or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Sharing display menu settings?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sharing display menu settings? - Page 2  

post #31 of 223
Zeus has been trolling in other calibration threads with the same rhetoric. I'd suggest everyone not feed him...he seems more interested in pedantic argument than learning about how to properly calibrate a display.
post #32 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Zeus has been trolling in other calibration threads with the same rhetoric. I'd suggest everyone not feed him...he seems more interested in pedantic argument than learning about how to properly calibrate a display.


You don't have to subscribe to any of my ideas. Is something bothering you about them?
post #33 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

My guess is that both of these "reviewers" got displays that had already been reviewed/calibrated by someone else. It also sounds like they may not have rechecked things after making adjustments. The Pro-150s CMS controls completely screw up grayscale tracking if you use an adjustment of more than 4 or 5 clicks out of a 50 click range and the more clicks you use, the worse grayscale tracking is. The Pro-150 I reviewed had a color space that was too large in Color Space 1 and too small in Color Space 2 (Color Space 2 was actually kind of OK for SD color space, but not for HD color space). Trying to use the CMS controls to make Color Space 1 accurate resulted in completely messing up grayscale tracking... yes, I could make most of the colors better, but not completely right because the Pioneer CMS controls have only 1 slider for each color... for example, Green's slider has Blue at one end and Red at the other end. You can move Green towards Red or towards Blue but not towards both at the same time. Green was displaced vertically from the ideal coordinate so the Pioneer CMS controls were worthless to make Green much more accurate. Green was up and to the right of where it should have been. I pulled it a little more toward blue (to the left and down) but it would never get low enough to be accurate. With Color Space 2 being too small... the Pioneer CMS controls were completely useless - there is no way to move a color's coordinates outward with the CMS controls. So on the Pro-150 you are forced to pick accurate color or flat grayscale with low errors - you can't have both. I ended up making the grayscale errors a little worse in exchange for slightly more accurate colors. I then diddled with the Color and Tint controls trying to improve the Color space measurments even more and got the measurements to look good, but the picture didn't look right in spite of the pretty decent color space measurements. On the Pro-150, turning down the color control pulled the measured coordinates inwards towards the d65 point on the CIE chart. So you ended up with desaturated color and a tint in the images in order to get ideal measured coordinates for the primaries.

At the time I reviewed the Pro-150, I was so blown away by the quality of the images, it was easy to overlook the REAL limitations. Like the first time you drive any supercar... the experience is so overwhelming, you don't even notice your butt gets REALLY REALLY sore after 45 minutes.

I've calibrated a number of XBR4 LCDs and NONE of them came out of the box REMOTELY like the one did in your quoted description. The reviewer even says that the panel was suspiciously accurate out of the box. You have to keep in mind, as a reviewer, that somebody may have diddled with your review sample before you got it. In fact, it may have been to another reviewer before you got it and that reviewer may have fully calibrated the display. Every reviewer has to be wary of this - this particular reviewer was wary but changed the subject pretty quickly. I typically check every input if the first one seems unrealistically accurate. You won't find a manufacturer intentionally using different settings for different inputs - they apply the same settings to all inputs. So you can sometimes root out whether that first input had been "idealized" a bit before you got the display. I am running about 50-50 on receiving displays that have been previously "touched" before I receive them. So out of the box measurements ALWAYS have to be suspect. Being a calibrator and reviewer gives me an opportunity to see more than just the 1 display I have for review (not all the time, but many times) and after seeing 2 or 3 more displays from the same model series, you can begin to tell even more about the out-of-box capabilities.

1) You can't trust every reviewer to get everything right 100% of the time, not even me.

2) You can't trust the displays reviewers get (for reasons mentioned above)

3) You can't trust the reviewer's instrumentation unless they are using something pretty much foolproof (and expensive) like the Konica-Minolta CS-200, one of the Photo Research PR series spectroradiometers, or maybe the Progressive Labs spectroradiometer if it and it's software have been perfected (haven't seen one since January when it was still a little buggy).

4) There's no standard for what exactly "out-of-box" measurements are. Are they literally "out-of-the-box" or are you allowed to use a test/setup disc to set Brightness, Contrast, Color, Sharpness, Tint, etc. - I do the latter before I make the initial measurements since everybody I write reviews for would do the same thing if they bought the display. But some reviewers may measure the display before making any settings at all. So you may not be comparing apples to apples when you read various video display reviews.


It would be interesting to test the sony's i have or have had to see how they measure. But i always find Warm setting very accurate to me. Sony is known for making the warm-custom- pretty accurate for years now. The SXRD had problems with oversaturation but their lcd's are pretty accurate without having to go into the service menu. Depends on the model. I think the manufacturers don't get enough credit for how accurate they really are. Everyone seems to think you need heavy calibration with tons of equipment that takes hours. And if you don't you are not serious about your image. This is what i have trouble accepting. Especially when the image is very good out of the box to begin with imo. Even i would admit to someone on a tv like sony-pioneer, that my settings i came up with will not be night and day over factory. That's how good i think they are.
post #34 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zues View Post

It would be interesting to test the sony's i have or have had to see how they measure. But i always find Warm setting very accurate to me. Sony is known for making the warm-custom- pretty accurate for years now. The SXRD had problems with oversaturation but their lcd's are pretty accurate without having to go into the service menu. Depends on the model. I think the manufacturers don't get enough credit for how accurate they really are. Everyone seems to think you need heavy calibration with tons of equipment that takes hours. And if you don't you are not serious about your image. This is what i have trouble accepting. Especially when the image is very good out of the box to begin with imo. Even i would admit to someone on a tv like sony-pioneer, that my settings i came up with will not be night and day over factory. That's how good i think they are.

Don't you find it amazing that you can be making these statements with no instrumentation and no experience outside a few displays when everybody who does have instrumentation and experience is telling you that you are wrong? If you ever recorded a rock album, it would probably be better than Dark Side of the Moon, Led Zepp IV, and St. Pepper combined. In YOUR mind. Delusional opinions keep you from the truth.

I just calibrated a display where a lion fish looked like it had black and white bands before calibration, but after calibration, the real colors were revealed to be deep copper and ivory - and that was one of your fanboy fave brands. The owner had no idea it was wrong... and how could he? When you think what you are looking at is accurate... well, certainly calibration can't help that much. Right?
post #35 of 223
Thread Starter 
Doug,

Now you're "getting the picture."
post #36 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zues View Post

You don't have to subscribe to any of my ideas. Is something bothering you about them?

Well, since you asked...

Maybe it's the fact that your "ideas" are nothing more than feelings, hunches, guesses, proverbial bets and (at their very best) personal opinion based on fallacious assumptions.

A bag of hair possesses more intellectual firepower than anything you've written here.
post #37 of 223
Doug, no matter how wrong you think he may be, it does the profession no good to make this kind of comment. A professional should behave better, even on AVS.
post #38 of 223
Greetings

Use the ignore feature. Some people just like to push your buttons.

Regards
post #39 of 223
Thread Starter 
Michael,

Good idea. I've not resorted to this feature on the forum before, but my digestion should improve by doing what you advise. Hopefully the action will be mutual. Thanks for checking in.
post #40 of 223
The problem with ignoring people like that is that unknowledgable people come here to learn and we don't need misinformation floating around in here. There should be a zero tolerance policy in this subforum for obviously incorrect information (and I mean staff intervention and not us arguing with such people into perpetuity). It's one thing to have a differing opinion over minutia, but something like this just shouldn't be allowed to happen in here.
post #41 of 223
I moderate for another forum, and have found that trying to limit content that is "incorrect" is unwise. We focus on encouraging the inclusion of facts and data to support a point. What we are intolerant of is any kind of personal attack. Rather than getting personal, one could simply post an example of a set's OOB performance that refutes his claims that they are all acceptable.

Refuting faulty information can be done in a civil manner, dealing with the content rather than the perceived intelligence of the poster and his message. In particular, as professionals, we should not be baited into this kind of exchange. The problem with a forum like this is that it is so large with such a large volume that it is impractical to moderate as closely as on a smaller forum. This leaves it to the users to somewhat police themselves. The pros here do a great job of correcting misconceptions in most cases, but often do a poor job of dealing with posters like our freind here. Like I said, just post some data to show he is wrong.
post #42 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

Like I said, just post some data to show he is wrong.


I'm sure there are cases where professional calibration would be worth it. But these guys are saying EVERY tv is inaccurate and needs calibration. Which just is not true from top tv's from pioneer-sony-samsung-panasonic. Sure, it depends on the model.. But not EVERY. A few more reviews.


"As I said earlier, the overall color accuracy of the HL61A750 is exceptional, provided you set it up properly. Grayscale tracking in the Warm 2 color temperature setting is close to the broadcast standard. Primary and secondary color points are quite close to the HDTV specification, and the color decoding is spot on. All of these things combine to give the Samsung the ability to deliver incredibly accurate color, and this is extremely impressive with high-resolution HD sources, like Blu-ray."



"Overall performance on the Sony KD-S55A3000 was excellent, and its standout characteristic compared with other HDTVs is color accuracy. When the Sony is set to Standard color space, the primary colors of red, green, and blue are nearly dead-on accurate to the ATSC specifications. The color decoding is accurate for both SD and HD sources, and the grayscale from the Warm 2 factory preset came mighty close to the broadcast standard. A quick tweak in the advanced menu under white balance made the grayscale nearly perfect. For our full user-menu settings, click here or scroll down to the Tips section below."






"We typically go on and on about calibration but with the TH-50PZ800U we didn't have to do much beyond increasing its contrast control a bit to approach our 40 footlambert baseline light output. Compared with other picture modes and to the company's own TH-46PZ85U, THX on the PZ800U delivered superior color temperature and especially primary color accuracy, and despite the fact that THX mode didn't pass blacker-than-black parts of the video signal (while the Custom mode did), we left brightness alone for optimal performance"




"Panasonic makes a big deal about the Digital Cinema Color on the 850U series, and color is the most noticeable difference between its picture and that of the 800U. The primary and secondary color points of the 800U hew very closely to the HDTV standard, and so its color is technically very accurate, while the color points of the 850U are not. Like many displays, its color gamut is wider than the HD standard, so the red blood in the centrifuge, for example, looks even redder and deeper on the 850U than on the 800U. Greens, such as the forest and shrubs that are visible when the janitorial crew is motored into the compound, looked both greener and seemingly a bit yellower to our eyes on the 850U. We switched off the Digital Cinema Color mode and the two displays came closer to one another, but there was still a pretty noticeable difference. Our measurements for the Geek Box below were taken with the more-accurate (again, compared to the HD standard) Off position for that mode.

An argument can be made that the wider color gamut on the 850 looks better, but that's largely subjective. Our goal, as always, is to evaluate color accuracy, in this case compared with the HD standard, and by that definition the 800U, along with the two Samsung displays in our comparison, were a good deal more accurate than the 850U.

Other areas of the Panasonic's color performance were very good. The 850's relatively linear grayscale was apparent in skin tones, such as Irene's face at the beach house, appeared natural if a tiny bit redder than the reference 800U. Color decoding wasn't at fault--it was basically right on; instead it was the very slightly reddish grayscale in mid-dark areas. Colors near black stayed quite accurate otherwise, however."




"The Samsung LN52A650 is one of the best-performing LCDs we've tested. Its picture quality, anchored by excellent black-level performance, and accurate color, surpasses that of the Sony KDL-46XBR4--and Samsung's de-judder video processing has improved to the point where it's basically equal to the Sony. We did notice a couple of minor issues, and as usual we'd avoid watching dark movies on this glossy-screened TV in rooms with lots of ambient light, but that's about it.

Our standard calibration was aided by the numerous picture controls in the Samsung's user menu. We were able to improve color temperature and dial in saturation without going overboard thanks to the blue-only mode (check this tip to see how it works). Although we attempted to tweak the color points a bit using the custom color palette controls, primary and secondary colors were already close enough to the standard that we simply settled on the default Auto in the end."
post #43 of 223
The debate here is far more polarized than needed. Zeus, you are correct to a degree, but the fact is, as most calibration specialists here have said, nearly every display CAN be improved with calibration. The other side which many will not accept, is that for many users, the difference between what one can do with some very basic adjustments and professional calibraiton on SOME models is simply not a meaningful one. In an absolute sense, the calibration side is correct. From the view of what consumers need and want, you may be correct. The point is that the value and meaningfulness of degrees of calibration vary with the individual. This is a case where it is clear that both sides are correct, and both sides are wrong.

Greater understanding could be achieved if you had some perspective on what the differences actually can be between sets, even among the brands and models you are discussing. You clearly are as adamant to defend your position as even the most hard core calibration proponents, but you are arguing from a view that is clearly limited. OTOH, the guys with the data have yet to demonstrate it.

Reviews, BTW, have their own context that you often don't know. I is unlikely that the sets are representative of what most people are watching. It is also true, as I said above that there is a big difference between what comes out of the box and what can be achieved with some simple user controls with no instruments (on SOME sets). These generalizations that you and others are making can cause a debate like this to go on forever. You are really arguing about perspective rather than facts.
post #44 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

Doug, no matter how wrong you think he may be, it does the profession no good to make this kind of comment. A professional should behave better, even on AVS.

Thanks for the thoughts, but I don't need a professionalism nanny. I exercised great restraint and used an appropriate analogy given the circumstances. I think Zues and the lesser gods can handle it.
post #45 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zues View Post

A bunch of quotes from reviews

What part of "the video displays received by reviewers often do not represent what is delivered to consumers" is it that you don't understand.

Measurements (by a pro calibrator) of a Panasonic 800U have been posted on AVS and the colors were not accurate out of the box... and Gamma wa too low with no adujustment to make it come anywhere close to 2.5.

Quoting reviews is not "data" that proves your point. It just proves you prefer to believe the reviews rather than the reality.
post #46 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

I moderate for another forum, and have found that trying to limit content that is "incorrect" is unwise. We focus on encouraging the inclusion of facts and data to support a point. What we are intolerant of is any kind of personal attack. Rather than getting personal, one could simply post an example of a set's OOB performance that refutes his claims that they are all acceptable.

The reasoned and fact based responses to less reasonable posts are often some of the most instructive information in a thread like this.

Keeping in mind that many more people read than post I hope posters like Doug and George will remember they are informing many others even if not getting thru to the original poster of the question.

I think shared settings are mostly about ease of use and convenience in an attempt to get at better settings for most owners. It would nice to see manufacturers and the industry in general focus on increasing the understanding of calibrations and adjustments among users.

For instance why not include more basic instructions and some basic patterns within the menus of displays? Perhaps even working with one of the big calibration disk vendors? I found it interesting that Sony actually includes some calibration patterns in a 'secret menu' on their blu-ray disks, albeit without any instructions.

Is the goal for 'the industry' to increase appreciation of video standards or not really? Can this be packaged as something to help sell a product or otherwise increase the bottom line?
post #47 of 223
This is the display calibration forum - although the process of calibrating a display is both an art and a science, the fundamental principles behind it are all based in science. If you would like to discuss your personal feelings or opinions on how to change the various picture controls on your TV so things look good to your eye, this is not the forum in which to discuss it. Even more so, this thread has nothing to do with comparing the results of a instrumented calibration to a "by eye calibration" - it is re-iterating the important point that sharing settings is NOT a calibration, and therefore such discussion doesn't belong here. I do appreciate the irony that it has attracted more non-calibration related discussion though.

Let's get the thread back on track before it gets locked and subsequently lost.

I'll start:

My fiancee and my buddy own Samsung LN-T4661 and 4061 LCD TVs (respectively), and I've performed a greyscale calibration on both using my i1, HFCR, and the AVC 709 disc. Because I've calibrated my fiancee's TV multiple times, I'm pretty familiar with where the brightness, contrast, backlight, gamma, and RGB gain/bias lie for D65 and a gamma of 2.2. When I recently calibrated my buddy's 40" display, just for grins (and after having read the initial post in this thread), I plugged the all the numbers from my fiancee's TV into his. I was amazed at how completely off the 4061 was - most notably the display ran out of red at 90 and 100 IRE because the contrast was way too high, the gamma averaged less than 2, and the greyscale was all over the place. Once I calibrated the display it ended up looking really nice and falling very closely to all the targets. Granted, because the TVs were 2 different sizes there could be significant differences between the panels of which I'm not aware. However, given they're both from the same LN-Txx61 line and have the exact same user and service menus (excepting some minor differences in the service menus that are panel-size specific), I was still quite surprised at how, in many respects, using settings from another display made the picture worse than before. I'm sure professional calibrators such as GeorgeAB and others that frequent this form have countless similar stories.
post #48 of 223
Greetings

The goal is to sell more TV sets. Accurate images have nothing to do with it at all. If they determined that more people would buy TVs if the images were green ... then the images would be green.

The only reason that additional calibration features have shown up on TV sets like Samsung are due almost solely to those in the calibration industry and some of them eventually finding themselves working for the Pioneers and Samsungs of the world.

If calibration just went away tomorrow ... the manufacturers would still continue to sell TVs. Just like they have been for the past 60 years.

regards
post #49 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

What part of "the video displays received by reviewers often do not represent what is delivered to consumers" is it that you don't understand.

I find them pretty accurate. What about all the tv's that don't get great reviews? You said you have a xbr2? Is this review accurate?

"Color accuracy, as you can see from the Geek Box below, is one area where the Sony KDS-R60XBR2 could improve. Its primary colors of both green and red were pretty far outside the HDTV colorspace, but were not overly tinged with yellow or orange, which is common on some other sets. Other aspects of the 60XBR2's color, namely its grayscale accuracy and color decoding, were superb, so overall color still came across as lush and vibrant. When young Bruce runs through the garden, for example, the green of the trees and plants looked rich, if a bit too green, and in tones throughout the film, from the ruddy police chief to the delicate face of Rachel (Katie Holmes), appeared natural. Nonetheless, we wish the Sony had some way to improve the accuracy of its primary colors, which would certainly be worth an extra performance point".


Quote:


Measurements (by a pro calibrator) of a Panasonic 800U have been posted on AVS and the colors were not accurate out of the box..

Even in thx mode?

Quote:


Quoting reviews is not "data" that proves your point. It just proves you prefer to believe the reviews rather than the reality.

I guess you would have to believe or not believe that the reviews are reality to the actual product.
post #50 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahlsim View Post

The reasoned and fact based responses to less reasonable posts are often some of the most instructive information in a thread like this.

Keeping in mind that many more people read than post I hope posters like Doug and George will remember they are informing many others even if not getting thru to the original poster of the question.

I think shared settings are mostly about ease of use and convenience in an attempt to get at better settings for most owners. It would nice to see manufacturers and the industry in general focus on increasing the understanding of calibrations and adjustments among users.

For instance why not include more basic instructions and some basic patterns within the menus of displays? Perhaps even working with one of the big calibration disk vendors? I found it interesting that Sony actually includes some calibration patterns in a 'secret menu' on their blu-ray disks, albeit without any instructions.

Is the goal for 'the industry' to increase appreciation of video standards or not really? Can this be packaged as something to help sell a product or otherwise increase the bottom line?

The goal of the consumer electronics industry is to move as many boxes as possible, from the view of most manufactuers and most dealers. The goal of most reviewers is to gain as many readers as possible or sell as many ads as possible. The goal of most calibration professionals continues to be to increase the understanding of image fidelity and what can be accomplished with calibration. The pros here do a good job of that, Doug included. My criticism of his reply to Zeus was simply meant to regain some perspective to the discussion, which was going off and getting personal.

The guys like Doub and George spend a lot of time and effort trying to provide better understanding of these matters and deserve kudos for their work.

The use of shared settings is particularly misunderstood and abused. Many settings can be shared productively, but many cannot. This varies greatly by display. Most proponents of sharing settings do not appreciate the degree to which there is within model variance, particularly with gray scale and luma response. Pros who see lots of sets understand this, but sometimes underestimate the value of using the shared settings that are productive within certain ranges. For the majority of users who will not have a set professionally calibrated, some general rules of thumb on settings for a given model will often be very useful. Putting that all in context was, as I saw it, the point of the thread.
post #51 of 223
Just a thought...
If out of the box settings were perfect (or close) for every TV (let's assume same make/model), why is it they are:
1) never at the manuafacturers default
2) never identical even though they "look the same" (by eye-balling).

Quick answer:
1) to sell the product in a showroom
2) electronics have different tolerances, therefore different settings
3) some individuals have never seen a "before/after" professional calibration to make an informed statement

Between my two sons and myself, we have 4 TV's (2 Sanyo, 2 RCA) and none have settings that are even close to being similar on either pair.

OTOH, I viewed my primary TV for over 4 years thinking it was "perfect". After Gregg Loewen calibrated, there was a dramatic improvement.

"Copying" settings (via the service menus) from one set to another is a very unwise practice IMO. Especially for a "novice". I don't know how many threads I've read over the years where someone decided to "tweak" and wound up with a set that was FUBAR.

Copy away! Keep your fingers crossed and if/when it gets fouled up, just don't get angry when everyone says, "We told you so!".
post #52 of 223
There is no doubt, among those of us with extensive experience, that copying settings does NOT equal calibration. That is what George was saying initially. My point was that there ARE some settings that can generally be recommended on SOME sets that will definitely be valuable advice. You have to talk about specific models for that info to be meaningful and useful, however, and it is usually, but not always, limited to consumer adjustments. George's point was that this is the wrong forum to discuss it, as there are lots of other threads dedicated to specific sets where you will find lots of advice on sharing settings (most of which is very wrong and based on the same kind of limited sample space and perspective that we have seen in this thread). There are places where one can get some more useful data, such as the TweakTV forum. Knowing what can be transferred and what cannot within a given model reaquires some experience with lots of samples of a given model or chassis series. This is what Zeus does not seem to understand, as well as incorrectly assuming that all sets of a given model come out of the box the same or in some form that is close to calibrated. The point, again, is that his perspective has some merit if it is a bit more informed. Some of the sets in his experience can be pretty good with just a few adjustments in the consumer menus. He is partially right, not because he understands, but because there is a grain of truth in his shaker of salt. As professionals, if we want to educate, we should be willing to take that grain and expand it rather than focusing on the rest of the shaker.

To use another common expression, I suspect that I am PITW with respect to both sides here.
post #53 of 223
Thread Starter 
I went back through this thread and was reminded that it was the mutant tag team of 'Zues' and 'D-6500' who started making foolish statements which distracted us from the topic. As various members unwittingly attempted to confront and correct their error, these two compulsive trolls publicly "self-defecated" (thank you 'D-6500' for the uncharacteristically insightful new term for such behavior) throughout the subsequent posts.

As a fellow professional, I must remind 'lcaillo' that I haven't ceased to be human, and humans have limits. Many previous encounters with the two individuals mentioned have proven to me that they are hopelessly incapable of participating in a coherent debate. Both do not value authoritative industry references, and refuse to answer questions when it's not to their perceived advantage to do so. I reached the limits of my composure and have spoken my mind with less restraint than I typically use, when I can give someone the benefit of the doubt concerning their motives.

Our topic here is: sharing settings is not calibration, and should be conducted elsewhere in the forum. Is there really anything further that needs to be said about the topic?
post #54 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post

it was the mutant tag team of 'Zues' and 'D-6500' who started making foolish statements which distracted us from the topic. As various members unwittingly attempted to confront and correct their error, these two compulsive trolls publicly "self-defecated"

Hey George - remember when you agreed with me about mocking other poster's handles and name calling being uncalled for? "Compulsive trolls", huh?

WELL YOU'RE JUST A POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK WITH THAT STATEMENT!
NOW howdya feel - George ANAL-RETENTIVE Brown?!?

Name calling? Two can play this game.

Somebody lock down this tread before it gets REAL nasty in here.
post #55 of 223
Hopefully the opening post can be made a sticky and locked. All of the rest can be deleted.
post #56 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

My point was that there ARE some settings that can generally be recommended on SOME sets that will definitely be valuable advice.

I actually believed this way myself until last night. I have always contended that Movie/Warm2 is a good place to start with a Samsung. Most Samsungs I have calibrated would support this theory, but last night I calibrated one that Movie/Warm2 wasn't even remotely close. I will probably not recommend that any longer.

You just can't trust that any tv manufacturer will give any of its products repeatable performance. Each one is completely unique and behaves differently.
post #57 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

Hopefully the opening post can be made a sticky and locked. All of the rest can be deleted.

IMO, that would be the wrong decision and would set a very bad precedent on the AVS forums. There was still a lot to be learned from this thread, even if some of the posts were considered inane. Of course name-calling posts are worthless and I don't care if they're deleted. If we start revising history then our kids will think there were WMD in Iraq. (Yeah, I know, that last sentence was a little extreme.)
post #58 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyFunBoater View Post

If we start revising history then our kids will think there were WMD in Iraq. (Yeah, I know, that last sentence was a little extreme.)

Yeah Boater, don't rock GeorgeAB's boat there!!

LOL...
post #59 of 223
I don't see anything wrong with keeping GeorgeAB's initial post as a sticky and deleting the rest of the thread - I don't find anything else to be of use to the average reader. The exact same inane posting behavior is being exhibited elsewhere in the calibration forum by the same people who have gummed up this thread with their nonsense.
post #60 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB View Post

Our topic here is: sharing settings is not calibration, and should be conducted elsewhere in the forum. Is there really anything further that needs to be said about the topic?

There are certainly some enlightening posts in the thread about shared settings, widely varying manufacturer tolerances and what calibration is by comparison. Not without value IMHO.

My point was that when a lot of consumers are interested in something like shared settings maybe it should be taken as an indication of interest.

In terms of calibration, it seems to me that shared settings lie somewhere between

Professional Calibration(s) - best quality but expensive

DIY calibration options - from disks to software with instrumentation

Shared Settings - Assuming it was still based on industry standards on some set. (which can of course be further tweaked by user per set)

Out of Box Plug and Play Viewing - Basically no calibration attempt.

Perhaps the industry could recognize that many consumers are interested in something beyond out of box but at lesser expense which is why they seek out shared settings to begin with.

One of my HD CRT's has "magic convergence" calibration button. That's some sort of attempt at auto adjustment. My Kuro has "Optimum mode" which presumably is another attempt. My Sony Blu-ray discs have the "secret" calibration patterns but again, with no explanations.

Maybe manufactuers could build in some better assistance for DIY'ers? With such interest maybe they could distinguish thier products with more built-in options and encourage appreciation for standards at the same time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Display Calibration
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Sharing display menu settings?