Originally Posted by heatwave3
Unfortunately D-nice did not provide the settings that went with the respective graphs. Many of the calibration graphs posted by users are interesting but maybe I just don't get what purpose they serve to others in the absence of the settings that went with them. As an aside, why would others find value in reviewing the calibration reports of a panel other than their own since there's no useful data that can be used to improve the PQ of their own TV
? Maybe I'm missing the point of posting these reports...which is likely.
Of course they are interesting and show how close or far a particular panel was able to achieve against the standard, but of what value are these reports to others without the settings that go with them
? Are they just a curiosity or is there useful information in these graphic reports that can benefit other owners of a similar panel?If the settings are of no value to use by others, then what purpose or value does the sharing of the calibration reports serve?
I apologize--I think I must have misunderstood your desire--all along, I had interpreted your original question to mean that you wanted to know what was the actual difference in performance between a DNice broken-in set using his settings versus the same set when calibrated. The calibration reports that DNice posted give this information--for example, there is a difference in the color temperature before and after. I think the primary usefulness of these reports is to demonstrate the clear difference before and after a professional calibration. True, you can't use them to improve your set, but it may serve as justification for some readers to try a pro calibration.
However, after reading your last post, it seems that you are suggesting it would be useful to others to know settings that worked for some, so that readers can plug these settings into their televisions in the hopes of improving on the original DNice's settings. With respect, I remain doubtful that this will work for the following reason (and, DNice, please correct me if I'm way off base here):
The DNice settings are designed to work for the majority of sets to get them in close proximity of a truly calibrated set. They are meant to work on average for the majority of sets, and are based on the range of sets DNice has calibrated. However, when these settings are refined by a professional calibration, I suspect the revised settings become too particular to the specific set to be of use to anyone else--unless your set is identical to the one in question. Moreover, if every set varied from his original DNice settings in the exact same way, DNice would have surely noted this as well.
It's similar to the difference between a one size fits all baseball cap versus a fitted cap. There is a much greater likelihood that one's head will fit well into the former than in the latter, unless your head just happens to be the particular size if the fitted cap.
Obviously, DNice's settings are a lot more precise than that, but I think it's an apt analogy as far as it goes.
In any event, sorry for veering so far OT--I'll be quiet and let other more knowledgable folks comment on this issue from here on out.