The Official Pioneer 9G Elite KURO Owner's Discussion Thread - Page 58

I was thinking the same thing. All we need is a patriot with access to a service remote and a Pronto

- Rich

I never knew what to call this behavior...."patriotism" works!

That's exactly how it was done with the Samsung DLP sets, but the Pioneer situation may be more complex.

Back in the day, Eliab and David Abrams provided the "mod" for their Samsung calibration customers.

I understand. However, these commands are very simple. You cannot screw the panel up with these commands. It's either going to work or you will get the "ERR:" message...which means it did not process the command.

At any rate, no one should be using this tool if they don't know what they are doing. I stand by that even for those who are curious to see how many hours they have accumulated on the panel. For those who do know how to use the SM, this tool will help them access and save the work they do in the SM. One does NOT have to use the tool to actually change the RGB settings. The regular remote works just fine....once you are in there.

I couldn't agree more. Then there are those who think they know ...


That sounds good to me. Maybe the improvement possible, using the non-Elite SM changes that are still available, are not impressive enough to justify the cost of a professional calibration. I saw enough improvement in our calibrated 6010 to make me happy, but that's a personal impression.

If I were a professional calibrator, I would want to be absolutely sure that I was working with sets that could be made to impress their owners as a direct result of my work.

I always thought that anamorphic just meant that it would appear wide screen on wide screen capable equipment, and with letterboxing or greater letterboxing on a 4:3 TV. In my experience, some anamorphic movies will fill a 16:9 screen and be letterboxed on 4:3, others with a wider aspect ratio will have some letterboxing on 16:9 and more letterboxing on 4:3, always maintaining the same aspect ratio for the movie.

Not exactly. Checkout the black bars link at the bottom of my post.

Letterbox and Anamorphic Widescreen are done differently, but they both use black bars. If the aspect ration of an Anamorphic Widescreen movie matches your display's aspect ratio (1.78:1 -- 16 by 9) you will not see black bars. If there is any overscan involved, then you will not see the thin black bars at the top and bottom of a 1.85:1 movie.

I saw the 151 today for the first time. Very nice, even at BB/Magnolia facing the big room's lights.

I have a suggestion for you to try:

Go to the video club and rent a good movie, put it in your pocket and go downtown to watch the same movie at the cinema, asking your wife to pay close attention to how the images look on the screen, and how she like the looks of it, and also if she thinks the images on the screen look good to her.
When you go back home, watch the dvd and point to her how "true to the source" your pdp is, how "hi-fi" it is (select Pure or Movie mode for this).
You can also make a deal with her: for one week, she will watch tv with YOUR settings, and after that you will go back to the torch mode and she will then tell you if she has changed her mind.

(me write english not well, sorry ! ;-)

Sorry for the confusion progprog; enter, exit and save are actually 3 discrete commands.

Makes me consider getting the serial extender for my Pronto just to play around with adjustment macros. Or maybe not since I'm finding out that a nearly 40 year old standard is suddenly unreliable and prone to bricking electronics.

It is confusing, as all these terms get mixed up and treated interchangeably all the time. In fact, there are three different things going on here.

"Anamorphic," refers to a specific method of filming on 35mm film, which has a native aspect ratio of 1.37:1, so as to get a much wider aspect ratio of about 2.35:1. A special lens on the camera progressively squishes the image horizontally onto the film frames during filming, and then when the film is played back, another special lens is required on the projector to stretch it back out again.

"Widescreen" is a more general term that refers to any aspect ratio wider than the old film standard of 1.37:1. There are many widescreen formats, but the most common are 16:9, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1. As described above, anamorphic is one specific type of widescreen format, and its aspect ratio is 2.35:1.

"Letterboxing" is the method for showing a film in its native aspect ratio on a screen (our TV) that has a different ratio. Since our TVs are 16:9, any film with a wider ratio must leave unused screen space above and below the image (the black bars). If the film is 1.85:1, those black bars are pretty thin because that ratio is close to the TV's screen ratio. An anamorphic film, with its 2.35:1 ratio, requires much thicker bars. Some people are so bothered by the black bars that they would rather distort the image to fill the screen; it's a personal choice, of course, but I really hate distorted or cropped images.

gixxer's Ratatouille question actually illustrates how these terms get mixed up. That film is described as "Anamorphic Widescreen" on shopping sites. But it's an animated movie, so it can't be "anamorphic" because it wasn't filmed, per se, using that process. It was just drawn with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. So it's widescreen, it's letterboxed on our TVs, but it's not really anamorphic.

Anamorphic processing is currently available to be used on any film that is wider than 1.33:1(1.37:1). In recent years they all seem to be Anamorphic.



Is the first method used to create widescreen images with 35MM and larger film. The cameras were modified to mask each frame of film so that the exposed portion of the film would match the desired image aspect ratio.

The big disadvantage of Letterbox was lost detail, because only a fraction of the negative was being exposed. Anamorphic lenses were developed to fix that problem because they allow the entire negative to be exposed.

One reason this topic is so confusing is the one you pointed out. The studios are not consistent in the terms that they have used.

For example:

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) is listed at IMDB as Anamorphic, Pan & Scan, 1.85:1. The original film is Anamorphic 1.85:1, but it was also released as a Pan & Scan, 1.33:1 version where the original frames were cropped to make the image fill a 4x3 sized display. Widescreen movies being broadcast on HD channels frequently are cropped if they are wider than 1.78:1 (16x9).

The Hudsucker Proxy is listed at Netflix as Widescreen, which in this case means that their copies are Anamorphic 1.85:1.

What we need are labeling standards that are followed. I like older movies, so I always need to find out if the older widescreen movies I watch are Letterbox or Anamorphic in order to setup our Kuro and DVD player correctly.

Ratatouille at IMDB

DVD Format: Widescreen Anamorphic

At Netflix:

Screen Formats:

Widescreen Anamorphic 2.39:1

The fact it's an animated film does not prevent it being Anamorphic.

These Disney-Pixar animated films are labeled with two viewing options:

"Finding Nemo"
Full Frame Version of the film (1.33:1) - Specially Reframed for Standard Televisions (that means cropped)
Widescreen Version of the film (1.78:1) - Enhanced for 16x9 Televisions (that means anamorphic)

"Cars"
Theatrical Widescreen Viewing Presentation (2.39:1) - Enhanced for 16x9 Televisions (that means anamorphic)

Even the same studio in a similar time frame, can't seem to use the same terminology.

While the anamorphic process is technically possible with any widescreen format, the 2x anamorphic lens is the standard, and results in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The other widescreen formats, such as 1.85:1, are always shot with matted aperatures instead. It does seem to be true that most movies being made these days are anamorphic, as the 2.35:1 aspect ratio seems to be most directors' favored format.


Yes, this is matted-aperature shooting, as mentioned above, and it's still the method used for all but 2.35:1 aspect ratio widescreen films. It's sometimes called letterboxing. But I think tamaracks was asking about the term "letterboxing" as it applies to his TV and the black bars he gets with some movies.


It doesn't prevent it from being 2.35:1, certainly, but it's not anamorphic in that it was not filmed with an anamorphic lens. But this is a nit-picking difference.

I completely agree that some consistent terminology would be nice. Not gonna happen though. The terms are fairly precise if used correctly, but it's already become common to use them interchangeably and loosely, so I think we are doomed to this confusing state of affairs.

So what settings should I use on my new 111FD when watching BD movies guy's?

Have you found any Gamma adjustments in the service menu?

- Rich

All of these arguments make complete sense to me. The way I see it, all you need to do is to make a few simple commands using the serial port, and can do everything else with the remote. Yes, software can be buggy, but this software sounds incredibly simple, and there is tons and tons of incredibly simple software out there that works each and every time. It would be very easy to know if there were any bugs anywhere after only a short time of testing.

Of course I respect any professional calibrators opinion, but it seems to me that the argument that a RS-232 port will experience some kind of instantaneous failure and screw up the SM is just fluff and looking for a problem from nothing. Theoretically an infared remote command could get interference and an undesired command could be activated as well.

The SM is there, only slightly repackaged. Just like on all displays, lets adapt and find ways to use it, and this is exactly what D-nice is graciously doing (and for no monetary gain!).

Hey, has anyone tried getting any readings on thier Pro151 with an EYEOne Display? My set has anough hours on it already that I went ahead and tried to do some tweaking to my RGB levels and noticed some serious inconsistencies when getting readings at 80ire. The device was being extremely erratic with constant fluctuation. Instead of readings changing every coupleof seconds, the RGB scales were in constant shift, with jumps from say 95%, to 103% in a single shift, and occurring in the miliseconds, which I've never experienced before. At the lower ends of the scale (30ire) the readings were typical (or what I am accustomed to anyway), with readings fluctuating every 1-2 seconds or so. Another I noticed that is no matter how high I set my conrast, it never read higher than 36ftl.

Could this be due to a faulty device?

P.S. I was using HCFR.

P.P.S. I've never had this problem before with this device.

So I guess it means that Professional Calibrators are going to have to buy themselves another tool a *Service Remote* to work on non elites.

Will only qualified Pioneer service people have these remotes?

Let me guess, you have an Display LT. That probe is flakey. However, when it does actually work, it will give you good readings. Try to recalibrate the probe and see if that helps. Keep in mind that you have to let the probe "warm up" on your plasma for around 30 minutes.

Im not sure about this, but this is not what I was referring to in my post. I was just making a comparison that any tool has a theoretical risk of failure.
The software in the TV could fail while you are watching the big game, the remote could fail, anything. But in the case of this software it seems very easy to minimize the risk to a normal, acceptable level where 'bugs' is a non-issue. In software Bugs are either there or they are not. There is no middle ground.

Really I think we all need to take the time to actually assess the situation and the ability to utilize the SM before jumping to conclusions (such as that the displays will not be calibrated).

I am not using fear. I only expressed my opinion and reasons because I was asked.

Since you are so confident of your technique I would appreciate you posting your real name and contact information like I do so you can provide a route for claims should any problems result from your prescribed methods.

Not choosing to work on displays because you feel your time and effort would be wasted because you can't control the set like you'd want to, to get the maximum out of it is obviously your choice and these aren't the first panels with that moniker.
However, what D-Nice is doing is offering an option to those people you will not.
He gives a disclaimer in almost every post, so it is up to the user to make his own judgement as to whether or not to attempt it and therefor D-Nice is not liable.
-jmo

Edit: After reading this I felt it may have come across as too much.
UMR doesn't need me to help his reputation as a cal., I have never heard anything but praise for his work in our community and he is known by almost all as one of the best there is.
And I thank him for this work.

Just to make sure nothing gets started here folks: debating this issue is fine. Just make sure and not wander into personal attacks, regardless of which side of this issue you are on.

thanks all

w

Anyone have one of these hooked up to a Pioneer receiver using the SR+ cable? I have the Elite 151 TV and the VSX-92TX receiver. I read that you can use a normal male to male stereo 1/8th inch headphone cable to link the components. I purchased one and it does not seem to work. I did some digging and found a site that claimed that with some of the newer equipment you may need a new 4 conductor cable instead. Can anyone verify that this is the case with this set or should I just trouleshoot with the cable I have. Thanks!

-----

I just did some more searching around here and have found posts that mention this TV may not have SR+ and only SR. I'm not sure what the differences are. Has anyone gotten this TV showing volume and input info with their Pioneer receiver? Be it via SR, SR+, HDMI control, or carrier pigeon?

I'd like to say that I am friends/fans of D-Nice and UMR, so I have no personal bias either way. UMR has calibrated two of my displays and I helped D-Nice get one of his Elites and have traded emails and phone calls with him. I'm still in awe at how much D-Nice provides to the forum with the new kid! (Hope they are doing well...)

Anyways, I'm eager to see the outcome of D-Nice's testing, but as a side note, RS232 input is a much riskier process as if anyone who has worked with computers and networking devices and the telnet protocol you can send errant commands. Now most devices are manafactured well so that those errant commands don't do anything bad, but using a remote is a different beast then using a computer and software and a db9 cable.

On that note, when I get a chance, I'm going to check out ControlCal myself, because I'm a computer guy and it's in my nature.

Good times for sure!

There are RGB Hig/Low gamma controls in the SM. However, I have not used tried to use them.

This is correct

I'll allow the probe to warm up longer to see if it increases consistency. I'll give it a go one more time and post my results.

Side note: I am obviously a complete amateur and am still in the learning curve of things. This is purely experimentational on my part, as I am inclinced to learn as much as possible. That being said, I am thankful to all those have provided valuabe information on these forums, especially D-Nice with his vast knowledge on the Pio PDP's, and umr for always taking the time to make equipment recommendations, and all of his knowledge within the field. I look forward to meeting/having Jeff calibrate my PDP's and audio setup.

I may be beating a dead horse, but for completeness, the term "anamorphic" as it relates to DVDs is not the same as it relates to lenses and filming. When used with DVD authoring, it allows a non-4:3 video to be played on both a 4:3 set and a 16:9 set with proper letterbox bars. A non-anamorphic DVD would have to be zoomed to appear correctly on a 16:9 TV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen

Letterbox bars are usually present due to the aspect ratio of the film. Some older DVDs that were issued without the anamorphic process may have letterbox bars and people may look squished vertically even though they are 1.78:1 films. You would need to zoom the picture to correct for the 16:9 TV in that case.

Ok... You guys all know how I have a defective 151 (or what I assume as defective). Thanks to a convenient BB return policy (yet employees who try to use Monster screen clean on my new display), I am getting a new 151 on Friday. The blotches on my current display aren't as apparent as before, but they are still pretty bad. Buzz is still audible at 21 feet and with power save mode 2 on at 11 feet.

You owned a 8g previously, no? Which one and did it have these same two issues and to what extent?