Official KDL..EX500/501 Thread - Page 189

since you get same chart results with many different settings maybe your equipment/software is the problem

maybe you can learn something by watching someone else do your set

Oh no. Its the set. I have done several sets in my house and others for friends neighbors and family with different brands and the ex5 set just works oddly. The settings adjustments do odd things do brightness and detail. I would guess its due to the chips used for the inexpensiveness of the set.

I know what Im doing 100 percent. Its just a matter of a tricky set. Fwiw the xbr9 set which is very very similar to the ex500 has very similar oddities. Xbr6 and v5100 do not act the same and are much easier to calibrate.

Mike,
Do you think this is an issue with the 60 or other sizes? Just for the fun of it I inputted your settings for the 40 vs the calibrated settings for the 40 and I can say while your settings are good, for the 40 shadow detail/color is not coming across vs my settings. I realize it can also be a small factor has viewing environment. BTW with the 40 when color is set to 45, the redness is balanced and setting the rbias,ggain, and bbias will fix the undersaturation. Each set is different I guess.

To add PS:
Can you post screen shots, I would love to compare how your set imo looks vs mine.

The white balance does not fix color saturation. It has nothing to do with it. Trying to fix skin tone because of oversaturated red with the white balance will ruin your white balance.

Im not sure but I do wonder if the 60 has oddities the other sets in the line dont being the sharp panel. For instance the menu system of the 60 is odd like the set doesnt belong to the line. For instance I can not adjust white balance in cinema mode. And if memory serves me the menu is just different totally.
screen shots wont show anything at all. between camera settings not getting the lighting right, white balance difference of the camera itself, the monitor you view it on on your laptop or pc. you cant tell a thing.

I've been messing around today going back and forth between your new settings and the previous ones. I'm liking these new settings more and more. We watched Gladiator tonight and though skin tones seemed to have red oversaturation at times, this was usually indoor scenes shot in candlelight which would make sense. Outdoor scenes looked for the most part very natural.

An even better test blu-ray is Jeff Beck's Live at Ronnie Scotts. The track when Imogene Heap comes out to sing has always looked funky with skin tones showing very little red tone and almost looking pasty. Well not anymore. These new settings seem to have corrected that enough to where it's pleasing to watch.

I also took Toy Story 3 for a spin and though it is an animated film, the colors looked dazzling. In scene #1 when the Martians come to pick up Mr and Mrs Potato head from the train, the pink Corvette actually had a noticable pink metallic paint job that I hadn't noticed before.

I'm still playing with these and am still slightly troubled by the oversaturation of red, predominately showing up in skin tones looking slightly orange at times. But in many ways they are the best yet and I think I'll be sticken with 'em for now.......... at least until Mike again tinkers out some new and improved settings.

I just checked your links to your settings Mike and see that you again changed them a bit. You went from a hue of G-1 to a new hue of R-1 and jacked the blue gain down some more among other slight tweaks to the white balance. I won't have a chance to check 'em out for a few days and am curious as to what effect they had on facial images.

So wait, you're using NEUTRAL now? That's funny since now your settings are a lot closer to the ones I've had on my set for almost a year that I calibrated mostly by eye.

I guess my settings are a lot closer to "industry standards" than I thought.

I don't feel so bad about complaining about brown ice during hockey games now, lol

Dont remember if you had the 60 jth. But yeah. Nuetral is the ONLY way to get blue white balance near proper levels without jacking up the blue bias and lower R and G gains to make blue gain come up without turning black very blue.

torq. I had said I was relooking at Secondary colors. I tried to make yellow balanced that was G5. That looked horrid. I then tried Magenta perfect that was also horrid R5. I carefully watched flesh tones on many different sources and materials movies, news, sports. Best I came up with is R1. Center is just to green. It gives people a zombie tinge to them.

Mike,
Just my thoughts on all your new settings. I could not find any advantages to your new neutral settings . i tried them out on new tramformer Blu-ray, football games , Hockey, news,Ncis episodes and my favorite skin tone test nfl networks sunday morning pre-game. I just could not get past the reddish tones of both of the new neutral settings. I guess the problem is(Its not a problem -it's a blessing) the latest warm 2 settings with picture at 99 and bright at 54 comes out perfect to my eyes. Try out your new settings on that nfl pre-game and see which looks most natural. The skin tones are so good that i can't consider the other settings. If you could tell me some examples of what i would see better like detail or colors in the new settings i will try them out again . With skin tones so perfect and the picture so natural i have got to stick with your latest warm 2 setting.THANKS FOR THE GREAT WARM 2 SETTING!

The redish faces difference is not the white balance. Its stems from the warm2 settings you like are set to color 44. While the newest Neutral settings are set to color 50.

When color is set to 44 red is proper saturation and G and B are quite undersaturated. When set to 50 Red is oversaturated by about 3 percent and G and b are dead on.

This is the RGB color saturation and is hard coded nothing can be done. White balance adjusts the balance of RGB in Black thru white and all shades of gray in between.

I suggest that you try the new settings with color set to 44 instead of 50 if you prefer.

How about a happy medium and color like at 48?

Hi, I currently own a panasonic g20 plasma, and the black levels have risen to an extent that im not happy with the set. I've read the ex500 is a great set, with good blacks, and better screen uniformity than led tvs. How are the blacks on this set compared to top plasmas? Please give honest advice, no biased opinions please,haha. All of your advice is appreciated

I feel that the g and b drop off bothers me. Anywhere in between that makes you happy is fine

The set can go as low as .010 with contrast enhancers and such on. This provides a nice image but not a calibrated image.

A calibrated image will net you about .013 or .014 as Mine does. This was infinatly better than my g10 plasma.

On top of that the color and white balance accuracy are alot better when calibrated. And you dont need to service menu to do it.

That said I can speak for how much your g20 rose in black level and how decent the color and grayscale are on the g20.

or you can wait a few days/weeks for Mikes next "Mind Blowing" settings

The blacks definitely glow a dark grey in a completely dark room on my g20. I think I will sell and get an ex500 or sammy c650 lcd, I've read sammy blacks are better, but im hesitant of their build quality. OMG so,much to think about. Oh,and it will be nice to game and not have image retention for 2 days,lol.

Yes, I have the 60 and have been using Neutral from the beginning.

Perhaps. Or you can go enjoy your ex700 since you dont have a 500 since you dont really care anyway.

Mike
Thanks, I have spent the last few hours watching different things with the neutral settings with the color at 44. It seems to be almost identical to the Warm 2 settings i was using. Warm 2 has pic at 99 and bright at 54. The neutral settings is pic at 82 and bright at 50. It seems the detail is about the same on either setting. It seems the neutral setting has slightly better blacks and the warm 2 setting has slightly better background detail. That is what my eyes tell me. My question is -is that true based on the 99 pic 54bright setting vs the newest setting with pic 82 and bright 50 that the newest setting gets me a little better black level and a little less background detail.

I believe the shadow detail to be identical on both. The black level of the neutral setting is indeed better. The white balance on the Neutral is also a little flatter and better though that might be had to tell.

Mike
Thanks for the help and all your hard work on these settings. It looks like i am coverting to the neutral settings too. This 60 inch ex 500 was a replacement for my 60a2000sxrd which i had professionally calibrated. The free settings that you have posted for the ex500 blow away the pro calibration settings i had on the sxrd. the combination of skin tones,blacklevel and detail are superior. Thanks again and i will keep an eye on this thread in case you somehow improve this picture which is incredible.

Wish I had picked up a 60EX500 when they were still available.
But i couldn't justify it then because my current tv (53HS10) wasn't dying, like it is now.

So now i have to consider the 720 or perhaps one of the Sharp 60s. Are any of these somewhat comparable to the 500 series?

A new 55" from Sony was released last month that appears to be an intended successor to the 500/501 series:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1359086

I am seriously looking to get one of these as soon as this weekend though I maybe rushing into things. I'm mostly interested in the 520 because of all the great things said about the 500s in this thread.

Mike,
I was finally able to give your updated "nuetral" settings a spin and and quite happy now. Facial tones look as good as can be and I agree, black levels have not looked this deep. There is one area that I find improved upon as well and that is contrast. A tricky scene is in King Kong when they first happen upon the Brontosaurus herd grazing. The brights in that scene were too harsh with picture at 99 and bright set at 54. These new nuetral settings seem to have tempered that a bit.

Again, a happy camper until the next round which I'm figurin' we'll see sometime before Halloween. LOL

That is interesting! I thought for sure we had seen the last of the better quality CCFLs.

I'm staying off until the baseball playoffs and World Series are over. If lucky , I'll find time between the Super Bowl and the beginning of Spring Training.

Go Texas Rangers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Serial,

I have a quick ? on your WB settings. For the bias numbers those are suppose to be negative correct? I just got this set and will be going through the settings again to make sure I did not miss anything. I saw for the bias that you can positive and negative.

Yes I fixed the 0. I can see where the -0 could lead you to believe they all had a dash in fron t of them .

Its all fixed and they are all negative numbers.

serialmike: any chance you could post metered WB settings for General-Standard, with color set to neutral?