The Official Pioneer 9G North American KRP-500M / KRP-600M Owner's Discussion Pt. II - Page 71

There's locked and then there's locked.


You've phrased this so that you can say anyone who doesn't agree with you must not have a properly calibrated panel. So I disagree with your premise and your conclusion.

Then I'll rephrase...

Anyone who can reasonably duplicate my attached measurements (gamma especially) within ISF Night and Day and still prefers Pure over both is welcome to speak up.

 

Pioneer KRP-500M Forum Post Calibration Report (ISF-Day).pdf 196.6044921875k . file

 

Pioneer KRP-500M Forum Post Calibration Report (ISF-Night).pdf 196.728515625k . file

You don't have to rephrase what you said.

It would boggle my mind why anyone would choose an inferior picture mode (Pure) over a superior picture mode (properly calibrated ISF Day/Night).

Let's be objective tbird. How many are going to pay for isf modes and not use them? Or hook up a laptop and software and not think they did something majical? Once you pay hundreds for these majic modes there is no turning back. Do you really think the people that are saying the isf modes are nothing but brighter are lying? I know i don't have experience with them, but after making every mode from performance to standard look great why would i? If you really think isf modes are the accuracy of pure, but perform like performance or standard that's fine. I'll just choose performance or standard if i want that majical look.

D-Nice did my 600M yesterday and just wrapped up my 500M this morning. More later, but the post-calibration picture in both ISFccc Day and Night blows away the picture I was able to get previously.


That "bang" we just heard was your credibility on this subject exploding like the Hindenburg.

More later - I'm out the door to watch Boston College and Wake Forest probably play a 2-0 game with eight overtimes.

I paid for them when my PRO-111FD was calibrated in Feb '09. I didn't use them often. Pure mode was my selection for nearly everything except for video games and for when the room was bright and sun-filled. In the latter cases the extra peak brightness was useful. I even called D-Nice and others out on their claims that calibrated ISF modes were a no-brainer versus Pure. The ISF modes looked somewhat overblown, contrasty and digital to me. The less ambient lighting in use, the more these qualities became apparent.

Search my posting history and it will substantiate this.

The difference in having them calibrated optimally is massive. I have not gone back to Pure (other than for comparative purposes) since having ISF Night/Day calibrated on my 500M. The contrasty, digital look is gone, and I now have an extremely dimensional, smooth picture that's every bit as natural-looking as Pure. The differences are real and the improvements are of great value to me.

tbird, what are your gaming settings? I've played my 360 using D-Nice's Pure settings and the image seems subdued and dull. Not to say it wouldn't make tv or movies look good, but I'd like a little punch.

I use ISF Day for games and it works fine for me.

Standard (and others) with some adjustments could work also. I never cared for Pure much when gaming.

Zues,

Your statement, seems to me, to imply there is some benefit D-Nice may enjoy by making exagerated claims about the performance of properly calibrated ISF profiles. He doesn't sell the patch nor does he get any additional compensation, if he installs them. Why should he go out of his way and potentially damage his professional reputation, by making inaccurate
statements?
To demonstrate your theory, regarding driving Pure Mode to +15, I suggest you do that and then do a re-evaluation of your set using whatever calibration software you are surely using and post your calibration report so, we can all see the result.

This makes me really look forward to a pro calibration since I think the day and night ISF were a vast improvement on Pure. Now I can't wait to really see what a pro cal will bring!!

Because these are issues of taste and people have differing tastes. It boggles my mind that people can actually say things like the above. It also comes rather close to violating item four:

4) Do Not put down someone else's choice in their purchase.

Hello all -

I'm torn as to whether I would actually like the look of a calibrated set. I entered Elite-Home's "Pure Mode" settings for my 600M and I don't like them at all. The color looks washed out, the picture looks soft and the whites look yellowish. By contrast, I adjusted the settings in Standard mode to a "mid-low" temp, sharpness at 0 (instead of -15), and color to +10. To my eye, this made the whites look white, improved the detail without any obvious false contouring and made the color look more pleasingly saturated.

Is Pure Mode close to what a calibrated set would look like? What exactly are the differences between Pure and ISF? I'm looking for a point of reference to help me decide if I should pay for a calibration.

Entering someone's settings and a good professional calibration are two very different things. You can check the calibration reports from Kuro owner's in Post # two using the link at the bottom of my post.

Thanks. I'll check out those testimonials.

That in and of itself doesn't mean anything. Every display is different and an accomodating calibrator will take into account your wishes as well as your environment. Assuming AVR HDMI out to the Kuro you have three inputs that can be individually calibrated with multiple settings on each input giving you a wealth of choices.


This is a common occurrence when moving from a lesser display to a Kuro. Given some willingness you should adapt quite quickly to a calibrated display.


The grossest difference between ISF and Pure is maximum light output and that high output is very useful in the absence of complete light control. I use a high-output ISF mode in the daytime. I find the other differences subtle* but many disagree. I personally have no trouble recommending calibrated ISFccc in the absence of complete light control but you could still find it a waste of money. Of course I would also suggest that you get Pure calibrated as well.

I do tend to use ISF modes most of the time but a large part of that is laziness. The ISF modes are adjacent in the menu so it's easy to toggle between them. When I switch to IP control that will no longer be an issue.

*The difference between default Sport and Pure is dramatic. The difference between indentically calibrated Pure and (low output) ISF is subtle.

2.22

Thanks for your input. I don't follow your thinking on your first comment though. How would a "lesser display" impact my dislike for Pure mode in the Kuro? And why would I have to get used to a picture? Shouldn't Pure mode look more "right" immediately?

Part of the reason for my original question was that I tried having my Panny plasma calibrated and when the tech was done I didn't care much for it either. The whites looked too warm. But I didn't have a lot of confidence in the tech, so I wasn't sure if my dislike for the picture after cal was due to a less than stellar job done.


This is very helpful information for me. If a calibrated set is similar to Pure mode, I think I'd be happier with just adjusting the set by eye to my personal preference for picture quality.


I have a follow-up question. Are there hidden differences between the preset picture modes, or could I make Sport look identical to Pure by making all of the settings the same? I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are different templets used for the different picture modes beyond what is user adjustable.

You like what you're used to more than what's right. Lesser displays tend be less accurate out of the box and have fewer or weaker adjustments to correct those defects. You adapt to the lesser image and find the better wrong i.e. not what you're used to. I would imagine that even if you've not paid much attention to televisions you're aware of the tricks retailers use to steer customers towards particular products and the tricks manufacturers use to get your attention. Those tricks work because our sensorium is biased.

Reset your display and put it in Sport mode for a week. Then switch to Pure. You'll find the image dull and flat. If you perform the inverse experiment you'll find Sport harsh and incandescent.

The human visual system is flexible, adaptable and tolerant. A bright, blue and contrasty image is favored by it but given a bit of time and a lack of distraction you will both appreciate and prefer the more accurate image of Pure or ISF modes.

The differences aren't hidden they're quite visible. But yes, not all image properties are adjustable and even if they are the range of adjustment available may not be enough to compensate for the preset bias (the so-called template).

I'm on the cusp of pulling the trigger on a 500M and am considering the package at Value Electronics that includes calibration with ISFccc patch. I have some questions related to how an in-store calibration with one source translates to in-home use with different, multiple sources....

Is the ouput of most BD players and HD DVR's consistent enough that a spot-on calibration of a monitor using one source still leads to a great picture with another source?

Related to above, how would one calibrate for a HD Tivo? It seems you'd have to have an RF/ATSC signal generator to be able to source test patterns through a DVR.

The ISF Day/Night modes: once a calibartion is done, are these settings available for all inputs/sources, or will one HDMI have calibrated Day/Night values while another has some default values. If the latter, is it easy enough to copy the calibation settings to other inputs?

In the past using DVE to tweak picture settings on tv's, those adjustments sourced from the DVD player seemed to also work well for tv viewing or other sources into that display and not just the DVD player (which theoretically was the only source the adjustments were valid for). I wasn't sure when you get into much more detailed calibration if the same settings could be applied to all sources and get the splendid results.

Thanks for the help,
Matt

Very good point and I have first-hand experience with the fact that preferences will change depending on your point of reference (I've played with this on the audio side of the hobby). But there is one common point of reference that we can all judge against--reality. I know what natural looking skin tone looks like, what true white and true black look like, and how much detail I can see at a given distance. So I wouldn't view a TV that was too far off of what looks natural for too long without making some adjustments.

BD yes, DVR maybe -- it would depend on the source.


Ideally.


The inputs are independent but not per resolution. Your calibrator should understand this and discuss it with you. I'm not sure how this works if you're getting a pre-calibrated Kuro.

Not really. No display represents any reality other than its own. Besides your perception of reality is profoundly flawed by millions of years of adaptation. The frame matters more than the picture.

Being a bit less ontological -- the colorist, director and random other people are looking at an image on a display which is the nominal output of the "telecine" process. The goal of calibration is get your image to look as much like their image as possible. Your bias is unrelated to this task. If your bias is more important than image fidelity you may prefer personal adjustments to calibration. It is much less expensive.

I wonder how many people are twitching in frustration at the local cineplex because they can't fix the black crush.

Other than overall light output, what makes it inferior? I use isf for day and pure for night. Other than light output, I honestly cannot tell any difference between the 2 settings. I have gone back and forth between these setting more than I care to tell. I use pure as an option in case I want to change film modes from advanced to standard or off all together.

I don't think it's inferior but it is different. You may need to do some fine-tuning if you don't see a difference at the same gamma and same Y@100%.

And yes using Pure as a set of presets is quite useful if you don't have ready access to another input.

Who knows? Just because dnice say's something is true i should believe it? I was not aware he has a 'professional' reputation either. Professional at what? Buying calibrating equipment? Dnice has also said in the past he uses 480i to get the best picture. Am i gonna use 480i and change my stance that it's like using a non progressive dvd player? Since he does make money calibrating peoples pioneers and plugging in the isf modes isn't it only natural to believe he would claim it's much better than pure? But i do believe he thinks the isf modes are better. Just like he thinks 480i is better.



I don't rely on equipment. All i know is my 151 like many other first batches of 151's are +green out the box, and it's incredibly simple to raise the reds on the them, drop green a bit, and have a perfectly calibrated picture. I also calibrate to very sensitve grayscale content in movies which makes it very simple. I'm good enough to take sport mode and make it literally as accurate as pure mode. Some would probably prefer it to pure mode. All i can tell you is after evaluating every mode and countless comparisons between all the modes there is no way i'm going to believe some extra isf modes is going to be better than all the modes i already have to work with. The fact is if you compare every mode with content you will find some scenes will look better with a different mode. Enough to make you go crazy figuring out which is the best mode. Every single mode on mine can rival pure mode in most scenes.

Without equipment, you have no measurements, Without measurements, you have no facts. And without facts, you have no credibility.


If you haven't even seen ISFccc Day and Night Modes, then you haven't "evaluat[ed] every mode" or made "comparisons between all the modes."

Again, you have zero factual basis to comment upon the characteristics of something you've never seen.

I accept that. I don't really care if you think i'm credible or not. As far as your measurements keep in mind YOU paid for them. I don't need measurements to know early 151's are +green. And know how to correct them. Justify your paid calibration all you want. You won't change my mind my picture is not calibrated the absolute best it can look. Without measurements or needing to pay someone to tell me it's accurate with charts.





You underestimate me After calibrating most modes to look spectacular do you really think i'm gonna believe isf modes is gonna offer something radically different than all the other modes at my disposal? For most pure and movie is gonna look the most accurate. I guarantee you i would blow your mind away how good i could make performance or sport mode look. And let's not get into the fact as pro calibrators like eliab have said in the past for pure accuracy pure mode is every bit as good as the isf modes and brightness was it's main benifet. But enjoy your paid dnice calibrated isf modes. And rest easy you have measurements and charts telling you it's accurate. But i would not think you have something magically better than pure mode. Let alone all the other modes that can be made to look spectacular. As long as we are all content with the picture we have there is no need to argue.

Interesting link you provided. The "kibami (yellow-inducing) illusion using the chromatic dungeon illusion" is particularly fascinating. I never would have believed that a black grid over a white object would make it look yellow. Gray I could imagine, but not yellow. I even had to open my color sampling program to make sure that white inside the grid was actually still true white. Yup, 255 for all three RGB values.

So now I wonder if the grid-like pixel structure of a display is causing the whites to look yellowish even when they measure true white.

Hi Tim,

FWIW, D-Nice calibrated my 111FD several weeks ago and it was clearly worth it to me. My review is in the calibration link. Keep in mind I had bought and used the ControlCal profiles to activate my ISF modes long before I got a professional calibration and frankly, my results were not all that impressive. I could see very little difference between Pure, ISF day and night.

All of them looked too dim, grainy and out of focus for my taste. Once D was done doing his thing the difference was HUGE. ISF Day and Night are all I watch now even though Pure looks better than before. ISF Day in particular has much greater depth and most importantly, focus than before.

I spend most of my time on the Audio side of the forum as well so I can assure you this is no placebo or psychovisual effect. I refuse to watch in other modes now.

Chris