AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Professional Calibrations = Overrated!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Professional Calibrations = Overrated!!! - Page 2

post #31 of 176
2/2/12 at 10:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinifox View Post

As someone who has a photo & print background let me describe my iterative frustrations before awareness in the digital realm.

In the beginning I took photos in jpg and edited on a 2nd hand (to me at the time, a fairly pricey, but unknowingly entry level business monitor). I got mad every time I was done editing and color correcting to have my prints (at the local discount store) show up so different than what I saw on the screen. Worse yet what I could print on the free printer I got with a camera. I sucked it up and went to a pro lab the results were worse. I was informed that without a doubt what was printed is exactly what was in my files.

So with an engineer's mind I took the problem apart.

Nothing I scanned looked like the original on the screen and nothing on my screen looked lik what was output at home or at the discount store.

Enter many nights of googling.

Eventually I got to the point where my scans, displayed images and at home prints looked roughly the same. Satisfactory to my eyes. Prints at the discount store look presentable.

By this time I was shooting raw on a full frame camera with great glass. I decided to do a photo book of a recent trip. To my horror my book's colors looked 'dead', accurate but lifeless.

Spoke at length with the printer and determined that the color range of my monitor was too limited, my workspace lighting was inadequate and too yellow, my printer's resolution for proofs was too low.

Enter more nights of googling, equipment changes and adds. Now I believe that I can capture an image on camera or scan, manipulate it and proof it with confidence ... At home.

The direct comparison is that the makers of video content had a certain vision in mind, their 'stuff' is akin to something you want want to scan or take a photo of.

To see their 'stuff' the way the creators see it, your settings would have to match theirs. Your white, red, blue, green, cyan, magenta, yellow, black needs to be the same as theirs. Just the same way your photos displayed on your monitor at home uses a standard for the definition of colors that is carried across to the lab for accurate reproduction.

So calibration of a tv (or your monitor, printer, scanner, pro lab imager) is simply getting all devices in a chain to agree on the definition of each reproducable color (amongst other things).

That was well said... understand fully, been there and done that too.
I've been a photographer since the 70's, so it's in my blood.
Been doing computers since it ties into digital photography since 84.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 176
2/2/12 at 10:20pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

What? No comment on the link I posted? or the link that GeorgeAB posted?

You, sir, are a TROLL.

I've gotten some intelligent response here, yours is not one of them.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 176
2/2/12 at 11:05pm
This debate grows very tiresome. Seems we get this debate in a different thread about once a month or so now. No one is holding anyone's feet to the fire to perform a calibration. Certainly not most professional calibrators worth their salt. To hopefully put this to rest, calibration of a video display is not about likes or dislikes. It is NOT about a good picture or bad picture. It is about setting a video display to established standards depending on which standards one follows. Those values are often numerical and can only be achieved accurately and precisely using instrumentation that has been "calibrated" itself against a known reference. Unfortunately, our eyes cannot be calibrated...they can be trained...and we are often limited by the controls of the display itself. Granted, some of the controls are set by eye and the final evaluation is often by eye, but we get into the ball park using instrumentation. Somehow, this notion of calibration was about getting the display "looking" the best it possibly can. It's not about that...at all. It just so happens that most folks often appreciate the end result. Nothing more. However, sometimes science does not meet our tastes. So, in comes the artistic portion of a few minor tweaks here and there to get the display "looking" a bit "nicer", and again, it is often limited on the controls available. Is that calibration? Open for debate I guess.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 176
2/3/12 at 2:46am
One thing he "may" be missing is comparing the two TV's with a blu-ray disk.

I suppose a reasonably calibrated 550 can look as good as a 7000 if the 7000 is not properly calibrated, which it probably isn't. THAT's where a "lesser" TV can catch up with a "better" PQ TV.

I don't doubt a person can self-calibrate and get a good picture. I use internet settings for my VT30 and they "look good", but I'm still getting a ProCal to make sure and that "little" better is well worth it over the long haul. The education might be worth it, alone.

Plus, there are settings (grayscale from what I've read) in the SM for Cinema and THX that improve picture a little. Not to mention, of course Custom with all it's settings that can't really be calibrated properly without equipment.

And then there's bias lighting, which I plan to set up before my ProCal. Because regular room lighting is WAY too warm and upsets color a little; especially skin tones.

For most people a ProCal is probably a waste, unless educated. But for other's, I like to think me, you just HAVE TO max out your TV's potential.

Of course, I just gave a good explanation of my TV model and the related calibration issues and some of the potential. Now if I said all this AND said a ProCal was "not beneficial" I bet I'd get a lot more respect from fellow posters, since I know a reasonable amount of info about what I'm talking about and can weigh the potential positives and lack of, of a ProCal.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 176
2/3/12 at 4:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

This debate grows very tiresome. Seems we get this debate in a different thread about once a month or so now. No one is holding anyone's feet to the fire to perform a calibration. Certainly not most professional calibrators worth their salt. To hopefully put this to rest, calibration of a video display is not about likes or dislikes. It is NOT about a good picture or bad picture. It is about setting a video display to established standards depending on which standards one follows. Those values are often numerical and can only be achieved accurately and precisely using instrumentation that has been "calibrated" itself against a known reference. Unfortunately, our eyes cannot be calibrated...they can be trained...and we are often limited by the controls of the display itself. Granted, some of the controls are set by eye and the final evaluation is often by eye, but we get into the ball park using instrumentation. Somehow, this notion of calibration was about getting the display "looking" the best it possibly can. It's not about that...at all. It just so happens that most folks often appreciate the end result. Nothing more. However, sometimes science does not meet our tastes. So, in comes the artistic portion of a few minor tweaks here and there to get the display "looking" a bit "nicer", and again, it is often limited on the controls available. Is that calibration? Open for debate I guess.

Very well put....Shawn

RayJr
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 176
2/3/12 at 5:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack54 View Post

You couldn't afford me and wouldn't know good photography if you saw it.

I looked at the photographs posted on his site.

Very typical of "digital photographers" that often seem to be lacking. Nicely composed images, but difficulty with exposure control.

He is entitled to his opinion, and he has his own level of aesthetics which is evidenced at his website.

This highlights the fact that everybody has different taste. Which *IS* why calibration is important for those that want to view their materials the way the original artists wanted it viewed!

duh.

-Mike
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 176
2/3/12 at 7:20am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbahr View Post

I looked at the photographs posted on his site.

Very typical of "digital photographers" that often seem to be lacking. Nicely composed images, but difficulty with exposure control.

He is entitled to his opinion, and he has his own level of aesthetics which is evidenced at his website.

-Mike

Let's see YOUR photography.

trinifox, Rayjr, dean-l, SierraMikeBravo, thanks for taking the time to explain things.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 176
2/3/12 at 7:52pm
I think some professional photographers are overrated too

And the list goes on for just about every profession, some more so than others.

I think jack54 is on to something here, he could walk into many of the post-production houses and save them money by phasing out reference displays and projectors that are regularly calibrated and conformant to the DCI P3 standard and replace them with his Samsung TV where he can get the image perfect by tweaking it with his eyes, since he is a pro photographer.

I can't image the conversation will go too well where colorists spend most of their time using digital intermediate software like Da Vinci's Resolve to do color grading work against a reference display.

But what do I know, he is a pro photographer.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 176
2/4/12 at 3:06am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 703 View Post

I think some professional photographers are overrated too

And the list goes on for just about every profession, some more so than others.

I think jack54 is on to something here, he could walk into many of the post-production houses and save them money by phasing out reference displays and projectors that are regularly calibrated and conformant to the DCI P3 standard and replace them with his Samsung TV where he can get the image perfect by tweaking it with his eyes, since he is a pro photographer.

I can't image the conversation will go too well where colorists spend most of their time using digital intermediate software like Da Vinci's Resolve to do color grading work against a reference display.

But what do I know, he is a pro photographer.

...and your an SMARTAZZ!
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 176
2/4/12 at 8:55am
@jack54...

give it a rest, all you are doing is embarrassing yourself

and providing your full name and linking to your website isn't the kind of exposure you want (pun not intended)
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 176
2/4/12 at 2:18pm
I don't think the OP understands the purpose of calibration... It has nothing to do with what the viewer "likes" and everything to do with what the reference standard is.

People who want a calibrated monitor do it because they want their display to look exactly like the studio monitor that the film/image was originally mastered on. If that's not important to you, feel free to twiddle with the picture settings to your own personal liking. I truly doubt that anyone on this forum really cares what you do with your own television.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 176
2/4/12 at 5:09pm
I've lurked on these boards for the past 10 years and I am still amazed at what I read sometimes.

Every eye is different, like fingerprints. Yes, we can all generally agree that blue is blue, but that doesn't mean we all see precisely the same blue. The structure of the eye isn't the only factor. Since vision is processed by the brain it is subject to perception. There are tons of people on here who automatically think that more expensive=better picture quality. Or that this or that technology has better PQ because it happens to be their preference. In short, you cannot trust your eye when you are talking about precision. That is why we use technology; it has no preference or opinion. And we hire professionals for their knowledge and experience in using that technology.

OP, if it isn't worth it to you and you are happy with your set, then that is all that matters. But trying to make a case that your eyes are better than an instrument is ridiculous and easily proven false with a simple wiki search.

Photography is an art; but calibrating a display device to reproduce content accurately is pure science. The closer you can get your set to reference, the closer you get to seeing the content as the creator intended. This is not something that can be done by relying on hairs on the back of your neck, chicken bones, runes, the casting of spells, etc.. It is done using "science".

Now all this assumes that you are not an android of course, in which case none of this would apply to you.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 176
2/4/12 at 5:40pm
I think it's time to stop feeding Jack. It's getting way past his bedtime. Airscapes said it best back in post #18.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 176
2/5/12 at 5:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 703 View Post

I think some professional photographers are overrated too

And the list goes on for just about every profession, some more so than others.

I think jack54 is on to something here, he could walk into many of the post-production houses and save them money by phasing out reference displays and projectors that are regularly calibrated and conformant to the DCI P3 standard and replace them with his Samsung TV where he can get the image perfect by tweaking it with his eyes, since he is a pro photographer.

I can't image the conversation will go too well where colorists spend most of their time using digital intermediate software like Da Vinci's Resolve to do color grading work against a reference display.

But what do I know, he is a pro photographer.


Have there been any recent independent reviews on how accurate the mastering monitors and screens, screening rooms, commercial theaters, etc... used by the industry are to standards.
I mean back in 1997 going by Berggren, Glenn, “The Color of Light on the Screen – New Measurements at Studios and Laboratories”, SMPTE Journal Vol 106, pp. 156-158. It would of been a joke to say they were all or even mostly accurate to standards. Likewise other old surveys of screening rooms to commercial theaters showed they were mostly far from to the standards. I think when they were developing the DCI specifications and they reviewed the film standards vs actual practice in reality they reached the same conclusions.

In 2012 are we now in a world where it is actually accurate to say that the mastering and supply chain are up to standard. So calibration enables you to see what the director saw in the screening room or since we have a home video format that is different to the cinema formats, more accurate to say we see the same as the person did monitoring the conversion unless that conversion was automated.
That is if consumer displays and viewing rooms are up to the task, I mean if you had a calibrated display monitor used by the studio as a reference source and a consumer display calibrated as close to the standards as it could manage would their picutres look the same be indistinguishable from one another.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 176
2/5/12 at 7:46am
I am not 'siding' with any one here, but this thread was a wonderful opportunity for calibrators to give their elevator pitch. Which some responders have done really well.

Jack: (Assuming you do do this already, but if you don't). As part of my digital workflow, for each lighting scenario I take a first photo of my grey card (eg. WhiBal or ColorChecker Passport) and for good measure I take a last photo of it as well (if outdoors for a long time, sometime in the middle too). When I get back to my workstation my software is then instructed that the reference values of black, white and grey can be found on my reference shot of the grey card. The Color Checker Passport allows for the reference of many other colors.

So.

The calibration we spoke about is simply telling your display to match the reference colors to the time the 'colorist' made adjustments. In some ways the color matching workflow for digital video is a little bit more straightforward than a capture to print color matching work flow. Why? Because you need to translate from RGB light based colors to CMYK print based colors and there are new variables like paper type and ink quality etc.

I know you understand the 'concept' of calibration Jack, however, the point of my posts is to draw an analogy between your profession and the video world.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 176
2/5/12 at 8:13am
The easiest comparison to draw here is why would anyone need to hire a professional photographer? The same reason they would want to hire a calibrator: experience, tools and skill.

For a pro photographer or calibrator, it's money well spent to those who appreciate the service. Both are unnecessary and overrated to those who don't.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 176
2/5/12 at 10:06am
Some sets are terrible out of the box and could really use some adjusting. Other sets are quite awesome just by simply putting the tv into its most accurate mode.

So, it really all depends.

I had a few Panasonic sets that had such green grayscale's that they simply looks odd no matter how you adjusted it in the menu. A good calibration did wonders.

My Samsung D6000 LED however, is quite excellent out of the box, a near perfect grayscale and near perfect color gamut.

It looks better then the Panasonic POST calibration.

So....sometimes its worth it, sometimes it's not.

I think where calibrations shine is when the end user notices something that isn't natural, and takes away from the experience. A calibration can fix that.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 176
2/5/12 at 10:32am
The last three posts here on TV calibrations seem to be the most reasonable view. I too can see the benefits of calibrating. And as the above stated, some TVs benefit more from it than others. So perhaps the OP has made a legitimate observation in comparing his TV picture quality to his neighbors calibrated TV.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 176
2/5/12 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwolf4k View Post


My Samsung D6000 LED however, is quite excellent out of the box, a near perfect grayscale and near perfect color gamut.

Have you actually measured it? If so, with what meter?
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 176
2/5/12 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX2011 View Post

The last three posts here on TV calibrations seem to be the most reasonable view. I too can see the benefits of calibrating. And as the above stated, some TVs benefit more from it than others. So perhaps the OP has made a legitimate observation in comparing his TV picture quality to his neighbors calibrated TV.

That maybe true, but you can't extrapolate from those 2 data points the topic of his post "Professional Calibrations = Overrated!!!".

Also the value of incremental improvement is something where "value" is something that is personal, since the ROI is measured in enjoyment.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 176
2/5/12 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

That maybe true, but you can't extrapolate from those 2 data points the topic of his post "Professional Calibrations = Overrated!!!".

Also the value of incremental improvement is something where "value" is something that is personal, since the ROI is measured in enjoyment.

I'm glad that there are professional calibrators on this forum. They have helped me out immensely. I do my own calibrations now but have had a professional calibration in the past. The professional was not very professional for my experience. I wonder if that is Jack's experience. I hear of others having it done right and I am jealous. I wish the calibrator would have taken time to explain what he was doing. Anyhow, I really enjoy "tweaking" and have thought, how can this get better? I retry and get it closer and can see the difference. I do believe that someone can prefer a certain picture over another even though it may not be right. Although, after watching what is correct, you can start to see things that were missed before.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 176
2/5/12 at 12:51pm
I suppose I am addicted to doing my own calibration. I like to think of it as a harmless (though sometimes expensive) hobby.
My wife dosn't mind preferring it to me going down to the pub or supporting my local Football Team.

The problem is that as soon as I get apparent agreement between my eyesight and whichever software I use I am told that my meter may not be accurate.

I buy a more accurate meter and recalibrate to the same technical standard then am told that a lot of the errors I have corrected cannot be seen.

Then I read that my eyesight is very much an adaptable sense that adjusts to whatever I calibrate to.

I still like to calibrate though and am not at all concerned that some people may be able to make a living from it including Professional Calibraters, Meter Manufacturers and Software Providers.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 176
2/5/12 at 12:54pm
OP needs to take his TV and put it beside is neighbors and run the same feed.
Until that happens it is all speculation.
As mentioned, it is personal preference and what the viewer has come to believe is
pleasant.
Nothing wrong in that at all.
To say calibrators are overrated is ignorant.
There is no doubt that
meters tell the truth about the picture.
And honestly, that may be so foreign to the viewers experience, they will hate it.
None the less, getting the TV to perform accurately in white balance and gray scale
over a consistent way from dark to light is always good. The amount or tingle of colors is consistant and repeatable.
Win Win.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 176
2/5/12 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post

Have there been any recent independent reviews on how accurate the mastering monitors and screens, screening rooms, commercial theaters, etc... used by the industry are to standards.
I mean back in 1997 going by Berggren, Glenn, The Color of Light on the Screen - New Measurements at Studios and Laboratories, SMPTE Journal Vol 106, pp. 156-158. It would of been a joke to say they were all or even mostly accurate to standards. Likewise other old surveys of screening rooms to commercial theaters showed they were mostly far from to the standards. I think when they were developing the DCI specifications and they reviewed the film standards vs actual practice in reality they reached the same conclusions.

In 2012 are we now in a world where it is actually accurate to say that the mastering and supply chain are up to standard. So calibration enables you to see what the director saw in the screening room or since we have a home video format that is different to the cinema formats, more accurate to say we see the same as the person did monitoring the conversion unless that conversion was automated.
That is if consumer displays and viewing rooms are up to the task, I mean if you had a calibrated display monitor used by the studio as a reference source and a consumer display calibrated as close to the standards as it could manage would their picutres look the same be indistinguishable from one another.

Some very good points. To generalise a bit, no two production houses are setup the same, nor have the same priorities when it comes to maintaining the environment. However, one would expect the respectable ones to have at least a few calibrated displays in action somewhere in their workflow.

When it comes to color grading, although having a calibrated display is desirable, most do with just profilling the display and rely on the color grading software to map that profile to the target color space.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 176
2/6/12 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

What? No comment on the link I posted? or the link that GeorgeAB posted?

You, sir, are a TROLL.

Of course he is.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 176
2/6/12 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post

Have there been any recent independent reviews on how accurate the mastering monitors and screens, screening rooms, commercial theaters, etc... used by the industry are to standards.[?]
I mean back in 1997 going by Berggren, Glenn, “The Color of Light on the Screen – New Measurements at Studios and Laboratories”, SMPTE Journal Vol 106, pp. 156-158. It would of been a joke to say they were all or even mostly accurate to standards. Likewise other old surveys of screening rooms to commercial theaters showed they were mostly far from to the standards. I think when they were developing the DCI specifications and they reviewed the film standards vs actual practice in reality they reached the same conclusions.

In 2012 are we now in a world where it is actually accurate to say that the mastering and supply chain are up to standard. So calibration enables you to see what the director saw in the screening room or since we have a home video format that is different to the cinema formats, more accurate to say we see the same as the person did monitoring the conversion unless that conversion was automated.
That is if consumer displays and viewing rooms are up to the task, I mean if you had a calibrated display monitor used by the studio as a reference source and a consumer display calibrated as close to the standards as it could manage would their picutres look the same be indistinguishable from one another.[?]

I have not seen any surveys like the one you referenced since becoming a member of SMPTE over five years ago. It should be mentioned that SMPTE has endeavored to promote, disseminate, refine, and update their standards, engineering guidelines, and recommended practice documents on an ongoing basis. It was not very many years prior to the article you referenced when Joe Kane chaired the SMPTE working group tasked to revise professional monitor best practices. Communicating and implementing these revisions throughout the industry took a good deal of time and effort. I know from corresponding with video content creators and post production technicians that some studios cut corners in a variety of ways. We all would like to believe that motion imaging industry professionals all agree, have a uniform passion for excellence, and a disciplined adherence to best practices every day. However, that would be naive. After all, we're talking about humans who have to work within the constraints of varying budgets, project deadline pressures, and corporate agendas.

Is there perfect compliance to standards in any industry? Probably not. Is there majority compliance and consistent discipline in the program production community? I don't know who could say definitively. Does this uncertainty mean that we should cease pursuing a consistent adherence to best practices in program production? Do we stop "bothering" at all on the consumer side of imaging? How could organizations like THX, ISF, and similar consulting services, be commercially viable, if there was not a desire to implement best practices, both in the professional and market segments they serve? Is it worthwhile to consistently advocate for more comprehensive compliance to best practices, or join those who don't care about going beyond what is "acceptable" for most consumers?

In the AV Science forum community, do we have a mission to find excuses for compromises, or rather advocate for emulating best practices? There are both approaches evident.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 176
2/6/12 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack54 View Post

That was well said... understand fully, been there and done that too.
I've been a photographer since the 70's, so it's in my blood.
Been doing computers since it ties into digital photography since 84.

Yet you still manage not to understand of what he said, or what calibration is.
Go back to twitter jackanape.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 176
2/7/12 at 5:58am
As they say "Ignorance is bliss"
If someone is perfectly happy with their tv and think it's perfect then it is(to them).
Don't show them a calibrated tv however, you wouldn't want to educate them and break their bubble .
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 176
2/7/12 at 10:44am
Any professional calibrators in las Vegas? Please pm me!
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 176
2/7/12 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by diablozoe View Post

Any professional calibrators in las Vegas? Please pm me!

Have you tried searching the sticky thread at the top of the page titled "ISF Calibrators where are you located?" You may find someone faster that way.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Display Calibration

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Professional Calibrations = Overrated!!!