Sharing display menu settings? - Page 3  

Greetings

Funny thing is that some will spend hours looking for settings and yet refuse to take 10 minutes to use a disc like the FREE THX optimode which will give them better settings and they might actually learn something in the process.



There is also a self preservation aspect about stuff like magic focus. It saves the tech in the field time on the job ... which means it saves them money by providing such a feature.

The number of people remotely interested in calibration is still far smaller than you'd think.

Regards

Really mature post.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look?

Hopefully one of the moderators will take care of this soon.

________________
And certainly, if someone wants to post & share post-calibration/post DIY settings, you really can't stop them! As long as they understand that the shared settings may neglect viewing conditions and make/model of TV at the sharing party's location, and that such shared settings are ONLY PRELIMINARY. Shared settings will likely rescue the TV from ridiculous factory settings, but they aren't the most accurate choice. The next step for the person using the shared settings is to perform their own DIY calibration with one of the many standard def or hi-def DVDs available. Or, they could go all out and purchase the services of an ISF-level calibrator, and really get it right.

Sure, people can just post whatever they want here regardless of the intended topic of this forum or the threads in it.

Oh, wait.

I own a 60" XBR2 - it is pretty bad compared to the new Samsung plasmas re. color accuracy and it can't be improved. When it was released, it was pretty damn impressive compared to alternatives available then. Samsung has taken a quantum leap with their new plasmas and they COMPLETELY outclass the XBR2 in every way except peak white level. Heck, the Samsungs even out-class the 8G Kuros in color accuracy and gamma (but not white balance, usually). The XBR2s have a litany of limitations compared to the Samsungs (less than ideal shadow performance, can't get gamma high enough, can't adjust color space, overscan you can't get rid of (hard to live with after spending time with pixel-perfect plasmas), unused areas of the screen go dark blue instead of black, calibration changes as projection lamp ages... I check cal every 500 hours and it's always different.

When a display measures inaccurately, you always see it in images if you know what to look for. Most people don't know what to look for - hence their willingness to accept something that's not right as looking "accurate" - yet presented with an image with true accuracy... THEN they can see and understand why the image is better. The "suck you into the movie" factor goes up even if you aren't able to figure out exactly why.




Measuring/calibrating THX mode was the whole point of the pro calibration. 800U owners tend to think that a video display that is THX Certified is calibrated at the factory. That's just not the case. THX certified AVRs aren't calibrated at the factory either... they simply provide the performance needed and adjustments needed to GET THE AVR into good performance/calibration once it is in your system. Same thing with the video displays. Calibration takes a LONG TIME to do right and it doesn't sell more TVs for the manufacturers who are selling to the "unwashed" public who can be fooled by 12,000K color temps and other flavors of trickery. We are lucky there are even warmer color temp selections in user menus... because those don't help sell more TVs to the public either. I think we got them only because the manufacturers got tired of being beaten up in print and by vocal enthusiast owners (a minority, but when enough of them complain, they can get irritating tot he manufacturer ). This is also the first year of THX video display certification... the early years of THX certification for AVRs were not as solid as current THX certified models, early years of Dolby Digital and DTS certification also let a lot of errors slip through. I don't know how good displays will have to be 3 years from now to carry THX Certification, but it's a fair bet they will have to be better than today's certified displays - so that already implies room for improvement.

That's right, if people want to share gardening tips or advice on replacing an old 3 or 5-gallon toilet on "Display Calibration", they have every right to.




Well, you said it, HP.


Use your BRAINS - THINK! I know it's un-American to exercise the ole' gray matter, but it doesn't hurt. Display settings ARE relevant here - whether derived from calibration measurements or sharing.

Thus the opening post.
Display settings are only relevent to one TV. Settings derived by calibration gear provide the best results because they "measure" and a proper calibration can be performed.

Sharing is what could be possibly be acceptable for some if they are lucky... and devastating for others.

As an analogy...
If one has twin children (same make/model) and one of the twins break a leg... you don't break the other twin's leg so they can both be perfectly calibrated.

The crux of the opening post is not whether to calibrate, but good advice to not copy settings. It's quite a practical suggestion IMO.

Well we're certainly a bunch of elitists, aren't we? If someone isn't able to pay $400 for professional calibration, or spend considerable time researching how to calibrate a TV themselves (possibly buying a meter) then they should leave the TV in the default vivid/torch setting? I guess those stupid, stupid people deserve a crappy picture. That's what they get for being stupid. Or poor. Or both. Of course, I know a few settings for Sony XBR2 that are very likely to improve their picture - just basic temp and brightness settings. But I won't tell them what those settings are. Because we don't like stupid or poor people. Hey, I've got an idea! Maybe they can sell blood. How much blood do you have to sell to save up $400?

Is that what anyone here is saying? Nope. Not even close.

Yep, that's what's been said. Don't share settings. Period.

HFB, you have to understand that this is the "display calibration" area of this forum. Anything that isn't actually about calibrating displays is off topic. Regardless of what anyone may think, blindly copying someone else's settings is not calibration. There are certainly other areas of AVS for those that just want to share and use someone else's settings (as you already know). When we say "sharing settings" we don't mean basic stuff like disabling edge enhancement or which picture mode generally gives the best gamma curve for example. It's meant more to apply to contrast/brightness/tint/color and other fundamental controls that need to be set individually for each source/display combination.

Let me give you an example. Just taking my lone 70XBR2 into account, my Xbox 360 and PS3 both identically set to video levels using HDMI on different inputs have drastically different contrast settings. My 360 on input 3 has to have the contrast dialed down considerably to achieve the identical light output as my PS3 does on input 7 (both set to 45ftl displaying a 100ire pattern measured with an i1pro). If I use identical contrast settings for both inputs, my 360 is far too bright and the gamma curve is totally wrecked as well as horrible discoloration of my white highlights. If a single TV can have that much variation just between 2 inputs with 2 different sources, then what good is just using someone else's settings? It's as likely to be far far off from optimal as it is to even be in the ballpark.

What most are advocating here isn't that everyone should save up $400 for a professional calibration. What they are advocating is that instead of just assuming thier TV will look fine if they use someone else's settings, instead spend the few minutes it takes to use something as simple as the THX optimizer off a DVD they probably already own.

I'm not sure where this myth is coming from that all calibrations cost $400? I keep seeing it get thrown around by naysayers who want those "stupid or poor people" who don't know any better to think that they have to give up their firstborn to have a decent looking picture. Assuming you want a quality calibration from someone who knows what they are doing, I've been quoted as little as $150 depending on the type of display and number of inputs I want done. So please, let's drop the "calibrations cost a fortune" propoganda - it's simply not true and you should know better.

You also conveniently left out the fact that anyone can pay a mere $25 to $40 for a disc that they can use over and over to at least get the brightness, contrast, color, and tint set to something far better than it came from the factory.

People are free to share display settings as they please - understanding that they'll get mixed results as compared to doing things themselves very inexpensively and with no previous calibration knowledge. They can also learn how to do it themselves - as I have done - or just hire a professional. The OP's point is that this is the calibration forum, and that due to the generally complete inaccuracy of sharing settings, such discussion doesn't belong in this particular forum - do it in the display-specific threads in other forums. Why are there people so militantly opposed to keeping the calibration forum all about calibration??

By the way "D-6500" (whatever that means) - it's also your prerogative to buy tickets to the opera and then spend the whole time loudly talking on your cell phone. I'm sure that will endear those people to you as much as you've managed in this forum - it's called common sense and courtesy, try some on for a change.

HappyFunBoater
Thou shalt not taunt

Good philosophy.

Yeah, I certainly agree that copying settings is not the same as calibrating. But the thread is called "Only evil people copy settings", or something like that.

And I really doubt that we disagree on what settings are good to share and which aren't. Your examples of things that can be shared are good. And your example of something that didn't share well is good. But I was taking umbrage at the comments that "sharing is bad - period".

As far as the simple DVD calibration, I'd also agree that it's quick and easy. I referred to that as an option to calibration. But it won't work for stupid people. Or lazy people. They just need some settings to make their TV hopefully better than the default.

Agreed, -Boater. And in that vein I recommend "lifeboat" solutions to get newbies/the uninformed in a better position and prevent damage to their new TVs:

CRT/Tube sets: Lower contrast from it's maxxed out setting & set color temp to neutral or warm.

LCD sets: Lower the backlight from it's torch setting to about the middle, and reduce contrast slightly from it's maxxed out position. Some LCD panels don't have backlight control in the menus - although this should be checked at the retailer before even considering buying such a brand.

By "lifeboat" I mean, temporary solutions until patterns can be run or instrumentation hooked up to determine accurate settings.

"If you are sharing settings then you are against us" is a POV which I disagree with immensely!

LCD sets will not be damaged by leaving them in torch mode. CRT and PDPs can.

As I have said before, the debate about whether sharing settings is good or bad cannot be settled in a general sense. It depends upon what set we are talking about (specific model), and what settings. The same controls may have very different degrees of variance and effect on different models. George's point was not to offhand dismiss the value of sharing settings but to point out that it does not equate to calibration. There are model and brand specific threads where that stuff is shared ad-nauseum. It is also clear from those threads that there is little to do with calibration in the sharing of most settings.

Now if someone wants to start a thread where measurements are made that document the variance in specific sets and identify where shared settings may be useful, that would be appropriate for this forum. There is little interest in this, as most calibrators know that the variance is great enough in most controls on most models to make it less than useful. There is also already this service available at the TweakTV forum.

So unless someone wants to discuss specific models, I suggest that we shut this debate down as it cannot be resolved. Put up some data or shut up would be a good rule, IMO, as this is going nowhere useful. The sarcasm, attacks, sniping, and verbal jabs just serve to lower the grade of discourse here, and it is, after all, AV Science Forums. Of all of the forums here, this one should stick more to the facts than any other.

I agree that this thread has wandered all over the place and has lost it's purpose. (I still enjoyed it, BTW.) And I think that most of us agree that sharing "some" settings has it's place in "some" situations. I did not intend to imply that everyone thought sharing was evil. But some of the posts were certainly making that statement. I still think that sharing settings even in a calibration section has value. Understanding other peoples settings, especially settings from folks that are skilled in calibration, helps me understand how those settings are used. The "poor and stupid" should stick with the forums for their specific TV when blindly copying settings. I still stand by the "elitism" comment for folks in this forum that guard their settings and knowledge. Those are the folks that spread the rumor that calibrations cost $400, and anything less is crap.

Since you used the term "elitism" I will assume that was directed towards me. And this may surprise you, but I agree with everything you said. I see value in expensive calibration. However, that wasn't my point.

No one in this thread is advocating the guarding of knowledge, nor are they supporting the idea that the only worthy calibration is a $400 one. Both concepts are ridiculous and have not been even mentioned - let alone supported - by anyone here except yourself. Where are you getting this stuff from?

$400 is a common rate, give or take $100.

As far the guarders of knowledge, there's no need to list names.

You hit the nail on the head.

So have local calibrators lied to me when they quoted me $150 to $250 to calibrate the DVI input on my old H79? I'll have to inform them of the new going rate - they could be making so much more!


I'm sure you could come up with a list as fallacious as the rest of your arguments, based on more fabricated information.

No one here is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to pay money, nor are they protecting the "secrets of calibration." Just look in the stickies at the top of the forum - there's a wonderful calibration guide there that will teach any novice with the willingness to learn how to calibrate a display on his or her own.

As GeorgeAB just stated, there are reasons why a calibrator wouldn't divulge certain techniques which they developed themselves and upon which their livelihood depends. Why anyone would feel a sense of entitlement to someone else's intellectual property is beyond me.

You may or may not remember but i was active on the sxrd threads when it was the hot item. The first time i seen the sxrd i could tell the colors where oversaturated even in warm mode. Also, looking for a display with better blacks than my rear lcd sony at the time i was not happy to see the black level flucuated with brightness, the same as lcd's, they are not stable and turn into the dreaded "bluish'' tint with bright content. I also seen more motion problems. So i was disappointed with the sxrd. But it still does do things better than plasma, less noise-dithering-IR-color "rainbow" effects.




You see doug, in a way you're agreeing with me then, that with a good eye for accuracy, you CAN have a high degree of certainty that a tv is accurate without actually meausuring it. And a ''unaccurate tv'' can be very hard to impossible to fully correct. Even with all your measuring tools But i know in certain cases calibration can improve a picture.







Yes it's true the manufacturers want to do well in a bright environment so they default the picture mode to "vivid" and similar to compete well in those environments. But they do make a effort to make there tv's accurate in other modes.

First, look up "common". It doesn't mean that all rates are $400. Otherwise I would have said "all". I believe you when you say you found a cheaper rate. Is this guy bringing over a DVE disk? Go for it.

Yeah, I know there are a lot of people on this forum that help other people. That's why I'm here. There is a ton of great information. I didn't say otherwise.

"Entitlement"? Who brought that up?

You were the one making the claim as to the average price of a calibration, so the burden of proof lies with you to. I've already provided figures quoted to me by actual ISF calibrators who work for local HT installers - thus far yours have been pulled out of thin air for the purpose of backing a hollow claim. The fact that you say something is so doesn't make it so, and most people who have actually paid for one know that your "average" price lies in the upper end of the range. You seem to be putting a lot of words in a lot of people's mouths to try to prove your shoddily constructed points - between the $400 figure, the "guarding of knowledge" conspiracy theory (and the associated "secret list of names"), and the DVE disk comment, you're on a roll.


So why the claims about the "guarding of information" and settings? You just acknowledged that calibration information is very openly shared in this forum.


GeorgeAB did when he was making a very good point. Give it a read!

If one where to pay for calibration, this would be ideal. But this sort of conflicts that measuring to a standard that any qualified isf should be able to make any tv accurate to those standards. No?

As an analogy... A car mechanic can probably "tune up" any car and do a fine job. But, they may specialize or be very proficient with one particular make.

The statement below indicates that you have a poor understanding of the relationships between controls. The statement that a set would be oversaturated "even in warm mode" is simply incongruous. Warm mode on these sets is a gray scale preset, which has nothing to do with saturation. The fact is that some of the second and third generation SXRD sets could be pretty close in gray scale on warm2, as could many of the LCD panels from sony. Closer than one could get eyeballing it or sharing gain and bias settings, anyway. Certainly calibration could tighten them up. This is a perfect example of where the sharing of settings often did more harm than good and people did not even realize it. If they had just left the individual gray scale settings alone (without instrumentation) and just used warm2, they would have been closer in most cases. Again, you have to have some experience measuring the sets to come to these conclusions, and the people sharing settings willy nilly are just shooting in the dark with a shotgun.




I think you miss Doug's points. You seem to have a greater valuation of your "eye for accuracy" than most of us with lots of measurement and calibration experience would even attribute to ourselves. I have been calibrating sets since 1979 with and without instrumentation and have a better "eye" than most but I would not assume the accuracy that you seem to. I would characterize your "eye for accuracy" as personal preference.




Some manufacturers do, and some do not. Mostly they respond to market pressure. ISF and the high end educated user have increased awarenes among some manufacturers of the market for accurate displays. Others have arrogantly ignored this part of the market, even while trying to position themselves as premium products. The fact remains that MOST users still operate their sets in OOB states that are far from accurate. They could be improved upon with some general guidelines for shared settings specific to their sets. Those who are found sharing settings on the forums, however, usually assume far too much about what can be shared effectively and what cannot. General trends must be identified and set specific variances cannot be accounted for by sharing settings.