and shining the same amount of light at the screen no matter what image the projector is projecting.

As people can probably see, as the amount of water goes down a constant contamination causes the ratio of contamination to good water to go up. Thus the liquid turns a darker yellow.

The third cup has the same amount of contamination as the first cup, but here it is from a variable contamination, like white walls are for light. The fourth cup has the same amount of liquid as the second cup, but since the contamination is variable and directly proportional to the amount of water the ratio of contamination to water stays constant as the amount of water decreases. Just like the contamination amount of light from a projector hitting a screen, bouncing around a room, and coming back to contaminate the on-screen image is largely proportional to how bright the current image being projector is.

We could think of these 4 glasses representing intra-image CRs of 40:1, 10:1, 40:1, and 40:1. If the concentration of contamination in the 2nd cup has passed a threshold of unacceptability that does not mean that the fourth cup has also passed that threshold.

Compared to PISCR I've actually been somewhat generous with this example since I only took the water down by 4x, where if anybody wants to provide the movie scenes used for the 80:1 limit in PISCR I think they will find that the average luminance levels for problem movie scenes would be much dimmer than that compared to the ANSI checkerboards. You may be able to imagine what would happen if I had only put 1/50th of a cup of water in a glass and still put 4 drops of yellow food coloring in it, much like putting up a dim scene and shining so much other light at the screen that it caused degradation on a very bright ANSI checkerboard.

The second picture I attached is a slide for my presentation that tries to show the amount of light encoded in some different images. You may be able to imagine what happens in a room with lights turned on enough to raise the black level significantly with the 50% Average Display Luminance (ADL) pattern when the image representing the median image for ADL for a Game of Thrones episode is put up (the one with just a sliver of white that takes up 1% of the image). In both cases the black level would be raised by the constant room light similarly.

Now image the same images in a case like I asked your expert about with a church with white walls and little to no light from sources other than the projector. The 50% ADL image will light up the room a fair amount and a fair amount of light will come back to contaminate the image. This image is bright though, so it takes quite a bit to contaminate it. Now put up the 1% ADL image representing Game of Thrones and what happens? There isn't much light coming out of the projector, so the walls don't get nearly as bright (this can be proved through measurements) and not nearly as much light comes back to raise the black level. So, the black level for this case can be significantly lower than the same image at the same system ANSI CR with room lights turned on.

Back to those test patterns. You can put them up in cases like these and see what happens, if it isn't obvious. They are very dim when shown full screen. The darker patterns are significantly dimmer than 1/100th of a full white screen in luminance. I think you would find that they don't actually work in cases like I mentioned and the principal reasons they don't are grounded in things many of us learn before getting into advanced courses.

It may seem obvious that at the same ANSI CR the images with those test patterns shown full screen will be quite a bit different when system ANSI CR is low due to light sources other than the projector than when low system ANSI CR is due to light colored surfaces. It pretty clearly isn't obvious to everybody as I have addressed this multiple times with InfoComm's main contrast ratio expert. For instance, I ask what happens when a 1000 lumen projector is putting out 10 lumens or less for the test pattern and the problem is white walls. I'm told that the detail will disappear in the test patterns. I ask where all this contamination light is coming from and I'm told it is from the white walls.

White walls aren't magic. They don't create light. If somebody doesn't get that even 10% of 10 lumens coming back from the room (system ANSI CR of about 20:1) isn't nearly enough to make detail disappear in a less than 10 lumens image like it does when 10 lumens of contamination are shined at an image that is less than 10 lumens itself then they could do the tests, but suggesting that hasn't gotten me very far.

In case somebody thinks the 80:1 for PISCR was only meant to apply to rooms with lights on or light coming through windows both before trying to improve the system and after, there are multiple things with the standard that imply otherwise and I was very clear in my question where one of the main people for PISCR told me the standard did apply to my example of a church with white walls, but little to no light from sources other than the projector.

I could go on with things like an example of why this 80:1 claim in PISCR matters and how it can misinform people into spending more money than they should have to fix their problem, spend money on the wrong things, or not even address their real problem when they could have, since PISCR made them believe they couldn't without spending a lot of money. I'll save that for later though.

If you want to try to see if I am right or the InfoComm representatives are right here is one challenge for them:

- Can you make the same detail disappear with the movie content used for PISCR testing without reducing the system sequential CR below 300:1? If so, what would you have to do and how low would the system ANSI CR be at the time?

If the cause of the problems seen in PISCR testing with movie detail were actually due to system ANSI CR and not system sequential CR, then I think the team should be able to make the problems appear without completely ruining the system sequential CR.

Some other questions I think would be good for those who worked on PISCR and represent it now:

- When PISCR was released did you believe that the same detail would disappear in the movie scenes tested by the PISCR team whether system ANSI CR was low due to having room lights on or from reflective surfaces with room lights off?
- Do you currently believe that the same detail would disappear in the movie scenes tested by the PISCR team whether system ANSI CR was low due to having room lights on or from reflective surfaces with room lights off?
- What movie scene is the best proof that systems need 80:1 system ANSI CR to avoid having problems following the story being shown?
- What would happen with that scene in a room with lights off and 40:1 system ANSI CR from white walls? Would it be difficult to follow the action in the scene?

If these experts claim that the detail would disappear in these movie scenes regardless of the reason for low system ANSI CR then somebody could test it to find out, if they don't already know that is nonsense from their knowledge of math and physics.

When people make bad assumptions and finally start to understand that this is the case after it is explained to them multiple times I think some of them will just jump to new bad assumptions, so it wouldn't surprise me if you asked these questions of somebody highly involved in PISCR and you were told that a mistake had been made, but it doesn't matter.

I know this is long and I probably could have explained this in less words, but a person could just do some proper testing (like I have suggested) if they care about the truth and don't want to wade through a long explanation.

I hope that you will take this issue more seriously than your team has. Now that I have decided to take this more public I don't plan on stopping trying to warn people if your organization continues to leave things as they are.

Thanks,
Darin Perrigo






For others here, if anybody wants to do some testing themselves there are those test patterns and I could suggest some scenes to try, but most people could probably find some dark scenes themselves to test.


I ended up creating 3 different scenarios in my living room using dark sheets, white sheets, and a 2nd projector to use as a constant light source that I could adjust to get the system ANSI CR into different ranges. The 3 cases I ended up with had about:

50:1 system ANSI CR with 74:1 system sequential CR
84:1 system ANSI CR with 160:1 system sequential CR
44:1 system ANSI CR with 2100:1 system sequential CR

Which do you think did the best with a dark movie image and with those HTML test patterns from PISCR? I have pictures of my results.


For those unfamiliar with PISCR, there is a reasonable amount of information that can be had by searching on Google for, "piscr draper" and downloading Draper's document about it.


As things are, if a person just wants to be able to follow the story (e.g. be able to tell which characters are which) in the movie material the PISCR team used I think they would be best off ignoring the 80:1 system ANSI CR that PISCR claims and instead making sure they have at least 20:1 system ANSI CR and 150:1 system sequential CR for front projection systems. I know those numbers are low compared to what we desire here, but PISCR isn't about getting the highest quality images, it is about whether information is conveyed or not (whether people can tell what is going on).

At some point I'll get my presentation about contrast ratio with front projectors out and people can critique it. I think much of its impact was what I was able to demonstrate so that people could see things live with their own eyes though.

If InfoComm is set on leaving PISCR as is and presenting it as the truth, does anybody have any ideas of good ways to warn people? Anybody willing to help?

--Darin
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	fourGlassesYs.jpg
Views:	165
Size:	216.1 KB
ID:	771497   Click image for larger version

Name:	ADLPics.jpg
Views:	165
Size:	144.1 KB
ID:	771505  
Stereodude likes this.

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 06-12-2015 at 12:52 AM.
darinp2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 27 Old 06-13-2015, 11:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 62
LOL, it looks like the masses here aren't checking your thread out. You probably should have had a more inviting title like "My battle with Infocomm or How Infocomm is destroying the projection market?"

As for getting the word out, I have often thought you need your own website. If for no other reason than to update and have your contrast article easily accessible. Stuff like this could be posted there as well.

Call AVS For the Best Deals!!!


My new favorite game is Stop the Bots
Ericglo is offline  
post #3 of 27 Old 06-13-2015, 07:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,849
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I saw the pdf, so I know the answer is C. Is this due to the CBP being lower, or?
donaldk is offline  
post #4 of 27 Old 06-13-2015, 11:12 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldk View Post
I saw the pdf, so I know the answer is C. Is this due to the CBP being lower, or?
Yes.

Out of these:

A: 50:1 system ANSI CR with 74:1 system sequential CR
B: 84:1 system ANSI CR with 160:1 system sequential CR
C: 44:1 system ANSI CR with 2100:1 system sequential CR

scenario C has the darkest black pedestal upon which non-black image data is essentially painted. That black starts to get more gray as non-black pixels are added, but for a dark movie image there isn't much light for the image, so the amount of washout from reflections of that light (what I called VLR for Variable Light Reflections in my presentation) isn't very high.

One thing I had people do during my presentation during the ICDM meeting at Display Week 2015 last week was to watch the white ceiling as an ANSI checkerboard was displayed and then as a dark movie image was displayed. The difference in how bright the ceiling got was huge and so is how much light washed out the images from reflections of non-black pixels in the image.

If you start from black with just a little bit of non-black and go brighter all the way up to the ANSI checkerboards there are points where the A and B cases will have better intra-image CRs than the C case. Near black case C is likely to win though and those images where A and B beat C for intra-image CR are not the kind of images where CR problems tend to be severe in my experience. It is when the A and B cases have intra-image CRs under 5:1 with case C having well over 5:1 that I think the real differences show up in one having a real problem versus another, not when B can do 80:1 and C can only do 40:1 for instance. Those latter cases are more like, "this looks good and that looks almost as good," not "that looks good and I can hardly follow the action in this one," which is what having really low system sequential CR can cause with movies.

Bill Cushman did a good job of explaining this over a decade ago in the Contrast Requirements section at:

http://www.widescreenreview.com/news...p?title=cineza

Like I said in my presentation last week, those looking for flooding are more likely to find it in valleys and basements than on mountains and roofs. I'm pretty sure that a couple of years ago I told an InfoComm employee that I thought the scenes the PISCR team likely found problems in for movies were dark scenes overall, even though I didn't know the specific scenes they used. If anybody related to PISCR will say here what scenes they found that caused them to claim people need at least 80:1 system ANSI CR for full motion video then people can decide whether those scenes were even in the ballpark of the ANSI checkerboards for ADL or were very dark scenes compared to those checkerboards.

I believe it was years before the PISCR team did their testing for ANSI CR that I did testing for what having low ANSI CR from a room meant, but I avoided blaming ANSI CR for problems that are actually sequential CR problems by putting a white screen behind our test viewer to reduce system ANSI CR (since adding room reflections had little to no effect on sequential CR and proper testing should separate possible causes when that can be done). When we put scenes up with the screen behind the viewer open or retracted they had a hard time telling what the state of the screen behind them was from looking at the images on the main screen, even though the system ANSI CR measured worse with the screen behind open. They would not have had that problem if I had instead ruined the sequential CR by shining lights at the screen.

BTW: I posted a thread about my presentation with basically the document for it here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...-000-usd-msrp/

An article I wrote about 10 years ago about contrast ratio largely because I thought there was too much misinformation about contrast ratio in this industry is here:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...06-part-1.html

Since then I think some of the industry has come around (and some didn't need to). I can think of one major group in the industry who I used to disagree with and I feel like they have come a long ways in the last few years toward what I was saying 10 years ago.

I get the feeling that one person at InfoComm thinks I am an outlier because I think sequential CR matters given what I think was supposed to be a derogatory comment about my thinking including sequential CR in PISCR would make a difference, while I think InfoComm is largely stuck in the 1990s when CRTs dominated and claims in favor of only using ANSI CR made more sense. There are some pretty major organizations that include sequential CR in their stuff at this point, and for good reason. Some groups/organization I can think of currently that include a sequential CR test are:

Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI): Has recommendations for both ANSI CR and sequential CR
ICDM for SID: The group I gave the presentation for last week and that I've been a reviewer for going back maybe 5 years. The ICDM actually includes quite a few contrast ratio tests.
European Broadcasting Union (EBU): They might be the most up to date and advanced in my book as they understood that ANSI CR was not very representative of even average content (let alone dark content) and so they created their own test pattern that is around 20% ADL, which they recommend along with a sequential CR test.

Whether they want to or not I figure that InfoComm will eventually come around and join much of the rest of the industry since there is a certain pull to the truth (my opinion ), especially in today's day and age where information sharing is hard to stop.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 06-13-2015 at 11:54 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #5 of 27 Old 06-14-2015, 08:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,303
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1243 Post(s)
Liked: 884
Darin. For the unwashed here you need to set forth in summary fashion exactly what the PISCR standard is and who or what it applies to. You need to explain why is it important and why is it important that it be fixed. As to your open letter to a CEO which seeks action, it needs to be summarized into a strong one page bulleted document backed up by a detailed appendix. The targeted CEO which likely not read your long letter and just pass it on to an underling with a request that he/she prepare a response for the CEO's signature. A one pager can be quoted easily by the press.
Craig Peer and pgwalsh like this.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #6 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 09:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,849
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Indeed I would be struggling to turn this in to an article let alone a news item.
donaldk is offline  
post #7 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 09:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,303
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1243 Post(s)
Liked: 884
Darin. please understand that I and we are completely with you here. The issue here is to build consensus among the AV masses, and that requires getting the message across quickly and simply so that an action forcing mass materializes.


One action forcing method might be the circulation of an electronic petition to the members of Infocum if there are such things.




Your letter could be revised as I suggested, a short strong document with a long supporting attachment submitted over the signature of many with their affiliations and titles etc.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536

Last edited by mark haflich; 06-15-2015 at 09:43 AM.
mark haflich is offline  
post #8 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,849
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Bill Cushman:

Contrast Requirements For Excellent Image Quality

Two methods are commonly used for measurements of display contrast, on-off contrast ratio and ANSI checkerboard contrast ratio. CRT displays can have almost infinite on-off contrast ratio but have relatively poor ANSI contrast ratio, often measuring as low as 25:1. It has been known for years that an image with contrast of 30:1 looks quite pleasing to most people. This is very difficult to achieve on fixed pixel devices with images that have low brightness, unless the on-off contrast ratio is extremely high. The video signal is non-linear, and luminance (scene brightness) is equal to the video signal level raised to the power of gamma (usually 2.2). At medium video levels of 50, 40, and 30 percent, the corresponding brightness is 22, 13, and 7 percent. But at 20 percent video level, brightness is only 3 percent, and at 10 percent video level, brightness is an extremely low 0.6 percent. Therefore, achieving 30:1 image contrast in dark scenes requires a high on-off contrast ratio. At 20 percent video level, the required on-off contrast ratio is 1000:1, and at 10 percent video level 5000:1 is required. A 2000:1 on-off contrast ratio translates to a 12:1 image contrast ratio with a 10 percent video level. Therefore, while 2000:1 looks good in most dark scenes, it still lacks contrast and looks washed out in the very darkest scenes.

It would be great to have 100:1 image contrast at 10 percent video levels, which requires an on-off contrast ratio of 16700:1. A more realistic ideal would be 10000:1, which would give 60:1 image contrast at 10 percent video level. The same contrast requirements apply to bright scenes. Air-coupled 7-inch CRT projectors often have ANSI contrast of 30:1, whereas liquid coupled 9-inch CRT projectors sometimes achieve 100:1. Almost any LCD projector can achieve an ANSI contrast of 100:1, and DLP projectors easily achieve over 200:1. ANSI contrast is very room-color-dependent, and only rooms with dark walls will allow ANSI contrast exceeding 50:1. All of this technical talk means that virtually all projectors have satisfying contrast on bright images, but the best fixed pixel projectors will look somewhat superior in bright scenes if the viewing room has really dark walls, preferably flat black. This is the only way to achieve well over 100:1 image contrast at the screen, when showing a really bright image. To repeat what was said earlier, 30:1 image contrast looks satisfying to most people, so in summary, most projectors look great on bright images in rooms with moderately dark walls, but an on-off contrast ratio approaching 5000:1 is required for optimum results in the darkest scenes.


Simply summarized as there is little difference in light between black and grey, so you need as large a difference in steps, in that small amount of light as possible, to discern the differences.

To retain the required 30:1 difference ratio in the scene or least darkest vs darkest area in a single image.

30:1 between white and black is easy, 30:1 for half the range means 60:1 for the full video signal, except for this gamma of 2.2. or 2.4, or... divide 1 by 2.2 is 0.45. This means 133:1 instead of 60:1. And this is where it gets confusing as this is the difference between the optical or light signal and the electronic signal. It means the optical signal is only 45% of the electric signal, so if the difference is 100 electronically it is only 45 in light.

There is more difference in light between light grey and white, so it requires less steps to discern differences.
???

These dark images are more easiliy washed out by reflections, and unwanted light sources, as there is little light in the image to begin with. However this light does not come from the screen, as there is little light on the screen to begin with.
donaldk is offline  
post #9 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,849
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 26
So how does this work with high ANSI Contrast, low sequential contrats projectors like high-end DLP, that have 800+ ANSI, and only 2000-2500 on-off contrast?

Sorry, if this should be in the other thread, please have a moderator bring this discussion over.
donaldk is offline  
post #10 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 10:26 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Mark,

I definitely appreciate the feedback and advice. I'm still trying to work behind the scenes somewhat and if InfoComm's CEO just sent a note to somebody in the organization asking if what I posted was true and whether there was a good reason not to do any of the tests I suggested I think that would be a start.

I posted the following on David Labuskes's blog last week:
Quote:
I hope the show goes well.

Many things will be taught and presented at the show. While honest mistakes will be made, I am very bothered by inaction I have seen from InfoComm after I have pointed out problems with the PISCR standard (and likely things taught about contrast ratio in at least one InfoComm course) and suggested some tests that can be run to see whether claims made about what happens in some different situations are actually true. I work on medical devices and the truth matters greatly there.

If anybody being represented as a contrast ratio expert believes that detail disappearing in movie scenes below 80:1 system ANSI CR when lights are shined at a front projection screen to degrade the images means that the detail would also be as poor with the same low system ANSI CR except caused by reflections off white walls I think they should learn some more about the physics involved. I am generally happy to help people with that.

I think somebody should stand up for end-users. Trying to work mostly behind the scenes with people involved with the PISCR standard over the last 3 years or so has been mostly a waste of my time IMO as I don't believe anybody who was involved with it and has any real power with the group has cared enough to even do a single test I tried to get them to do to find out whether their claims are actually true. This hasn't given me much faith in information from InfoComm, so I decided to next go with an open letter.

My open letter can be pretty easily found by searching on Google for, "open letter david labuskes". This is posted on avsforum.com. I will probably post a presentation I gave to a different industry group last week about contrast ratio with front projectors there soon also.

BTW: You mentioned reading a lot, so I'll recommend a book. It is, "Wrong: Why experts keep failing us -- and how to know when they are wrong" by David H. Freedman.

Thank you,
Darin
It last showed as out for moderation and I don't really expect it to be approved, but my point is to try to get somebody within the organization to care enough to do something. If that doesn't work then I can look at the next steps.

I could write an article, but that would be laid out differently than this.

Thanks,
Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #11 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 10:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 6,228
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1659 Post(s)
Liked: 605
The issue with high ANSI contrast is that, unless you have the theoretical "perfect" environment, you're never going to get 800:1+ ANSI contrast. This is kind of a conundrum for DLP projectors. To get their max performance the room needs to be perfect. So these super high end DLP projectors with amazing light engines, glass lenses and lens coatings might have the potential to reach 800:1+ ANSI contrast, the problem is that the room that the vast majority of them are in cannot accommodate such ANSI contrast from the projector. Most people aren't comfortable enough spending the kind of money needed for proper treatments or they simply want something more aesthetically pleasing than a light absorbing black pit, which is what is basically needed to get 800:1 ANSI contrast from these high end DLPs or even the Sony VPL-VW1100ES which can do 650:1. I think this is one of the big reasons why most view on/off contrast as more important. Most people won't be able to obtain high ANSI contrast and the vast majority of the content we watch is lower APL level content anyways and this is where high on/off contrast performance really comes into it's own. That's not to say high ANSI contrast performance isn't important for a great looking image, but I think the lay person would say, overall, they preferred the image from a current generation JVC (300:1 ANSI and 30000:1 native on/off) over something like a Marantz VP-15S1 (~800:1 ANSI and 2500:1 on/off) with normal source material, not test patterns.

With that said, I think there's a steep drop off in subjective image quality regarding ANSI contrast once you pass the 500:1 mark with front projectors. It's hard to see a big benefit in ANSI contrast IMO past his point.

Last edited by Seegs108; 06-15-2015 at 12:15 PM.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #12 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 10:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldk View Post
So how does this work with high ANSI Contrast, low sequential contrats projectors like high-end DLP, that have 800+ ANSI, and only 2000-2500 on-off contrast?
Are you asking about how the standard works for that or Bill Cushman's comments?

The standard is about the values off the screen, so even though a DLP might be able to do 800:1+ out of the lens a room is very unlikely to be able to do that. If you can get your room lights off then you can maintain the sequential CR from the projector or close to it, but reducing your reflections to maintain close to 800:1 ANSI CR is extremely difficult.

I would link to a document Draper has that explains PISCR levels, but it is a PDF and can be had easily by searching for, "draper piscr" on Google and downloading the PDF.

One thing to remember is that ambient light measured for PISCR includes both light from light sources other than the projector and light from the projector that hits the screen, goes into the room and bounces off surfaces, then returns to the screen. So, a white room can have an ambient light problem even if you turn the room lights off based on measuring ANSI CR off the screen in the room.

There are standards like DCI that are about high image quality, but PISCR is about whether you can see enough of the information that is meant to be conveyed, even if not the most artistically pleasing.

So, with a DCI projector with 800:1+ ANSI CR and 2k:1+ sequential CR, it is mostly the white level of the projector, the screen, and the room that are going to determine your system ANSI CR and system sequential CR. For a system with problems with a projector like that the black levels from the projector itself are minor factors.

BTW: The best thing about that 800:1+ ANSI CR from those DLPs is that they generally have very high MTFs for high resolution images. This is different than the ANSI CR test since it is more about the sharpness down at the pixel level, where these DLPs can do very well, and that MTF/sharpness is influenced somewhat less by the room in my experience.

Hope that made sense.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 06-15-2015 at 10:42 AM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #13 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 11:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,303
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1243 Post(s)
Liked: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
[T]hey simply want something more aesthetically pleasing than a light absorbing black pit . . . . ..

Damit! There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING more aesthetically pleasing than a light absorbing black pit!
Kris Deering, rak306 and Soulnight like this.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #14 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 12:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,303
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1243 Post(s)
Liked: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
The best thing about that 800:1+ ANSI CR from those DLPs is that they generally have very high MTFs for high resolution images. This is different than the ANSI CR test since it is more about the sharpness down at the pixel level, where these DLPs can do very well, and that MTF/sharpness is influenced somewhat less by the room in my experience.

That sentence makes little sense as written. The best thing about that 800:1 ANSI Cr is the projector's MTF? No, one of the best things about those DLPs is that they generally have a very high MTF for high resolutions.


Moving forward. Years ago at a Cedia presentation by Joe Kane he made a statement that his new model projector from the previous year's model has about 30% better contrast. Given that you weren't there, I hoped on my donkey and charged that windmill asking, what did he (Joe) mean by "contrast" exactly, on/off, ANSI CR, or something else. Joe looked sat me, knowing me for many years, that he couldn't get away by giving a BS answer. He said he meant MTF but didn't want to confuse the audience with what they might consider scientific meaningless jargon. I and several others glared at him for implicitly belittling the audience 's intelligence. For the rest of the presentation every time he started to use the word contrast, he glanced at me and I stared him down and he said MTF.


Why don't you send your letter to Scott W and see if he would sign it and send it to JK himself and see if he respons to you and perhaps Scott could do a show with you and JK on contrast. Maybe also a Cedia presentation or panel moderated by Scott with the standard players?

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #15 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 12:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
That sentence makes little sense as written. The best thing about that 800:1 ANSI Cr is the projector's MTF? No, one of the best things about those DLPs is that they generally have a very high MTF for high resolutions.
Good point. I didn't word that well. I meant that what I think is best is that some of the ways that they achieve that high ANSI CR in general are also related to them achieving excellent high resolution MTF. I probably didn't word that very well either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
Moving forward. Years ago at a Cedia presentation by Joe Kane he made a statement that his new model projector from the previous year's model has about 30% better contrast. Given that you weren't there, I hoped on my donkey and charged that windmill asking, what did he (Joe) mean by "contrast" exactly, on/off, ANSI CR, or something else. Joe looked sat me, knowing me for many years, that he couldn't get away by giving a BS answer. He said he meant MTF but didn't want to confuse the audience with what they might consider scientific meaningless jargon. I and several others glared at him for implicitly belittling the audience 's intelligence. For the rest of the presentation every time he started to use the word contrast, he glanced at me and I stared him down and he said MTF.
Do you believe that he had actually measured the MTF? This sounds like after he told me that he had measured 130:1 ANSI CR with his new model and 100:1 ANSI CR with his old model in his room and so his new model was 30% better for ANSI CR. I told him that isn't actually the way it works since it only applied to his room and the new model had to be more than 30% better out of the lens in order to retain 30% more in his room with a lot of reflections. He thought any room would affect both the same and I told him this was true in absolute terms, but not percentage terms and then provided him some example math later. This is another case where testing would prove me right if somebody thinks that the percentage difference in system ANSI CR will always match the percentage difference in projector ANSI CR once put in a real room.

I also told him that his projector was good in the high resolution MTF area and he might want to mention that instead of the ANSI CR for his room. I wonder if that was before the experience you mentioned.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 06-15-2015 at 12:51 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #16 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 09:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,303
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1243 Post(s)
Liked: 884
NO. I don't think he measured the MTF of either projector. I think he measured off screen room dependent ANSI CR but after your let's call it one way conversation with him and my policing him, he needed to say something to hawk his new model though he was there primarily to hawk JKP Affinity screens by Da-lite. SO I think him knowing that MTF is a measure of something's ability to resolve contrast with respect to frequency he knowing the how difficult it is to correctly measure a component in a system's MTF let alone a system's MTF, could get away by telling a nerd,me, he was referring to a 30% increase in MTF. Assuming the lens didn't change much from later year one to new model year 2, I doubt MTF improved very much though I expect the black reference level as well as ANSI improved because of going to the DC4 chip.


This all begs the question of meaningful measures and specifications for contrast, both coming out of a display and bouncing of a screen, when viewed in various environments. And what do we have, on/off or sequential contrast, which is almost totally but not always 100% independent of the environment, and which is a good indicator for contrast performance for the vast majority of film content, provided one has enough low end steps, often lost is the absolute importance of the lowest possible black reference value independent of an sequential contrast ratio, black bars and fades to black, off screen ANSI CR which is room dependent, out of he display ANSI CR which is a decent indicator but not a great one for what the display could do if not for the environment, and MTF which no one measures anyway because of the difficulty and cost. So we need better indicators and a communicated knowledge that not one prophylactic fits all and several may be necessary to do the job correctly.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #17 of 27 Old 06-15-2015, 10:49 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
I went with a more family friendly version, but that seems pretty on Mark.

There are some pretty smart people out there, but even very smart people make mistakes. As far as history knows Aristotle had one of the greatest minds of his time, but he made mistakes. Even Einstein wasn't flawless. I understand people making mistakes and make a lot of them myself. However, what I expect from others and myself is to own up to mistakes and to try not to misinform people once mistakes are pointed out.

We are talking about some people who have made some contributions to this industry and I will give credit for that, but it doesn't mean I will give a free pass to misinform.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan is quoted as saying, "You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

That applies to organizations as well as people.

Fortunately, I think the truth has a certain amount of power in the long run.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #18 of 27 Old 06-16-2015, 05:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 11,852
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1695 Post(s)
Liked: 1099
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
Damit! There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING more aesthetically pleasing than a light absorbing black pit!
Exactly, you can't even tell it's there except by its absence.
Stereodude is online now  
post #19 of 27 Old 06-16-2015, 05:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,303
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1243 Post(s)
Liked: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
I went with a more family friendly version, but that seems pretty on Mark.

There are some pretty smart people out there, but even very smart people make mistakes. As far as history knows Aristotle had one of the greatest minds of his time, but he made mistakes. Even Einstein wasn't flawless. I understand people making mistakes and make a lot of them myself. However, what I expect from others and myself is to own up to mistakes and to try not to misinform people once mistakes are pointed out.

We are talking about some people who have made some contributions to this industry and I will give credit for that, but it doesn't mean I will give a free pass to misinform.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan is quoted as saying, "You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

That applies to organizations as well as people.

Fortunately, I think the truth has a certain amount of power in the long run.

--Darin

The goal when trying to change something that is wrong, not working well, inadequate. etc is to make it better if not perfect. If one requires the originator of the let's call it the X factor to admit a mistake, the task becomes much more difficult. Far better to say great start but we need to make it better because too often it doesn't work well enough. You seem to a small extent to be hung up on seeking admissions of wrong or being wrong. Getting one means nothing unless one gets meaningful change. And, I'd rather have the second and obtain it quickly. Have an argument with a significant other and get them to admit they are wrong. What do you get? If I want to get paid (obviously the p is a typo), all I have to do is say Honey, I was wrong. How can you always be so right? I am the luckiest guy in the world. When one attacks the past, your staff keeps doing me wrong, defense becomes the issue, not change. An ANSI CR specification was a great start. (Sure, ugh). But it can be misleading yada yada, let's make our spec etc better so it nails it under almost all conditions. He are some ways in which it could be improved and should be improved. And you will be a hero for doing it Mr. CEO.


Sure its BS in part, but the emphasis for change is thanks for doin what you do or did but let's make it better because it doesn't work for a great deal of content etc.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536

Last edited by mark haflich; 06-16-2015 at 05:48 AM.
mark haflich is offline  
post #20 of 27 Old 06-16-2015, 09:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Thanks Mark. Good points. In this case I think if I just told them that it could be improved they would say that they will leave it out there for 5 years total as is.

I am talking about a group that essentially took the position that they would leave it out there for that time even if it was outright wrong, so I don't think "could use some improvement" would get them to do anything before ANSI rules make them revisit it and review it again.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #21 of 27 Old 06-16-2015, 12:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,303
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1243 Post(s)
Liked: 884
The point to make that it was a good start but it needs to rather than could be improved now and not two or three years from now and then to demonstrate why now and to have a mass of support urging the same thing.


Its quite different than you, a scientist, sitting down we me, an engineer (one of my many hats) and convincing me that I was wrong. You have done that many times. One must never lose sight of the objective which is to effect a needed change as quickly as possible. Everything else including pride and recognition is quite secondary. To accomplish the objective telling them they are wrong will just make them erect tall walls.
Craig Peer likes this.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #22 of 27 Old 06-29-2015, 11:45 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Thank you for caring and thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns about the ANSI/INFOCOMM 3M-2011 Projected Image System Contrast Ratio (PISCR) Standard. You should understand that this standard was developed by audiovisual industry subject matter experts in an open and transparent process in compliance with all ANSI requirements. It is not (nor are any InfoComm standards) written by our staff. We facilitate and fund their development but we don’t presume to be the experts that can write the standards.

The standard you have written me about was open to public review from April 9, 2011 through May 23, 2011, before being issued in June 2011 – meaning it just celebrated its fourth birthday. The PISCR Working Group of subject matter experts from the industry addressed all issues that were brought to its attention during that time. That group did not hear of your concern then, nor did anyone else raise a similar concern. If it had been, then an exhaustive process is followed to address it as dictated by the ANSI requirements.

The good news is that this standard will undergo a further public review period in 2016, and you are welcome to submit your concern for consideration by the subject matter experts in the InfoComm PISCR Working Group at that time. I’m sure they, you and all of my team share a fundamental goal of writing and publishing standards that drive our industry forward.

I very strongly urge you to be involved in that process where your expertise can add value. Communicating with me directly (either via open or closed letter) on this subject really won’t get you anything done. I just want to help you steer your efforts efficiently and set reasonable expectations.

Again, thank you very much for your passion and commitment to the industry. I hope that neither ever wanes.
dlabuskes is offline  
post #23 of 27 Old 06-29-2015, 12:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Thank you for the response David.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlabuskes View Post
The standard you have written me about was open to public review from April 9, 2011 through May 23, 2011, before being issued in June 2011 – meaning it just celebrated its fourth birthday. The PISCR Working Group of subject matter experts from the industry addressed all issues that were brought to its attention during that time. That group did not hear of your concern then, nor did anyone else raise a similar concern.
While this is likely true I did raise concerns, although before the official review period, and to the person leading up the project.

I am a reviewer on a different team with the person leading the PISCR effort and in January of 2011 I tried to warn him not to make the mistake with this new standard of assuming that issues they saw were due to ANSI CR and not sequential (on/off) CR. I tried to get into the technical details for that with him, but he referred me to a couple of other people on the PISCR team. He gave me an email address and I emailed that other person, but never got a response.

I then had some very important things going on (including surgery) at the time of the official review period and did not know it was even going on. I did not see the document until about a year later and was disappointed to see that the warning I had provided had not done any good.

Less than 12 months after PISCR had been released I contacted this person who led the team and told them about their mistake. I also talked to somebody who works for InfoComm when the standard had only been out for about 24 months.

Hopefully you can understand how disappointing it is to see a professional organization continue to misinform people after I tried to warn them (although before the official review period), then told them about their mistake multiple times over the last few years and have tried to get them to do some actual tests that would answer whether I am right about their mistaken assumption. I'm not offended by people who want to compare credentials and make comments about me thinking I know more than your experts, but am disappointed in an unwillingness to actually do the tests to find out what the truth is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlabuskes View Post
If it had been, then an exhaustive process is followed to address it as dictated by the ANSI requirements.
Two years ago I asked an InfoComm employee whether it was too late to get my concerns addressed since I had been having surgery and missed the review period. I was told that it was not. I would have preferred to have been told it was if it actually was.

Given that I told your main volunteer about the mistake less than 12 months after the standard was released I don't give a free pass all the way to the 60 month mark. At some point the truth about the physics and math should take a higher priority IMO. They would if my name was on a document like that.

I understand the argument that it is close enough now, but in my view we got where we are because people didn't take more responsibility when I pointed the issues out. Deflecting my concerns for years doesn't mean the last year of misinforming people is okay ethically, IMO.

If your organization's policy is to continue making false claims, that they have been made aware of, for the whole 60 months as long as they made it through the ANSI review process then I think that is very disappointing and something should either be done to change your organization's policy or the public should be warned about this policy and how it seems to differ from the ethics put forth in InfoComm's CTS ethics document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlabuskes View Post
The good news is that this standard will undergo a further public review period in 2016, and you are welcome to submit your concern for consideration by the subject matter experts in the InfoComm PISCR Working Group at that time.
With all due respect, I won't be waiting until 2016 to try to get the word out. If I had been told 2 years ago that it was too late for my concerns to be addressed I would have tried to warn the public then instead of trying to work within InfoComm between then and now, so I figure I have some time to make up in warning the public and professionals.

I have a fair amount of experience with your standards group at this point and don't have a lot of faith that saving face won't get more priority than I think is reasonable and PISCR will actually be fixed right, like it should have been a while ago IMO. Although, with enough pressure maybe it will get fixed right.

I have been working on a video for YouTube to try to warn people about relying on InfoComm's 80:1 claim in PISCR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlabuskes View Post
I very strongly urge you to be involved in that process where your expertise can add value. Communicating with me directly (either via open or closed letter) on this subject really won’t get you anything done. I just want to help you steer your efforts efficiently and set reasonable expectations.
Without some pressure from somewhere I don't see your standards group caring enough to make a real effort to find out what the truth is and do something about it in a timeframe I consider reasonable.

You may see my signature here, where I mention the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

If InfoComm chooses to leave PISCR out there as is for the next 12 months even after the things I have pointed out about it and InfoComm continues presenting it as if it is true for that time, then I think that even if InfoComm fixes it right 12 months from now people should keep that saying in mind with other claims from InfoComm going forward. That is just my opinion about people and organizations that are trustworthy and those that are less so.

Again, thank you for the response.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 06-29-2015 at 03:26 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #24 of 27 Old 07-06-2015, 11:45 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
I'm not sure if anybody else here followed the national story with Reddit this weekend.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/06/tech...pao/index.html

I'm not really familiar with what happened and don't know who was right or wrong, but what struck me here was the Reddit CEO saying, "the buck stops with me" and how different that is from the response I got here.

I'm not trying to pick on anybody. InfoComm's CEO seems like a good person from what I've seen, the above response was eloquent, and he wasn't even CEO when PISCR was released, but to me the response seemed like more of the finger pointing I've gotten used to with InfoComm.

One person will tell me that it was really somebody else who wanted a specific level for video and then when I talk to that person they tell me that they were just trying to help and the standard is InfoComm's responsibility, not theirs. Or that it is really somebody else who can discuss why the 80:1 claim in PISCR is right, but there isn't any reasonable way I can communicate with that person.

One thing I did get from the above response is about this attitude that even if InfoComm is party to misinforming people out of thousands of dollars they are going to keep playing their role until ANSI rules say they have to evaluate their claims again. I had thought this attitude might be just with an isolated volunteer/expert and/or one InfoComm employee, but I now see that it goes all the way to the top of the organization.

Where I work I think a person might get fired for having an attitude that it doesn't really matter if we are misinforming people about important things until the rules from the organization overseeing us say we have to do something about it.

I have been hearing this excuse that InfoComm would be reevaluating PISCR in 2016 since back in 2013.

My impression is that if the convenient path is easier than what I consider the ethical path in this case then InfoComm will stick with the convenient path. Makes me wonder how the ethical path could be made easier than the convenient path. If Reddit was in the wrong then I think somebody figured out how to make the right path easier than the other path.

I just posted one video to YouTube about contrast ratio, but it isn't the one I mentioned that I am working on to warn people about PISCR and likely InfoComm. I'm still working on that one.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Last edited by darinp2; 07-06-2015 at 11:54 PM.
darinp2 is offline  
post #25 of 27 Old Yesterday, 12:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 177
I finished my video with some of my evidence for why I recommend ignoring the 80:1 system ANSI CR limit in the ANSI/INFOCOMM PISCR standard for full motion video for front projectors and instead making sure front projector systems have at least 20:1 system ANSI CR and 150:1 system sequential CR, for those just looking to be able to see the information cinematographers and videographers are trying to display. If anybody wants to independently verify whether INFOCOMM's recommendation or mine works better in the real world to avoid loss of detail without being sold expensive items that aren't necessary or spending more to get an inferior result, I think that would be great. The video is here:


Thanks,
Darin
Kris Deering likes this.

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #26 of 27 Old Yesterday, 02:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 506
R Harkness is offline  
post #27 of 27 Unread Today, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Story on Display Daily (with video from Darrin):

Infocomm Issues Draft Standard for Contrast on Direct View Displays – But is it Right?

http://www.displaydaily.com/index.ph...ily&Itemid=564
R Johnson is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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