Professional Calibrations = Overrated!!! - Page 4

Irrelevant. What, then, should be done about commercial cinema, art museum exhibits, fashion shows, makeup counters, paint chip charts, the real natural world, etc., etc. If individual viewer color vision variations render reference standards ineffective, why has this not occurred to a century of color science, the world wide photography/cinema/graphics/video industries?

One primary application of video is to replicate reality as closely as the technology allows. Documentaries, nature programs, news, sports, travelogs, etc., benefit from approaching the look of natural color. As long as the natural colors fall within the color gamut of video, convincing success can be attained. If your favorite football team's jersey color is depicted naturally on a calibrated display, it would look familiar to your color deficient vision. If the image was altered, you would notice. You are used to perceiving that color a certain way in real life. If the display presents it accurately, it would look the same to you, wouldn't it?

If the mastering technician is color blind, how long will his job be secure? When do you as a viewer start deciding which program was mastered wrong and which was not? How do you know? The only practical means we have of preserving approved video content is via displays calibrated to the same standards as the approval monitors. If you cannot accept this premise, any objective definition of image quality or fidelity is impossible. Massive confusion would ensue. How do you tell someone how tall you are without commonly understood, objective standards of measure? Communication becomes ineffective.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

I think in part it comes down to whether you view cinema as high art. If you think there is artistic integrity and artistic value to it.

I watch films at the cinema or at home for escapist entertainment, something to gawk at while I eat popcorn. Films usually just seeks to be entertaining deversions from real life. Film is entertainment sometimes good, sometimes bad, occassionally worth more than one viewing. To me cinema is just popular entertainment not some high art form with visionary artists to be revered.

I want to go look at art work I go to a art gallery or museum which I often do, I want to read books about artists and art apperciation, likewise I look to works of art. If I wanted to see a film with artistic merit I would not look immediately to Hollywood or think I must calibrate my display to be able to appreciate the film.

Somehow, we could tell.

While not wanting to fan the flames here, but to counter argue with you, you are aware that display manufacturers have intentionally ruined image fidelity in order to get you to buy THEIR product? So, given that, are you satisfied that a manufacturer has decided how you are going to watch something? If you are going to correct the display, might as well do it to the reference standards. Seems as though this is an argument that goes in circles. My suggestion, chalk it up as those who see the benefits of calibration and those who don't. Just like there are Democrats and Republicans, Aethiests and those that believe in God, etc. Just differences in philosophies and beliefs, and those are extremely difficult to change no matter what is said. Just my two cents.

A common sense approach to a nagging problem that continually plagues this forum.

The caveat would be that calibration of video is an important field for people who do color critical work.

Printing pictures, producing textiles, making movies, looking at x-rays, creating digital art, monitoring satellite feeds (commercial or military), producing marketing materials.

Being able to accurately reproduce color is essential and the home theater side of the calibration industry is just one part.

You mean Xrite sells their products to people other than HT enthusiasts. Next thing you will tell me is that they make more money with less hassle from these other markets.

Nevermind whether I view films as high art. For the record, I think some are and some aren't, in much the same way that in the world of painting, a picture of Dogs Playing Poker isn't high art and The Mona Lisa is (in short, the MEDIUM does not determine whether something is or isn't high art).. but like I said, nevermind because it's not a driving motivator behind why I calibrate.

I calibrate because I'm somewhat OCD (perhaps not clinically, but you get my point) and I don't like looking at a whacked-out television picture with gross gray-scale/color errors, whether I'm watching a piece of fluff or a sporting event or even if my wife is forcing me to watch crap like Jerseylicious.....

Exactly, color calibration and matching is used across all industries. We'd like to think we're a big user of calibration tools but in the scheme of things, we're a minority.

To benefit from calibration, material doesn't have to go through post-production or color grading. Just think of a good quality video camera, recording some event, and playing that recording back on your display.

Ouch, what an Evil Wife!! If the above is true and you are not just telling tall tails of living through excessive inhumane torture, I think you should counter and make her watch 1 hour of gray scale test patterns in a loop!!

You too huh?

Usually image fidelity (looks identical to the original) is being sacrificed for more image quality (looks better than the competing displays). Image quality is determined by things like naturalness and colorfulness and visual information, contrast and sharpness. Image fidelity is determined by the inability to tell the difference between the original and the reproduction.

As I say I view consumer calibration as setting up a display correctly to the format. That is not overrating it.

Claiming it is highly desirable for the image reproduction be as accurate as possible. The idea being that otherwise they are loosing out due to lack of faithfulness to artistic intent. Strikes me as less true.

Take a DCI Theatrical presentation that is within spec if it has a contrast as low as 1,200:1 sequential, 100:1 intra-frame, luminance uniformity as low as 70%, a center white level of anywhere between 11 and 17ftL, gamma +/-5%, color accuracy +/-4 delta E.
Take a grade two monitor using EBU standards. It is within spec if it has a contrast ration above 500:1 full frame 1% patch, 100:1 intra-frame, gamma within +/-0.10 for 10-90% of input signal, white level of 58ftL, grey scale accuracy +/-4 Δu*v* , color accuracy 7 ΔE*
The standards are not very high or very tight, the reproductions would not be indistinguishable from the original or displays from each other, including color reproduction.

Consumer displays ideally want to have very high contrast, etc... and consumer displays are not going to look like DCI cinema presentations or video monitors anyway. They are after all consumer products playing consumer sources not monitors or reference displays being use during the mastering of content.

I can understand why color accuracy is desirable on a grade one monitor used by the colorist or director or for a cinema preview screening room.
But as a consumer although obviously I do not want a massively inaccurate image, looks odd unnatural, I do not see the requirement for the highest image fidelity accuracy the display can acheive as needed for enjoyment.
As a consumer image quality is the ultimate basis on which I pick a display and set that display up, image fidelity might be the start point but it is not the end.

^ ^ ^ I agree.

And, as I previously stated:

Average consumer opinion is not and of course cannot be the standard for calibration. Anyone who refuses to correct their display to international 709 standards to the best of their ability and budget is doing themselves a disservice. The goal must be to change the preferences of the user or consumer through education. I guess in this field, the customer CAN be wrong.

Another caveat is the lack of common sense among the trolls who insist on coming to the display calibration forum in order to disparage/diminish/belittle/confuse/cloud the practice of instrument alignment and those who offer the service professionally. It is much like a Democrat attending a Republican party strategy meeting to complain about their party platform. Another analogy would be for an atheist to weasel his way into a prayer breakfast only to challenge the value of praying to God. The nagging/redundant/annoying problem persists when they are not forthright with their motivations and biases. It's easier to habitually get away with being a plague/troll/naysayer when using a fake name, isn't it?

Video at its best is not just information in motion, or casual entertainment for the masses. Those levels of value don't require video at its best. EBU grading of monitors has very clear levels of performance for varying types of viewing and analysis. Delivering the best color fidelity is not usually required for editing, as one example. Folks who are aficionados and connoisseurs of cinematic art want their image quality as true to the approved high definition video version as possible. Such viewers are not in the majority of either the consumer market or even the AVS Forum. There are even imaging professionals who aren't passionate about the art available via video.

There can be a vast divide between the performance expectations of a technician versus that of an avid hobbyist or connoisseur. The former can be happy with settling for half vast performance. The latter tends to be ever in pursuit of the best it can be. I'm reminded of the proverbial professional auto mechanic who practices his craft 40 hours a week, but drives an old "beater." There are exceptions, of course. Some of those exceptions contribute to this area of the forum for the purpose of elevating a craft and medium they love, rather than consistently promoting compromises and excuses.

Though I think that it's better to use the tools/gain the education/spend the time to correct displays I don't think it's a worthwhile goal to change the preferences of the user/consumer.

If someone thinks their display looks good, I don't burst their bubble. I may mention that they can get a better picture with calibration but at the end of the day...if they cared that much, they'd be here with the rest of us.

I'm looking to buy a car soon. My friend is big into cars and modding them to get better performance. I just need to go to work and get home and not spend too much. When he gets all excited telling me the things he wants to do....yeah I listen to him and get a bit excited...mostly cause he's happy about it and I'm happy for him...do I care? Not really. But to him, it'd be inconceivable that someone doesn't want a car that's "fun" to drive.

I don't think it's a particularly useful expenditure of energy to try to get uninterested people...interested in what I'm interested in.

To use comments like "the consumer is wrong" seems a bit elitist. Some just don't care. And those people probably care about other things that we don't. Some people who are into interior design would say my apartment looks like crap, am I wrong in mixing modern pieces of furniture with contemporary pieces? I don't think so...I just don't care that it all matches. I'd rather save that money to spend on my other hobbies.

I can come up with a ton of examples to cover any hobby. I just think it's okay for different people to like different things, have a passion for different things, spend their money and time on different pursuits.

How many of us "cook properly" by that I mean use proper technique? Well to a pro-chef we'd probably be heretics. Do you want them looking down on you, and spending their time trying to educate you on how to do it their way when you don't particularly care?

I wonder how many people who think pro calibration is overrated and think eyeballing it is good enough also stretch 1.33:1 broadcast television to fit their 16:9 screens, hate subtitles because they want to watch a movie not read a book (not that they would ever read a book), and hate B&W because the real world is in color.

Would you then say pro-cooking is overrated?

No. I would say it isn't for me. I love going to a good restaurant and eating good food...who doesn't? But I'm not interested in learning all the techniques in detail. I have spent some time trying to get better at knife skills so I can prep faster and cook faster though.

People who aren't into this stuff, don't calibrate their displays or audio systems....I don't think they're wrong. I don't belittle them or think of myself as superior to them or treat them with some kind of smug attitude which is all too prevalent on online discourses. They are just different people with different interests. If a friend wants to buy a bose system, I tell them they should listen to other stuff, they can probably find a better speaker at a lower cost...I'm just trying to save them a bit of money. If they are really set on the Bose...well, that's what they want and I'm not going to show them a bunch of graphs trying to prove my point. I'm not going to knock their system.

^^^

i don't disagree with any of that...

but that's not the case with this thread...

I agree with all your comments. Your post and many others convey a message we all know to be true. However, threads like this one come up often in the Calibration sub forum and when I see a title that says display calibration is overrated the first thoughts that cross my mind are that the OP has never seen a calibrated display, has botched a basic calibration with a disc, or has forked over a couple hundred to have BB mangle his grayscale.

I have a twenty year fishing buddy/friend Bob who told me a couple weeks ago that he was getting a new TV. I informed him that I'd be happy to set it up and calibrate it for him, but when I didn't hear from him for a week I gave him a call to see how he liked his new Samsung plasma. Bob's answer was that something was wrong with the TV and no matter what he did the picture looked terrible so he took it back and exchanged it for a Samsung LED. It is a very nice display indeed, a UN46D8000 LCD. Then he told me that the picture was perfect, the best he'd ever seen, and his wife and he doubted anything could be accomplished to make them enjoy the picture more. I love a challenge so I convinced him that perhaps the picture could be improved and I grabbed my gear and headed for his condo.

The D8000 sits in a westerly facing room with thirty feet of sliding glass doors doing little to stop the afternoon Florida sunshine. Bob had the TV set up bright so that his wife could see it adequately from the kitchen, to the tune of 112.648 foot Lamberts to be exact, and the whites were as blue as the noonday sun. I pointed out the blue and as expected he said he didn't see it at all. Three hours later he was set up with a day and night mode.

Attachment 236745

Bob is now a believer.

No, calibration is not for everyone and nobody knows that more than those who calibrate for a living. In this forum calibration information is freely shared with those who truly do want Rec.709. Any time, and it's way too frequently, someone denigrates the heart and soul of this sub forum they are going to attract attention, but then again, it appears that is exactly what was intended.

 

Britto UN46D8000Reduced.pdf 455.146484375k . file

Is it heresy to believe that the absolute best picture quality bar none is achieved through a properly calibrated display?

I mean, it is like it's incredibly taboo to say that you're picture quality will drastically improve with calibration. From comments like the one above, it seems that many professional calibrators believe they are able to impress a user with their services, but they can't say it, in case some guy really really likes torch mode then they'd be accused of false advertising...?

I think it's OK to claim the picture quality will improve, as long as that claim is qualified. But I'm new so I may be wrong, I'm just trying to get a feel for what pro calibrators tell their prospective customers.

I have no problem with what you're saying at all. However, if that same Bose buyer goes into an Audiophile forum and says all these highend audio systems are overrated, and that his Bose system sounds just as good as his neighbor's (fill-in-the-blank-high-end) system, he is wrong, and needs to be told so.

It all depends on the customer's equipment. For the most part, you'd be hard pressed to find any system that won't benefit from proper calibration.

The problem is that if a person is eating a bowl of cow turds and thinks it tastes like Corn Flakes, he can be perfectly happy living on thinking that. If someone gives him an actual bowl of Corn Flakes and that guy says it tastes like cow turds, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about if he says actual Corn Flakes are overrated.

If a guy wants to eat cow turds, let him eat cow turds, if it makes him happy. If he tries to tell you what's what when it comes to fine cuisine, don't listen to him.

I think this is where educating the client about calibration pro-actively makes sense. Just saying the picture will improve isn't enough; you have to be specific and explain how and in what ways the post-cal image will be superior to the pre-cal image.

This article is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to make.

+1, I agree completely with this.

They are told that their display will be brought as close to standards as possible. That is the purpose and they need to know that ahead of time. It is imperative that the customer be there and be part of the process so they can see what is being done and why lest they think the resulting picture isn't bright enough, or dull, whatever. They are shown the numbers and the graphics that relate to the calibration and then are shown real content in and out of the calibrated modes.

In my case, as a retired professional, I calibrate not to put food on the table but because I love calibration as a hobby gone wild. If the customer doesn't like what he sees, the calibration is free and I'm outta there - right after the reset.

I'll be buying a new TV within the next 2 months or so. So I've been reading many of the threads here on AVS. Most of it has been helpful. After reading through this I see a few things that would cause me to think twice about getting my TV calibrated. First, why would anyone want to pay for it unless they could see the results on the exact model being bought? My bro-in-law got his TV calibrated. He buys his stuff at one of those specialty shops and they had a list of guys who do calibration installation and audio work.

Well he paid a few hundred for getting it done and he also has one of those Spears discs he used before. Neither he his wife or I really thought the picture look all that better compared to his own settings. And later my neighbor had his TV done also. I would say the picture looks different and not bad but a bit dimmer and almost dull at times. After seeing that I would want to see what a calibration looks like on the TV I will be buying which does not seem likely. And after reading this stuff I don't know that I would want it anyway. Some of you guys need to chill and quit name calling and sound so high and mighty. You guys are like some kind of cult. Just tellin' it like I see.

I can't believe you called me a troll because I don't use my real name. I actually thought you had better class than that but you've shown everyone that you don't. All I did was agree with another poster. Of course I complained to the mods but we all know how far that goes. My guess is that this reply will never see the light of day.

I was actually agreeing with your statement and speaking generally about the "nagging problem that continually plagues this forum" reference you made.