Originally Posted by tbrunet
Darin is wrong about the fundamental issue in this thread.
camera gamma (.45) & CRT @ 2.2 results in a linear grayscale system or rec 709 unity
Why are you refusing to answer my question about whether you agree or disagree with Poynton that linear is not what people want? It is funny how you claim I am wrong about something I didn't say. One of the main questions is whether linear end-to-end is what people should shoot for. Poynton has made it very clear that he does not agree with that and you refuse to say whether you agree or disagree with him, but instead try to tag the 2.2 to him as if it is his position because somebody else wrote a paper in 2001 who said that 2.2 was correct and had a supporting sentence about Poynton, but not about 2.2, and Poynton didn't say that he supported 2.2 for the video and TV in dim environments (in fact he has flat out said that he disagreed with 2.2 on the display side).
Seriously Thomas, you should be able to read and since you say that you haven't been purposely misleading anybody here you should be man enough to look at the evidence (including what Poynton himself said) and not try to make people believe that his position is the 2.2 is correct.
Just wanting to stick to something you had interpreted a certain way before more evidence came in just because you want to be stubborn is not a good excuse for pushing something and goes against your claim that you haven't purposely tried to mislead anybody here. Sticking with something for no good reason other than you held that position at some point is purposely misleading others when it goes against all the evidence.
Originally Posted by tbrunet
I may be mistaken here but I’m the engineer here with the more sensitive test equipment like my state of the art Tektronix/Leader SMPTE reference analyzers. I’m a 30 year veteran of this discipline as well.. and I have the camera.
This isn't about the camera, it is about the display. And interesting that you say here that you have the more sensitive test equipment when the excuse you have stuck with for years for telling me that you would measure on/off CR from your CRT to see if you were right and then never doing it was that you didn't have measurement equipment sensitive enough. So, do you now magically have measurement equipment sensitive enough to measure gamma for a display? If not, then please don't push that people should believe you because you have the test equipment when it is test equipment for the camera side, which people weren't arguing about. It comes down to that fairly basic thing that you seem to want to avoid answering now. That is, should the end-to-end be linear. Poynton says no. If you think Poynton is wrong then say so.
As far as:
Originally Posted by tbrunet
I’m a 30 year veteran of this discipline as well.
some people on the CRT forum may not be familiar with tbrunet's tactics. He uses this thing pushing that people should believe him because of how many years of experience he has in this discipline even though he has posted some of the most ignorant stuff around here about subject matters related to this and when things were pointed out to him he would stick with those ignorant positions for a while, using some pretty low tactics in order to try to get people to believe that he was right. It is kind of like somebody saying that everybody should believe them about some math thing because they have 30 years experience in math when in the last few years they spent months trying to get people to believe that 9 times 9 is 18 and that anybody who said it was 81 didn't know what they were talking about, all while refusing to answer what 3 times 3 is or actually count some things. Like here, I don't think a person is going to go from not being able to figure out what 9 times 9 is to understanding calculus in a small amount of time.
And tbrunet still hasn't shown that he understands on/off CR. He never has apologized to Greg Rogers for claiming in post after post that Greg was wrong for thinking it was possible for on/off CR to be higher than 219:1 or 980:1 with consumer video. tbrunet would avoid the simplest questions about the subject matter that would have made it more clear that he was wrong, yet we are supposed to believe that he is right here because he has experience (experience which wasn't enough to get him to understand in less than 6 months how video from a display could have higher on/off CR than 219:1 or 980:1).
It was almost exactly a year ago where tbrunet was backing up that gamma doesn't apply to digital displays (to support somebody saying that if 100% video level was 10 ft-lamberts then 50% video level should be 5 ft-lamberts) and according to tbrunet he must have had way over 20 years experience at the time he did that. Yet a year later we are supposed to believe that he now knows not only that gamma does apply to digital displays, but that it should be 2.2.
tbrunet doesn't like it when I provide actual links to things he has claimed and stuck with even after they were explained to him, like after he claimed about 6 months ago that he had been right about everything he had posted about a subject matter related to this one even though he knew he had pushed for a long time that consumer video couldn't provide an on/off CR higher than 219:1.
Here is a link where I have included links to some of the things that tbrunet has said over the last 4 years and some of his claims:http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post16411186
Originally Posted by darinp2
For a short (partial) synopsis, here have been some of his claims:
11/2/05: The highest CR possible with 8 bit video (video black at 16) is 219:1.
11/3/05: If white is 30 cd/m2 then the darkest black that a CRT could do with 8 bit video is .15 cd/m2.
7/30/06: Claimed that Dr. Soneira had validated his position (which Dr. Soneira responded to 2 days later, telling tbrunet that this wasn't true).
7/12/07: After telling us that he understood this subject matter and we didn't and avoiding my question about how bright a 10%stim (or 10 IRE with 0 base) level should be if white is 10 ft-lamberts, answered that 10 IRE would be 1 ft-lambert in that case.
8/1/08: Backed up somebody else claiming that gamma doesn't apply to digital and so a 50% video level (50%stim or 50 IRE) would be 5 ft-lamberts if white is 10 ft-lamberts.
1/29/09: Claimed that John Luff of SMPTE had validated everything he had ever posted on the subject.
If people follow that stuff they will see that even this year tbrunet refused to answer simple questions about that subject matter and in the end tried to change the subject from on/off CR in order to try to keep people from realizing that he had been wrong about it. Still wouldn't be a man and admit he was wrong, but instead tried to make it look like others had been wrong while refusing to discuss that actual subject matter.
While some may think it isn't fair to actually point out a person's history, I think it is when they are trying to use their past (their experience) to get people to believe that they must be the ones that are right and have done this before.
And if tbrunet follows his pattern he will refuse to answer simple questions and push whatever it was he thought at some point, regardless of whether it is true or not. Like here, I don't expect him to actually answer whether he thinks Poynton is right or wrong about the greater than 1.0 end-to-end thing, or even if he doesn't know whether Poynton is right or wrong, which would contradict taking a position that things should be exactly 1.0 end-to-end. If tbrunet thinks that 1.0 end-to-end is correct then he should stand up and say that Poynton is wrong instead of trying to make people believe that Poynton's position is that the CRTs are 2.2.