Originally Posted by DARQMAGE
D-Nice, I'm as ignorant as they come with regards to this issue but I do have a concern. If the gist of calibration is to preserve (as faithfully as possible) the fidelity of the communicable information from a given source then calibration might not be for me. Is it erroneous for me to interpret cinema as purely entertainment
, as opposed to "mass communication" as GeorgeAB effectively coined? If so then my question is what exactly is being communicated by cinema? Information? Philosophy? Some faux-moralistic Aesop fable ideology where the protagonist is rewarded for being the "good guy" (after evil is punished) by continuing into that imaginary beyond past the rolling credits? What exactly is the director communicating to his audience that is so inexorably hinged on adroit visual interpolation? Aside from a painfully small handful of offerings, there is nothing in modern cinema that can be reasonably construed as "artistic" to warrant such adherence to fidelity.
If by communication, GeorgeAB is exclusively
refering to the images of the film source being faithfully reproduced, then I guess I can understand that. However, is it entirely wrong to want to add a dash of seasoning to the mix in accordance with one's own leanings? ....Not if the intent of the communicable data is to entertain.
What cinema offers to some (ok, me) is escapism, pure and simple; a momentary respite from the often monotonous vicissitudes of life, where imagination and medium interface and the viewer vicariously embodies an on-screen avatar, resolving life altering dilemnas within a two hour time frame. Is it wrong to then also include seasoning with regards to the visual aspect of the medium in the fantasy? Is it wrong to want to incorporate a hyperstylized representation (via vibrant color saturation, razor-keen edge delineation,etc) of the communicable data for the purpose of enhancing its entertainment value? What good is entertainment if the viewer isn't being entertained? If world famous Chef Wolfgang Puck whips up a rack of lamb, is it considered sacrilege of the highest order to sprinkle a dash of salt on it, if one felt it would enhance the dining experience?
I want every strand of hair to leap off the screen in bold relief, every variant of hue and every texture to vie with ruthless intensity for the scrutinizing gaze of my admittedly jaundiced eye, whether it faithfully reflects the source or not. GeorgeAB said it best,.."some brains are just wired differently".
I appreciate and respect the esteemed patrons of this board (D-Nice, Elite-Home, GeorgeAB and everyone else here for that matter) for their candor and know-how, but I realize that what I seek cannot be found here. The KRP-500M may be THE reference panel (to end all reference panels) if one is seeking the ultimate in image accuracy but faulty programming has made it impossible for me to appreciate it on its own merits. I'm in love with the 5010FD for all the wrong reasons, but in love nonetheless. The 5010FD delivers for me that which I seek, albeit however inaccurately, which in itself is an indictment; curse my eyes, it justs looks better to me. I'm Cipher seeking reinsertion into the Matrix, choosing simulation over that which is being simulated. I apologize for derailing the thread. I won't bother you guys anymore with my anti-KRP rhetoric (yeah, I know, good riddance). Anyone in the NY area looking to purchase a (stored away in plastic) 4 month old KRP-500M in absolutely perfect condition for dirt cheap, IM me..