CNET and televisioninfo Calibration

Please provide a more specific link to such statements.

It's probably cd/m^2 and not fL

Not really, you can typically lose a bit of luminance calibrating. Typically you turn down contrast to prevent clipping. In doing that you'll give up a bit of luminance. Also moving the white point from 13000K or whatever ships from the factory to D65 may also cause the luminance to be a little lower.

the CalMAN reports are in cd/m^2, that's just the way reporting works in CalMANv4

the (post-cal) target fL CNET uses for all displays' peak white is 40 fL

yes, CNET uses fL in their reviews but the CalMAN reports are limited to cd/m^2 only (by design)

in the report it does (cd/m^2 only for all "Y" values)

but the number in the geek box is in fL

The conversion back and for is 3.43 cd/m^2 to 1 fL.

So 0.0198 in fL is .0679 cd/m^2

A value of 134 cd/m^2 is 39 fL.

Gust to ballpark it I remember it's about 3 1/3 to one.

IMO that site doesn't know the first thing about calibration

they set backlight to 100% and used standard mode instead of the THX or ISF Expert modes

Uh.. I think that charts just to show highest contrast of those TVs, that's why they used "Peak" white ( backlight and contrast set to 100%). It isn't calibration.

Yea? they didn't say it's the ideal condition to watch TV.It's just how they test and to score the white level and contrast.

The post-calibration results is meaningless for most people who don't have calibration tools (or don't want to hire ISF calibrators). That's why pre-calibration result is more important in a review.

Well, here is the ideal ... You can do peak white reading without calibration but the white may have some color tint and balance white level also change peak luminance thus result will be differents from these test methods. You can't say a blue tint white TV which has higher peak white is better than a zero color-tint white TV which has lower luminance.

What they want to achieve is to read "PEAK" white(without any tint - 100% RGB balance). By this way, the results from other TVs can be comparable from those charts.

I'm done here

they don't; show me some proof to back up your claims

don't use that site; they don't know what they're doing

Non of those have dynamic CONTRAST on. Local dimming, and dynamic contrast, are two different things. All those links are backlight controls, at least the ones you're referring to.

Calibrate with it turned off.

When you view content, off or on, your choice.

They clearly state these settings on post calibration... and it's proof in there video review.

They claim the LG7600 has deep black levels... this would have only been the case if local dimming was engaged.

In any case, are you sure you can trust a source (CNet in this case) that uses "IRE" when referring to digital video? There is no such thing as IRE in digital video. IRE is an analog video specification that determines how bright the image is compared to the analog input voltage. Digital video doesn't use analog voltages to determine brightness. In digital video, "% white" is accurate and correct. IRE does not exist for digital video and does not mean the same thing as % white... it CAN mean the same thing as % white when referring to analog video, but it MIGHT NOT be the same thing as % white when referring to analog video... it all depends on how the video display is setup.

I agree, CNET seems to do some odd things when it comes to testing. Also stating that the LG7600 had good black levels while the ES8000 did not, makes zero sense.

What would you recommend as a quality source for reviews?