Contrasting Settings

This is yet another "Where to set contrast thread" (sorry).

I'm quite confused about the white level and that's sad because I've been studying calibration (as an enthusiast) for about 5 years now and this is the one thing that's haunted me this whole time. Any further clarification would be appreciated.

It seems that some say something like "maximize contrast ratio by jacking up your white level control so long as it doesn't cause clipping, geometry distortion (crt), color-shifting, or eye fatigue/strain"

and another that states something like "keep contrast (white level) LOW; very dim. Turn contrast all the way down and start slowly bringing it up to the point where white JUST becomes white, etc.".

My issue is that I have tried MANY MANY times, both ways (and many others) of setting contrast on my displays.

I find that the "pop" of cranking the white level (without the previously mentioned issues) is very exciting. I worry however that this might be something like an "SRS WOW effect" in WMP or something equally cheesy.

I also find that I can get my whites to appear to be white to me at a VERY low level for a direct view display (crt and lcds in my cases); namely hovering around 5ftL or less of light output (measured with an i1d2). This is dimmer than a lot of projectors and I happen to think it too looks absolutely fantastic (given the corresponding room environment).

Now my problem is that it upsets me that there's exact (or at least as I see them "exact") measurements and points for every other adjustment with displays (black levels, color gamut, greyscale, rec601 and 709, etc.). However with white level, all I ever seem to come across is a kind of "whateva floats ya boat, yo." and that bothers me.

I did see somewhere that THX calibrate their post production monitors to 35ftL of light output, but that's about all I could find.

I would like to match the standards of the professional environment in which the content we view is created, but I have this icky feeling that it's the same situation in studios as it is in home environments... a "whateva, foo!"-type mentality to this setting.

I know I'm probably exaggerating, but I'm really hoping that someone can come along and shed some light (no pun intended) on this situation before I end up creating a thread asking what others calibrate their peak whites to (ick!).

Oh! One last thing: I once was in a thread and someone (can't remember) briefly touched on that the contrast measurement is directly proportional to the field of view of the viewer. I tried a couple times to get them to elaborate or provide some data or numbers to no avail. This concept to me sounds very rational and if anyone has any input, I'd LOVE to hear it.

Thanks in advance!
-Brian

This is what I was trying to get at in particular. Since the film was created and mastered in a post house to look correct to the person or people mastering it in their particular environment, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that to get the most faithful reproduction of the material, one would need to recreate the same environment that it was mastered in?

I'm not saying going out and buying 100s of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, etc. but I am saying that it WOULD be the "ideal" environment to get the most faithful recreation, correct?

If this is the case, then at least it would provide a baseline of deviation. One could then know that if they change something from the "spec" of a mastering house, then they could at least understand what compromises they are making.

However when you don't know what the original environment was, then what are you deviating from? How do you know what compromises you are making?

I hope this makes sense.


This further elaborates on my original point. Unless for some reason I am unable to understand, a home environment COULD be 100% accurate to a mastering environment, and thus have the same "feel" and be calibrated to D55 if what you say is true about that (which the thought of scares the crap out of me). :P

I just simply want to know what the baseline is (which I have a feeling that there isn't one

I want to know what it is I am deviating from... The starting point, so that I can know what my "compromises" entail.

I too always look forward to hearing from Mr. Chen (I'm also always scared of posting here because I worry how he'll make me feel really stupid. Haha).

I understand perfectly what you are saying and I think exactly the same thing and if you can elaborate on just a couple more points, I'll keep my noob mouth shut. lol

1. It doesn't matter how white white is, as long as it meets the clipping, color-shifting, and eye fatigue values you tout everywhere, because white is white is white... correct?

2. If that's the case (which I DO think it is...) then would having a higher contrast ratio in the same display "expand" the range physically? Could it add in MORE grey "steps"?

In other words, in the reverse... Could shrinking the contrast ratio (such as having a VERY low white level, actually clip out grey steps and levels OR would they simply become smaller but still there?

I personally think they would become smaller but still there with CRTs for sure... but digital displays... well I just don't know.

Is it better to maximize your contrast ratio by cranking up the white level to meet the aforementioned criteria or is having the white level a LOT lower than the criteria just as acceptable?

Please don't eat me. :P

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough about what I said there. I DO understand about calibrating to D65 (because it's a standard, unlike a peak light output).

I didn't mean the color of white... I meant the luminance.

Thank you though, for sure!

Alright... So what I'm getting (that I've always got) is that peak luminance is determined by the end user and it's adjustable to whatever level suits your tastes and environments. I understand that and it's fine... I suppose I could live with that.

In response however to my previous question about expanding and contracting the contrast ratio... Does doing that expand or contract the dynamic range via clipping out "steps of grey"?

I honestly don't think it would with an analog display such as a CRT, but with digitals, I could see how it might.

The reason for this is that I wonder if it's anything like audio dynamic range, where when you have a very small dynamic range, things get compressed and stuff clips out at the high and low ends (in example: car door slams sound the same loudness as 10 megaton explosions).

I don't think it is though because it's not like with a compressed contrast ratio, fireflies glow as brightly as a flood light.

I just want to know if there is actual physical losses (aka "clipping") of "grey steps" when you reduce your contrast ratio... or does it simply get rid of that "neat-o" effect of a bright "pop" in the image?

So fellas... what ftL do you set YOUR peak whites to? Haha

I guess I give up on this question of proper white level. Thanks for all your input gentleman.

THIS... This is what I want(ed). I want to calibrate my displays as closely as possible to the mastering environment.

I certainly hope you didn't think I was implying that I want to match the "theater megaplex" environment as I believe that to look and "feel" like complete crap. I detest theaters; both visually and sonically.

I had almost this exact same discussion about how to set up 5.1 speakers in a home environment and I found out through (Ethan Winer, I believe) that mastering studios (where the music is actually MADE) set them up in a very specific manner MUCH different than a theater or other environment.

I set my speakers up to match the mastering studio as closely as I could manage and it made the best improvement ever to my sound. I love it.

I want the same for my video (if possible).

I think I am confusing what you're saying though.

Could you make it real basic for someone like me? lol

For example:

---
Home Environment: D65, rec709, 23ftL, etc.

Mastering House (where the film was created!): D55, rec709, 35ftL, etc.
---

I want to match the mastering house if possible as I believe that setting my display to match that would give me the same view that the person who MADE the content had.

Am I missing something completely?

Sorry I might have glazed over your first response too.

Thanks again!

Haha, I have actually.

I've painted my walls a neutral grey tone and have an IdealLume bias light.

Granted, I'm speaking of D65 and I have zero plans of D55 calibration, but I'm willing to listen to what Light Illusion says, as long as I can confirm any of it.

I just simply can't comprehend why in this one area there wouldn't be a standard. I know why there are all sorts of deviations (as with everything), but in order to deviate, one would (I think) have to know what it is they're deviating from.

I can't see how a picture that produces a white luminance of say 3ftL is the same image as one that produces a white luminance of say 60ftL.

They look nothing similar to me. I get an extremely different feel when I watch one vs the other but neither give me eye strain or fatigue and I enjoy both equally but for very different reasons.

I simply want to know why you would choose one over the other and that if you (Michael TLV [because I trust you]) say it really IS just preference, I will just shut up and trust you (albeit it stay very confused without a better explanation).

This one I understand and "know".


Agreed. I also understand this concept as it makes complete sense.


If there's no mathematical way to calibrate for an environment (such as ambient light, natural light, field of view, etc.), then it would seem logical that it's practically subjective to the viewer how bright they want their white levels to be.

In other words, in my case I can calibrate to say 15ftL in my darkened environment OR I could CHOOSE to calibrate to say 80ftL (as long as it's not clipping, color-shifting, or fatiguing), correct?

If your answer is "yes, that's correct", then fine... I will bow out and shut up about this question I'm sure you're all tired of hearing :P

If however it's NOT the case, then I'm utterly confused.

Either way, it still doesn't make sense to me.

I really want to give you an example.

For instance I just finished playing all the way through Dead Space on my 360 with a ftL reading from my i1D2 of about 15ftL peak white.

The game looked amazing (due to other calibrations as well) and it was dark and scary but anytime there was white, it was definitely white (not grey) to me.

Now that I've beaten it, I've calibrated my TV again for about 50ftL peak white this time.

Now that I'm running through the game again, I can see a LOT more detail and a lot of artifacts that are natural to the limitations of the 360 and it looks fantastic detail-wise. However the "dark and scary" feelings have been VASTLY diminished.

Personally I think it's a really good thing that it's brighter because I'm getting more detail and the reason it's not the same feeling is because I'm seeing more than I should... As though my display is TOO good for the game (if that makes any sense).

Is this difference really negligible? Can the two completely different light outputs and different "feel" and "look" to everything I watch not matter?

I really hope I don't sound too much like an idiot, but if you want, I could try to take a few pictures of the differences I'm referring to of the different calibrated settings.

What am I missing here?

Thanks so much so far!

I do indeed believe that's the piece I was missing *ashamed*

I am waiting on my iScan Duo to arrive so that I can fully adjust my gamma curve because it has been giving me some problems.

So just to make sure I understand: If I have correct gamma for both low and high light outputs, the same look and "feel" will be present with both settings?

Having a dim image vs a bright one won't make a difference because I'm only talking about the peak whites, whereas gamma refers to the function of how fast white comes out of black and therefore wouldn't affect black or white and only the curve or "greys".

Although it's still difficult for me to believe that an image that is so dim vs one that is super bright could look the same, but considering gamma (and how mine is out of whack), I could see how that might be possible.

I suppose I'll just have to wait until I receive my iScan and then if I still feel the same, maybe I'll post here again.

Sorry for asking such basic questions. It must get tiring hearing people try to argue with something that must seem so obvious to more skilled calibrators and enthusiasts. :P

Thanks again!

I think this answered all of my questions in one fell swoop actually.

It seems gamma is the biggest missing component that's had me all messed up.

The fact that there really isn't a formula (yet) for determining the levels based on room conditions clears up the rest of my concerns.

Thanks Sotti and everyone else who responded here!

I think "Light Illusion" is from the UK... Does that have any bearing on the specs? Maybe it is 1.956 across the pond?