AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Question about color temps and "correct" looking whites
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question about color temps and "correct" looking whites

post #1 of 63
2/4/13 at 10:53pm
Thread Starter 
I have to say I'm pretty confused about what color temperature you should use to get the most accurate results. I understand about 6500k, so I'm assuming you would want to use whatever setting is closest to that, and it usually happens to be one of the warmer settings? Also, I'm curious what whites should actually look like if the temp is set properly. On my current LCD that I'm replacing, a pure white background on the warm setting looks yellowish, normal looks slightly off-white, and cool looks like 255 white. I'm assuming warm can't be right, but I don't really know which white is correct out of the normal and cool setting. I'm also confused about the 16-235 scale of blacks and whites that you would set your display to using a gray-scale from a calibration disk.

Does that mean that the TV doesn't differentiate between blacks below 16 and whites above 235? If white is naturally supposed to look closer 235 and not 255 then that would lead me to believe the blinding bright white I get from the cool setting might not be accurate. I understand the cool setting can look too blue if it's over 9,500K, but I don't see any hint of blue in a full white background nor do I see any hint of bluish grays. I'm guessing the entire set is probably on the warmer side for all settings, (lower temps) but as I said I'm replacing it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this for when I have to set up the new TV. Sorry for all the questions, just trying to understand all this before I get my new TV or it will drive me crazy.

I don't have the exact image for reference, but In the link below my TV definitely looks closer to the middle picture on the Cool setting.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20064010-1/what-is-tv-color-temperature-and-why-does-it-matter/
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 63
2/5/13 at 10:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

I have to say I'm pretty confused about what color temperature you should use to get the most accurate results. I understand about 6500k, so I'm assuming you would want to use whatever setting is closest to that, and it usually happens to be one of the warmer settings? Also, I'm curious what whites should actually look like if the temp is set properly. On my current LCD that I'm replacing, a pure white background on the warm setting looks yellowish, normal looks slightly off-white, and cool looks like 255 white. I'm assuming warm can't be right, but I don't really know which white is correct out of the normal and cool setting. I'm also confused about the 16-235 scale of blacks and whites that you would set your display to using a gray-scale from a calibration disk.

Does that mean that the TV doesn't differentiate between blacks below 16 and whites above 235? If white is naturally supposed to look closer 235 and not 255 then that would lead me to believe the blinding bright white I get from the cool setting might not be accurate. I understand the cool setting can look too blue if it's over 9,500K, but I don't see any hint of blue in a full white background nor do I see any hint of bluish grays. I'm guessing the entire set is probably on the warmer side for all settings, (lower temps) but as I said I'm replacing it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this for when I have to set up the new TV. Sorry for all the questions, just trying to understand all this before I get my new TV or it will drive me crazy.

I don't have the exact image for reference, but In the link below my TV definitely looks closer to the middle picture on the Cool setting.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20064010-1/what-is-tv-color-temperature-and-why-does-it-matter/

Warm 1 or Warm 2 is the closest . But close can still mean quite far from optimal. On my samsung d6500 plasma the white is pinkish . I have a meter to measure and it is in fact way to red through the entire grey scale say 5500 temp. Without a meter I would just stick with warm and get used to it until you get the set calibrated or you calibrate it using a meter your self. Normal and cool will be way too blue, you might not see this "blue" because your eyes will adapt and make it appear white to you, it's a trick of the brain. It's hard to describe what the white will look like once it's set to D65 or 313x 329y, you have to see it for yourself.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 63
2/5/13 at 11:47am
You cannot sit there and switch between the color temperatures and learn anything... your eyes adapt VERY quickly and the brightest screen is going to look white to you no matter what color it is tinted (just the way human vision works). Your only hope for getting the best setting is to either purchase a meter and MEASURE the TV (which requires calibration software running on a PC and a test pattern source which could be a Blu-ray disc player with HDTV patterns on a disc) OR to go to the owner's forum for your brand/model of TV and hope someone there who owns your TV already has a meter and has measured the color temperature options and knows from the measurements which one is closer to d65. Color Temperature is a nearly worthless concept... green has very little effect on color temperature, but human vision sees green much better than any other color. So Color Temperature is almost entirely focused on the balance of Red and Blue while human vision is most sensitive to green light. What you want to focus on is d65 which is a precisely defined point that takes red, green, and blue into account... if d65 is accurate, red, green, and blue will be correctly balanced. So you really don't want to know which color temperature preset is closest to 6500K (actually, something closer to 6503.4K is more accurate if you want to split hairs), you want to know which of the presets has the smallest delta-E (a calculation of Error when working with color) in relationship to the d65 point. So if you have a delta E of 10 for warm2, 5 for warm1, 12 for neutral, and 25 for cool... obviously, Warm1 is going to be closest to d65. (fractions in delta-E calculations can be rounded up or down... human vision isn't sensitive enough to detect the difference between a delta E of 3.1 and 3.3 (for example)... so rounding both down to 3 is appropriate. And delta E of 3.3 and 3.6 are essentially identical from a human vision point of view since they are only .3 apart... so rounding might give a wrong impression... 3.3 would round to 3 and 3.6 would round to 4... but in reality, we couldn't see the difference between an error of 3.3 and 3.6. Though 3.3 is a smaller error, so I'd go with that one just on principle unless there was some other compelling reason not to use it.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 63
2/5/13 at 11:56am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungro View Post

Warm 1 or Warm 2 is the closest . But close can still mean quite far from optimal. On my samsung d6500 plasma the white is pinkish . I have a meter to measure and it is in fact way to red through the entire grey scale say 5500 temp. Without a meter I would just stick with warm and get used to it until you get the set calibrated or you calibrate it using a meter your self. Normal and cool will be way too blue, you might not see this "blue" because your eyes will adapt and make it appear white to you, it's a trick of the brain. It's hard to describe what the white will look like once it's set to D65 or 313x 329y, you have to see it for yourself.

Fair point, but I think that probably best applies to getting a more modern TV. I am pretty confident that on my 6 year old LCD that even the normal setting is probably <6500k, and I know for a fact that warm must be around 4000-5000, it is extremely red/yellow. It's definitely possible the cool setting is even farther away from 6500k than the normal setting and that the blue is just playing tricks on me. I watched the calibration video on the AVS709 disk. When they used color temp as an example they set the TV to cool2, it literally turned bright whites into light blues, and showed very noticeable bluish grays. When they turned it back to warm2 the gray-scale looked normal and it was very bright, with no hint of being red/yellow. I think I got my answer from your post though, so thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 63
2/5/13 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

Fair point, but I think that probably best applies to getting a more modern TV. I am pretty confident that on my 6 year old LCD that even the normal setting is probably <6500k, and I know for a fact that warm must be around 4000-5000, it is extremely red/yellow. It's definitely possible the cool setting is even farther away from 6500k than the normal setting and that the blue is just playing tricks on me. I watched the calibration video on the AVS709 disk. When they used color temp as an example they set the TV to cool2, it literally turned bright whites into light blues, and showed very noticeable bluish grays. When they turned it back to warm2 the gray-scale looked normal and it was very bright, with no hint of being red/yellow. I think I got my answer from your post though, so thanks.

Another thing to note is that 6500K is a line that includes very green colors and very magenta colors.

Even 5000K will look white, if it's actually close to the black body curve (or the daylight curve).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

When talking about a specific shade of white, calibrators use specific names. D65 and D50 are both common white points, they have very specific coordinates as appose to 6500K or 5000K which encompass a range of colors, many of which are obviously tinted.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 63
2/5/13 at 12:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

You cannot sit there and switch between the color temperatures and learn anything... your eyes adapt VERY quickly and the brightest screen is going to look white to you no matter what color it is tinted (just the way human vision works). Your only hope for getting the best setting is to either purchase a meter and MEASURE the TV (which requires calibration software running on a PC and a test pattern source which could be a Blu-ray disc player with HDTV patterns on a disc) OR to go to the owner's forum for your brand/model of TV and hope someone there who owns your TV already has a meter and has measured the color temperature options and knows from the measurements which one is closer to d65. Color Temperature is a nearly worthless concept... green has very little effect on color temperature, but human vision sees green much better than any other color. So Color Temperature is almost entirely focused on the balance of Red and Blue while human vision is most sensitive to green light. What you want to focus on is d65 which is a precisely defined point that takes red, green, and blue into account... if d65 is accurate, red, green, and blue will be correctly balanced. So you really don't want to know which color temperature preset is closest to 6500K (actually, something closer to 6503.4K is more accurate if you want to split hairs), you want to know which of the presets has the smallest delta-E (a calculation of Error when working with color) in relationship to the d65 point. So if you have a delta E of 10 for warm2, 5 for warm1, 12 for neutral, and 25 for cool... obviously, Warm1 is going to be closest to d65. (fractions in delta-E calculations can be rounded up or down... human vision isn't sensitive enough to detect the difference between a delta E of 3.1 and 3.3 (for example)... so rounding both down to 3 is appropriate. And delta E of 3.3 and 3.6 are essentially identical from a human vision point of view since they are only .3 apart... so rounding might give a wrong impression... 3.3 would round to 3 and 3.6 would round to 4... but in reality, we couldn't see the difference between an error of 3.3 and 3.6. Though 3.3 is a smaller error, so I'd go with that one just on principle unless there was some other compelling reason not to use it.

Thanks for taking the time to sort through my rambling, I think I'm starting to get the idea here. It's true, switching between color temps is an exercise in futility. I think I am also understanding something else about whites, according to NTSC standards the pure white backgrounds I'm seeing were probably not intended to scorch my eyes out. Even on the cool setting, after I set my TV to the best of my abilities with AVS709, I can still make whites even brighter by adding 10 more contrast (from 60), after that point it's so bright there is no noticeable change in the background all the way to 100 contrast. It's for that reason that I'm sure my perception about whites is probably inaccurate. Then there's the problem of not knowing what should actually look white, I can only assume those commercials should have pure white backgrounds, but maybe they are in fact supposed to look much softer. I'm curious about the delta-E, is there a differentiate between white and the margin of error? In your example is warm 1 going to have the more accurate white because it has the lowest margin of error, or could one of the other temp settings have the more correct looking white even though the margin of error is higher?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 63
2/5/13 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

Thanks for taking the time to sort through my rambling, I think I'm starting to get the idea here. It's true, switching between color temps is an exercise in futility. I think I am also understanding something else about whites, according to NTSC standards the pure white backgrounds I'm seeing were probably not intended to scorch my eyes out. Even on the cool setting, after I set my TV to the best of my abilities with AVS709, I can still make whites even brighter by adding 10 more contrast (from 60), after that point it's so bright there is no noticeable change in the background all the way to 100 contrast. It's for that reason that I'm sure my perception about whites is probably inaccurate. Then there's the problem of not knowing what should actually look white, I can only assume those commercials should have pure white backgrounds, but maybe they are in fact supposed to look much softer. I'm curious about the delta-E, is there a differentiate between white and the margin of error? In your example is warm 1 going to have the more accurate white because it has the lowest margin of error, or could one of the other temp settings have the more correct looking white even though the margin of error is higher?

DeltaE itself is based on a white point. The colors are converted from x,y to L*a*b*. L*a*b* measures colors as a distanace from white where a* and b* are 0,0 for white.

This goes to what others are saying in that whatever the brightest thing you see, will become white, and your eye will judge everything in relation to that.

If you want to get serious about this, you'll need to go buy a meter and start measuring things. It's impossible to do any kind of fine adjustments with out objective data.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 63
2/5/13 at 12:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

Another thing to note is that 6500K is a line that includes very green colors and very magenta colors.

Even 5000K will look white, if it's actually close to the black body curve (or the daylight curve).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

When talking about a specific shade of white, calibrators use specific names. D65 and D50 are both common white points, they have very specific coordinates as appose to 6500K or 5000K which encompass a range of colors, many of which are obviously tinted.

Thanks, I have read through that page a few times now. I wish that chart was fully functioning though, it's hard to gauge even if you stare at it for a while. From what I can tell at 6500k it's displaying a very bright white, and from probably 5500k-7500k you would look at the image and still see white. I believe at around 8000k you start to see the white shift toward the blue end of the spectrum, it might be even earlier than this temp though. I'm curious why the LCD/CRT source shows what appears to me as light blue from 5500-10500 however.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 63
2/5/13 at 12:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

DeltaE itself is based on a white point. The colors are converted from x,y to L*a*b*. L*a*b* measures colors as a distanace from white where a* and b* are 0,0 for white.

This goes to what others are saying in that whatever the brightest thing you see, will become white, and your eye will judge everything in relation to that.

If you want to get serious about this, you'll need to go buy a meter and start measuring things. It's impossible to do any kind of fine adjustments with out objective data.

I think I can grasp the logic behind that statement, appreciate the help trying to understand this a little better.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 63
2/5/13 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

Thanks, I have read through that page a few times now. I wish that chart was fully functioning though, it's hard to gauge even if you stare at it for a while. From what I can tell at 6500k it's displaying a very bright white, and from probably 5500k-7500k you would look at the image and still see white. I believe at around 8000k you start to see the white shift toward the blue end of the spectrum, it might be even earlier than this temp though. I'm curious why the LCD/CRT source shows what appears to me as light blue from 5500-10500 however.

Looking at a bright white you have no idea what color it is.

Eventually it will get too blue or too yellow, but for the most part anything from 5000K - 10000K will simply look white.

If you see something as looking discolored, there is a good chance it's because it is skewed away from the daylight curve.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 63
2/5/13 at 2:01pm
Thread Starter 
I think I actually get it now, white only needs to be as accurate as the rest of the colors are, regarding the proper temp to use. Of course I can only get close to what it should be, short of a professional calibration, I know that. So I decided to test it out using the warm setting on my TV, since it's largely the most accurate setting? I used AVS709 and noticed immediately the background looked almost yellow, and the white bar looked an off-yellowish white. I took my time setting everything as well as I could, and by the very end of it, I'll be damned if white didn't look bright and normal. I started watching TV to put it to the test, and white looked white to me, it just looked natural. It basically looked as if it couldn't get any whiter, until I turned it back to cool. Only then did I notice the difference and scorched my eyes out in the process, I promptly switched it back. I think I understand just how much of it is psychological now, truly fascinating.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 63
2/6/13 at 5:35am
On plasmas The white/ bright areas are continuously changing there (brightness/ luminance/ I think Possibly color temperature) levels as the picture changes on the screen.Thats different than LCD which maintains consistent looking whites/ brights.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 63
2/15/13 at 5:33pm
Since I don't have access to meters and stuff, I personally just watch something with snow. Fargo, or a documentary, and flick between temp settings. And you only have a few options, unless you go into the more advanced menus (gain and cut) but that is too complex, so using just generic colour temp, when snow looks blue, or has a very slight sepia colour, you know gone too far either way. The best setting might not be perfect either but best you can do at user level.

Or try white screen from windows. BBC News 24 uses a lot of white.

As for that link with the house/caravan, I'd try and make it look between the top and middle pictures. But of course my monitor could be out too. on the PC monitor when it's set to normal I'd want inbetween the top and middle. But if I set it to warm, then the middle is spot on. In normal, the top one, the house looks slightly pink. The green looks quite lush. In the middle pic the grass looks a bit blue. So adjusting colour temp effects more than just it effects other colours. And depending how sorted your colour decode is, one may be correct but in the other setting, another one may not be.

And I believe graduation in greyscale effects it too, so if it's blue at lower brightness level but greener at higher brightness level never get it right.

For the Panasonc I'm using true cinema. It seems to bypass colour temp setting and gives the most colour neautral white. Can't remember what I use for the pioneer. also backlight for lcd own colour temp will effect tv colour temp
Edited by fatbottom - 2/15/13 at 6:00pm
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 63
2/16/13 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbottom View Post

Since I don't have access to meters and stuff, I personally just watch something with snow. Fargo, or a documentary, and flick between temp settings. And you only have a few options, unless you go into the more advanced menus (gain and cut) but that is too complex, so using just generic colour temp, when snow looks blue, or has a very slight sepia colour, you know gone too far either way. The best setting might not be perfect either but best you can do at user level.

Or try white screen from windows. BBC News 24 uses a lot of white.

As for that link with the house/caravan, I'd try and make it look between the top and middle pictures. But of course my monitor could be out too. on the PC monitor when it's set to normal I'd want inbetween the top and middle. But if I set it to warm, then the middle is spot on. In normal, the top one, the house looks slightly pink. The green looks quite lush. In the middle pic the grass looks a bit blue. So adjusting colour temp effects more than just it effects other colours. And depending how sorted your colour decode is, one may be correct but in the other setting, another one may not be.

And I believe graduation in greyscale effects it too, so if it's blue at lower brightness level but greener at higher brightness level never get it right.

For the Panasonc I'm using true cinema. It seems to bypass colour temp setting and gives the most colour neautral white. Can't remember what I use for the pioneer. also backlight for lcd own colour temp will effect tv colour temp

if you're trying to see which color temp preset looks the most neutral for grays and whites, use patterns like the grayscale ramp and steps found on the AVS disc or other similar calibration discs... that way you know the pattern is supposed to be D65... not all 'whites' and 'grays' are supposed to be pure D65 in actual program material

snow might actually be a more bluish white point than D65 with some program material
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 63
2/16/13 at 2:35pm
The best way to judge white is over the long haul... like after 7-14 days. Meaning, if you change from 1 color temp to another, don't make any judgements about how white or blue or yellow the screen looks for 7-14 days to give your brain time to adapt to that particular setting. If after 7-14 days, images still seem to be too yellow, they probably are too yellow. But images that are too blue can be really tough to figure out... your eye tends to accept the brightest and bluest shades of white as being "real whitel" and that makes "correct" whites seem too yellow (which is why you need that 7-14 days to adapt so you can forget the previous images that may have beem much too blue. The problem is that adaptation thing tends to make it very difficult to avoid images that are overall too blue... when you don't have a meter as a guide.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 63
2/17/13 at 5:54am
On my samsung d6500 cool and normal are very blue, with cool being the bluest of them all. Warm 2 is the closest but by close it's more like 5500 for color temp it's very redish pink. My calibrated white has no color to it and if i switch to cool or normal you can see the difference right away specially in skin tones they appear too pinkish.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 63
2/17/13 at 6:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

I have to say I'm pretty confused about what color temperature you should use to get the most accurate results. I understand about 6500k, so I'm assuming you would want to use whatever setting is closest to that, and it usually happens to be one of the warmer settings? Also, I'm curious what whites should actually look like if the temp is set properly. On my current LCD that I'm replacing, a pure white background on the warm setting looks yellowish, normal looks slightly off-white, and cool looks like 255 white. I'm assuming warm can't be right, but I don't really know which white is correct out of the normal and cool setting. I'm also confused about the 16-235 scale of blacks and whites that you would set your display to using a gray-scale from a calibration disk.

Does that mean that the TV doesn't differentiate between blacks below 16 and whites above 235? If white is naturally supposed to look closer 235 and not 255 then that would lead me to believe the blinding bright white I get from the cool setting might not be accurate. I understand the cool setting can look too blue if it's over 9,500K, but I don't see any hint of blue in a full white background nor do I see any hint of bluish grays. I'm guessing the entire set is probably on the warmer side for all settings, (lower temps) but as I said I'm replacing it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this for when I have to set up the new TV. Sorry for all the questions, just trying to understand all this before I get my new TV or it will drive me crazy.

I don't have the exact image for reference, but In the link below my TV definitely looks closer to the middle picture on the Cool setting.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20064010-1/what-is-tv-color-temperature-and-why-does-it-matter/


How old are you. when my displays are calibrated precisely the whites look somewhat yellow because one of my eyes has a cataract that has considerable yellowed. The other eye has a new lens and is essentially clear. Using both eyes the result is a yellow whiute about halfway between what each eye sees. Most older people eyes have yellowed considerably and calibrating to the standards which are based on an assumed normal vision will not yield you the results the artistic chain intended for you.

But you see the purpose of calibration is not to achieve that result for you. It is to make your display consistent with all other calibrated displays so matter where yo go you wull se it consistently wrong. The calibration industry which is dependent on the salke of probes, programs, and cailbration services will try to defend this. Admittantly there is no real scientific way for them to provide otherwise. Expensive eye tests could be conducted on you by certain opthamolgists who soecialize in color blindness etc and a correction factor to offset the yellow coloration could be more or less scientifically derived.

To keep my calibrator friends happy, and most of them are a fundamentally unhappy lot, I would stasrt with a calibrastion and store it away. Then I would say to the calibrator. The whites don't look white to my eyes. They look somewhat yellow. If he starts to say something, tell him he works for you and to shut up. Then have him crank in some blue gain and tell him to stop when the whites look white to you. Or you can do all this yourself if you are the calibrator.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 63
2/17/13 at 8:21am
The counter point to Mark's idea is that his eyes have a defect that make all whites look yellow, so the yellow he sees is the correct color. He'd see the white as that same color yellow if he were in the colorists grading booth.

It's his eyes that need to be fixed, not the calibration.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 63
2/17/13 at 8:44am
Nobody knows how their perception of color is compared to another person. What you do know is that you want your tv to be as much the same as what the director/editer was looking at when they were cutting the movie. It's the only thing you can consistantly apply, all other methods are subjective to perception, and therefore a totall gamble.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 63
2/17/13 at 8:55am
Here we go again. This is innanity on the part of a very bright person. The colors are not seen correctly. The display is corect as to its calibration, it will look the same colorwise as any display capable of being fully calibrated to the applicable standards. But that is wrong for you. You will not see the colors as the colorist etc intended you to see them. His intent is not for you to see them incorrectly because of your eyes.

And correction sometimes can not be done. There are risks of blindness associated with cataract replacement. Not real high but something like 2%. Suppose your vision is sharp but your eyes have severe yellow filtration. If you wear blue filters in your eye wear or addd eyewear with b;lue glasses, you likely will not have enough brightness.

But there is a fix and a relatively good one that keeps even Sotti happy. Crank in some blue gain after caibration. Use a seperate setting to save the metered calibration but the idea and why HT guys pay for calibrations is some often misguided perception that they will see the colors as the Director intended. Are you seriouskly questioning that that is what the majority of HT guys want and think they are getting with a calibratioin?

and with good eyes they will get it. But most have no clue as to how here eyes have yellowed over the years. But when they get an inkling it can be made better for them. It can be made more right.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 63
2/17/13 at 9:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wouter73 View Post

Nobody knows how their perception of color is compared to another person. What you do know is that you want your tv to be as much the same as what the director/editer was looking at when they were cutting the movie. It's the only thing you can consistantly apply, all other methods are subjective to perception, and therefore a totall gamble.

That is not true. My eyes, one being clear and one being heavily yellowed destroiys in one simeple case no one can know. I know.

And if your eyes hasve yellowed as everyone say over 60 has, then cranking in some degree of blue offset is not a gamble.We know the calibrated set does not give you the perception that the colorist intended. Cranking in one click of blue would be better, no question. no doubt. The issue is how much. That's the gamble. But what you have without gambling is wrong. So why not gamble to make it better. What's there to lose. The older you are the more blue gain you should crank in. Ask yourself do you remember when you were young what a brightly lit hockey rink looked like, what a white refridgerator looked like. The colors of such haven't chanmge. Just the way you see them. So go ahead, therte is no harm, crank in some blue and think. Is it better for you. That's all that counts. Not what the caibrator thinks.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 63
2/17/13 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Here we go again. This is innanity on the part of a very bright person.

It's an optometrist's job, not a calibrators job.

You've got a whole thread to talk about it.

D65 has spectral definition. If you see D65 as yellow due to your cataracts, that doesn't change the physical objective properties of D65. When a display is accurately reproducing D65 it is correct. If you can't see D65 correctly (from any light source), that's a separate issue, and something a Doctor should address for you, not your calibrator.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 63
2/17/13 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

That is not true. My eyes, one being clear and one being heavily yellowed destroiys in one simeple case no one can know. I know.

And if your eyes hasve yellowed as everyone say over 60 has, then cranking in some degree of blue offset is not a gamble.We know the calibrated set does not give you the perception that the colorist intended. Cranking in one click of blue would be better, no question. no doubt. The issue is how much. That's the gamble. But what you have without gambling is wrong. So why not gamble to make it better. What's there to lose. The older you are the more blue gain you should crank in. Ask yourself do you remember when you were young what a brightly lit hockey rink looked like, what a white refridgerator looked like. The colors of such haven't chanmge. Just the way you see them. So go ahead, therte is no harm, crank in some blue and think. Is it better for you. That's all that counts. Not what the caibrator thinks.

Actually if the goal is calibration, its very true. The definition of calibration is to adjust something to be identical or as near as possible to a set standard. That standard as far as whitebalance and color is concerned is pretty clear. So that is what you do, calibrate, set the tv to meet that standard. Now if the image of that set standard is not acceptable to you for whatever reason, for example a flawed perception on your part, ofcourse you can alter it to your liking. But it is very definetly no longer a tv calibration. Its making a pretty picture to your liking. Which is perfectly okay. Its just not a calibration.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 63
2/17/13 at 2:00pm
I completely agree as to what the definition of a calibration is. Absolutely, no argument.

But once again, the average HT owner who gets a calibration for one reason. So he can see the colors as the artistic chain intended. He/she doesn't realize that for many, that simply won't be the case. Calibration for the viewer asumes a standard viewer. Its in the definition of the 1931 color chart and it has been amended.

If Calman had some way of offering to make it right for a particular viewer, it would be running that abilioty up the marketing flag pole and Joel knows it. My eyes may be a special case both being quite different now buy I know what the average HT viewer wants. that is uncontestable. Really.And caibration if the ability existed could be two fold. One to standardize a display to a display standard and the other to calibrate so your eyes processed the colors to your brain the way the artistic chain intended for you to see them.

I am not making them wrong. i am approaching the artistic intent for my eyes better than leaving the display at meeting the display standard. Its not catering to a desire to increase say saturation or pop or whatever. Simple goal. Correct for my eyes. Correct for the viewers eyes. That should be the ultimate goal for a single viewer. No ifs, ands, or buts. What is needed is the data abnd the tools. Any idiot can make a display match. any idiot can pass ISF certifications and buy a meter and a calibration program.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 63
2/17/13 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

It's an optometrist's job, not a calibrators job.

You've got a whole thread to talk about it.

D65 has spectral definition. If you see D65 as yellow due to your cataracts, that doesn't change the physical objective properties of D65. When a display is accurately reproducing D65 it is correct. If you can't see D65 correctly (from any light source), that's a separate issue, and something a Doctor should address for you, not your calibrator.

I agree. The calibrator operates some machines.

The calibrator doesn't have the data or the tools. No argument.

as to I have a whole thread, OK I will change the title back to the old one but that won't be so good for your busines.

This thread said its calibrated but it looks yellow to me. Duh. What a suyrprise to me and it is appropriate to discuss it for the person. And there is a which should make you happy. calibrate and then crank in some blue gain to make the whites look white. A likely better if not perferct solution for the viewer than calibrating and then stopping.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 63
2/17/13 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

This thread said its calibrated but it looks yellow to me. Duh. What a suyrprise to me and it is appropriate to discuss it for the person.

The point is that everything looks yellow to you.

On your tweaked display a white iphone, might look white to you, but when you go pick one up, it will then look yellow. So which is correct, the thing you see on your tweaked TV, or the actual object in real life?

D65, is objective, the fact that your perception of D65 differs from your previous perception is a you problem, and not a calibration issue.

Stop bringing a medical discussion to a calibration forum.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 63
2/17/13 at 4:01pm
For me on a dim tv everything comes down to getting it as bright and colorful as possible while keeping the flesh tones so they don't look too inaccurate.As long as the tv is NOT dark and colorless.

For My eyes ,I see more magenta/purple in white parts of screen in the day ,and overall See green in the later evening.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 63
2/17/13 at 5:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

The point is that everything looks yellow to you.

On your tweaked display a white iphone, might look white to you, but when you go pick one up, it will then look yellow. So which is correct, the thing you see on your tweaked TV, or the actual object in real life?

D65, is objective, the fact that your perception of D65 differs from your previous perception is a you problem, and not a calibration issue.

Stop bringing a medical discussion to a calibration forum.

Making it correct is the right. And while it is a medical condition it does not require a medical intervention though that could be one solution.

Measuring the color offset caused by cataracts is not necessarily a medical measurement. It could be measured by anyone such as a technician that knew the right tests. I would not expect a calibrator to be able to do this. But a calibrator could be trained to measure the offset and then crank it in to his work. That is not disputable. Of course the eyes should be checked by am opthamollogis to be sure there are no more serious prblems such as high eye pressure or gloucomia..
. As the population ages due to medicine this problem of both eyes being heavily yellow filtered will become more prevalent and posts like mine willl make it further known and mark my word someday it will be addressed as part of the viewer calibration. Saying go away, you are causing problems is insuklting though knowing of you I doubt you mean to be.

You asked me a question. And I gave you my answer. You don't have the affliction. As one with it I gave you the answer.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 63
2/17/13 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic12345 View Post

For me on a dim tv everything comes down to getting it as bright and colorful as possible while keeping the flesh tones so they don't look too inaccurate.As long as the tv is NOT dark and colorless.

For My eyes ,I see more magenta/purple in white parts of screen in the day ,and overall See green in the later evening.

that's fine, but it's not calibration and discussing this in a calibration forum is off-topic

as far as seeing whites differently during the day vs. the night, it seems to be a function of your viewing environment (daylight coming in through the windows, artificial light from light bulbs, the color of the walls near the display, etc.)... I doubt this has to do with your eyes perceiving color different from the average person/standard observer
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 63
2/17/13 at 6:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Making it correct is the right. And while it is a medical condition it does not require a medical intervention though that could be one solution.

Yellow iphone, like you hold in your hand or white iphone like you adjusted on your TV.

You're avoiding the point.

The point is your TV should not be different than every other viewing experience, including real life.

If you want it to be your bastion of remembered color that's fine. But an accurate TV would reproduce the encoded spectral information.
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 › Question about color temps and "correct" looking whites