Who cares about 4K? I want local dimming based projectors! - Page 3

Ron. The brightness disparity between the new lens eye vs the uncorrected eye makes offset filtering iof the yellow eye by adding a blue filter not a viable option. The additional filtering which I tried makes the already dimmer eye way too dim.

HT is a very interesting sport and as I am discovering very very challenging.

No real disagreements, Mark; but to give us something to talk about, I'll rise to your challenge!

 

1.  "Your thesis breaks down. because a calibrated display gives your the colors you would see under d65 lighting conditionsand then they are only the colors you would see within the rec 709 color space."

 

Wouldn't this statement be the same even if our eyesight were perfect?   I miss the point.

 

2.  And again (and for the last time) I'll restate my thesis with other words:   with whatever impaired vision I may have (color distortion, etc.), when I look at the real world what I see is what the real world is TO ME.    If by some magic my display could be calibrated to look to me like what a person with perfect vision would see on a perfectly calibrated display, it would not look 'real' to me.     Whereas if the display were calibrated to look  'real' for a person with perfect vision, it would also look 'real' to me, since I would have the same flaws as when looking at the real world.    

If your eyes were those of the standard designed standard viewer, you would see the correct colors (as put in the rec 709 color space by the colorist) if your display can be calibrated and is calibrated to the rec 709 standard. You would also see the colors within (rather than moved to) the rec 709 space outdoor etc when viewed under d 65 conditions. If your eyes do not conform colorwise, you would never see them accurately under those conditions. You seem to be arguing that you want to see them the same way and are willing to accept them being wrong in both cases when in your HT they could possibly be made right despite your color handicap..

"You seem to be arguing that you want to see them the same way and are willing to accept them being wrong in both cases when in your HT they could possibly be made right despite your color handicap."

 

Yes, that is what I'm saying.   It seems to me that if I have flawed vision, the most 'real' pic I am able to obtain is the way I see the actual 'real' world.     Whether what I see is wrong or not, it's the only perception I have of what is 'real', i.e., the way I perceive the real world.   If my HT is calibrated otherwise it will not strike me as 'real', but rather some artificial perturbation.

In essence you are arguing the truth is how your perceive something, not the actuality of it which you know is something different. If you were color blind outside but somehow when watching a display you would not be color blind, you are saying I'd rather not see colors from my display because my world is black and white. Of course this whole discussion of older guy vision is really Shades of Gray without the sex. But your view points breaks down.

"In essence you are arguing the truth is how your perceive something, not the actuality of it which you know is something different."

 

No, I don't think it is something different.    How I perceive something is how my brain interprets the electrical impulses it receives from the optic nerve; for me, that IS the 'actuality of it'.    I have no objective way to know that you perceive these signals the same way.     What I perceive is what it is (for ME).

You are avoiding the issue. Suppose one is blind. Everything is perceived as a black void,. filled with sound, smells, etc. Now suppose I can take a sounce of light and convert it into electrical impulsesand suppose Ii can implant in that persons brain, not to replace working eyes, but to supply the nerves with the same signal working eyes would deliver. The person would see what source I was delivering. Would the person say, no. Keep it black, that's my world?

I apologize for using extreme cases to test a postulate. You are using as an an attemt to disprove my conclusion ssmall delta changes in color perception saying that wrong is OK as I see it the same wrong wherever I go. I say let's test my postulate at the extremes. As you know a postulate could be valid at points and invalid in other areas such as the extremes. But I thing the color blind argument is a good test. Suppose one can't see blue. everything else is OK. In that case you couldn't just add blue. If one has lower sensitivity to blue it could be added by filters etc. But in the theater suppose I could do something to make you see blue. would you say no? Don't do it. Come on. I know you would have me me the colors for you correct rather than incorrect because your eyes have aged.i

Let's go more mudane. Your argument that for your reality, you would like the colors you see on the screen inside your HT to look the same as the colors you see elsewhere.

Your HT is designed for the reception and perception of colors when viewed in a dark environs. If you turn the lights on, the colors will be different and I am not talking contrast differences here. One sees the same lit colors, to remove that variable, differently depending on the light you are. Put an object on a dark stage and light it. You see the object with certain colors.

Change the lighting you are watching from keeping the stage dark with the same lighting on the object as before. The colors will look different because of the effects the room lighting has on your eyes.

The same thing happens out doors. The lighting on the object most often is not d65 and the light you are viewing from varies. Under a tree, in your car, out a window. The colors are different depending on how the onject is lit and the lighting of your viewing environment.

The essentially one time in life that colors can be accurately transmitted to you is when your set is calibrated and you are viewing in the dark. Now to see them as the artistic chain intended you must have the eyes of the standard viewer. Knowing that you don't, one could correct if they could to compensate rather than not being able to experience the artistic intent. Anything else is to argue for some other purpose. There can be no other honest answer.

I cam see you standing there shaking you head.

OK Let's see if I got ths right from your viewpoint.

You don't say Let me see it right.You say let me see it wrong because I normally see it wrong elsewhere.
Edited by mark haflich - 2/15/13 at 4:53am

Mark -

Your situation, while not unique, is surely more extreme that what most of us baby boomers have to contend with (i.e., big difference between colors and brightness between your two eyes). Ideally you should have your eyes calibrated, but the only person that had the right equipment and technical skills to do that was Walter (Fringe) and he's now lost somewhere in time (or reruns). For 3D, you could use dual projectors plus 3D demultiplexer, filters, etc, as in the "ultimate 3D" thread, and put a lumagen on each of the projectors. Then you would be able to correct for the right eye view independently from the left eye view. As a big thank you for all of this great advice you could then loan me your VW1000 for a couple of years, until you have your new HT completed here in FL.
Edited by Ron Jones - 2/15/13 at 12:13pm

I called dibs first.

Tom wants to borrow it too for some things he is working on.

Interesting......it's like being used to a particular dialect all ones life, then some one comes along with a different dialect and insists that his way of speaking is the proper way, but in reality both ways are fine........as long as the meaning of what is communicated s understood.

If one person sees red as RR and another sees the same red as RRR.....and the meter says its RRRR.......if we calibrate two devices to show RRRR is RRRR to both persons......the colour will seem wrong to both...as they have interprited RRRR as RR and RRR all their life.

It boils down to why calibrate at all as long as the colors are not objectionably wrong? A calibrator would say the purpose is to make the display the same as other calibrated displays color wise.

My thesis is the home theater owner wants to see the colors the way the artistic chain wanted them to look ans somehow despite any eye variance that will be the case. If you are a senior, that will not be the case unless you have your cataracts replaced with new lenses or somehow can use offsets in the calibration or wear blue filters to negate the yellowing of your eyes. Unlike accents, colorwise there is only one correct and that is to see the colorspace calibrated for without have abnormal eyes change it.

i can't describe how huge a difference there now is in color viewed one eye at a time. Using both eyes it becomes about halfway between.
Edited by mark haflich - 2/15/13 at 3:41pm

 "colrwise there is only one correct and that is to see the colorspace calibrated for without have abnormal eyes change it."

 

And again, this is where we take a different point of view:   'color' is not absolute; it has no meaning without the eye of the beholder*.    If everyone had the same 'abnormal' vision by which they perceived the real world, and you calibrated their display to 'correct' it, they would not perceive it to be real; it would look artificial.   I.e., one should calibrate his/her display so that it looks TO HIM/HER like the real world as closely as possible (face color, trees, etc.).    If done this way, I think the person with perfect vision, and the one with impaired vision, would come out with the same calibration; and they will both think the display looks like the real world (which to me is more important than 'directors intent').

 

*If a tree falls in the forest but there's no ear to hear it, does it make a 'sound'?   No, only pressure waves.

I am glad I am not prosecuting a thesis before you.

The point of a calibration is to correct display errors from the standard. However, that is not what people HT wise seek calibrations. They want to see the colors the way the artistic chain ontended them. It is not to make them the same as you see them in real life.

First the only colors the display shows are those within the colorspace and the colorist moved colors in real life to colors within the color space. So even with standard definition eyes you will not see those colors as you would see them in real life. Second, the lighting of an object in real life and the environment you make such views from most often are not d65 conditions and a blak pit. There is no getting around this.

I have discovered that due to catarac yellowing I have been seing colors incorrectly under all conditions. This makes me unhappy. I do not want my display to do this when it can be adjusted from the standard to make them more correct.

Your thesis is wrong. Your position is not arguable. You of course can chose to do that if you wish. But your choice of making them real to you would justify anyone say increasing saturation for more pop. They like it wrong. And they can have it that way. joerod likes it wrong. Its more or less a semi free country. But you have not successfully shot down my thesis. it is valid until proven otherwise. I have sustained my burden (unfortunately in more than just a proof sense.

I ask you to respomd to m arguments other thanto make it wrong in all environments.
Edited by mark haflich - 2/15/13 at 4:55pm

Well, this discussion is fun, my friend, while we await some interesting new info about 4K projectors, etc.    So, to keep it going:

 

"Your thesis is wrong. Your position is not arguable. You of course can chose to do that if you wish. But your chice of making them real to you would justify anyone say increasing saturation for more pop."

 

You certainly don't have to agree with me, but my thesis is certainly 'arguable'--I'm arguing it!     And my argument doesn't justify using over saturated colors to achieve more pop; that is 'preference', which is certainly OK if that's what one wants to do.    No, what I would like--and others may like other things--is for the projector + screen combo to produce a picture that is as life-like as possible within the technology, Rec 709, etc.     And if my eyesight is flawed, that's the way I see the world and thus what I would like to see from my display.

 

Ideally, of course, when I get to the point of needing lens replacement, my eyesight will revert to be like when I was 40--and I won't have to re-calibrate my display to deal with this.

Yea. At that age, pushing a button to start auto cal on your chromapure/lumagen combination might be too hard.
Edited by mark haflich - 2/15/13 at 7:32pm

Ouch!    The point, of course, is that it would be unnecessary.    (I actually re-calibrate about once a month just for the fun of it, letting CP and the Lumagen get it to standard, irrelevant to my eyesight.)

Can you post a pic of the little box at the entrance to your home theater where people must leave their hearing aids?

What did he say?

Defense by deflection.

It's a slow day here in the "rest" home so I thought I would interject some of the thoughts that this discussion stirred up in me. . On another topic, as a graduate student in Psychology, a course in perception once almost sent me over the edge.

If there was a movie house nearby that was calibrated reasonably close to standard, and I saw "The Matrix", I would, if my cognitive capability hadn't eroded too much, realize that the green tint indicated being located in the Matrix. If I went home and watched the same movie on our recently recalibrated Kuro plasma, I would see the same thing -- green tint for the Matrix, and "natural" color for what stands for reality in "The Matrix". I would probably not be irritated by any gross differences.

Let's say there are two standards in my world. The experienced and skilled standard reached by "good" calibrators using accurate tools, and the PoP standard set by Best Buy show rooms. I almost always pick the underdog, so I go with the calibrators. What ever my 79 year old eyes with mild and stable cataracts bring to my reality, that's my reality. I like what I see at the movies, at home, and out in the world. If I'm seeing too much yellow, I see it everywhere, even in the green tint.

Like government work, if processed images are calibrated to standard,and look close enough to reality that I'm not irritated by any differences then I'm happy.

The calibrators that I've seen work, calibrate with the best equipment that they can afford. Then they preview source material that they are familiar with to be sure that the equipment didn't fail in some way. That last step is subjective.

If one is doing calibration with subjective perception of the world as the main tool, things might look a little different at that theoretical local movie house. It also seems to me that the mostly subjective calibrator would need some special skill to achieve the goal of making a given display look like his reality.

My movie date is waiting for me in the living room. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Edited by htwaits - 2/16/13 at 11:39am

Millerwill

Yuo have another point in your favor ( wich I agree with ) - that is, if you calibrate the system "correct" , then if some one els is going to see it ( who have better / more "correct" vision ) , the will see the more "correct" picture.
If someone, say like Mark, calibrete it with more blue in ( to compensate for the yellow tint in the one eye ), then everbody els, who are going to see it at Mark´s , will see a picture with to much blue in it ( but ofcause its Mark´s privilegium to choose that, after all, he has paid for it ............hmmm, what about your wife Mark, has she the same yellow tint, like you ? and if not what to do then

dj

yes, sorry I am taking in your pastime caller

I just made another post that covers this post of yours though I didn't see it first. My wonderful machine has three custom color presets. I made one for me and one for the or a viewer with normal vision.

When more than me is watching, I switch to the meter set calibration.

My guests and might wife come first, but most of the tme I watch alone.

And bill does two further deflating his feeble but arguable argument which is refuses to address on its merits.

He says he wants his colors in the HT to look the same as he would see them elsewhere. The fact that they would vary all over the place relsewhere is ignored. What not have them correct in your HT if you could? Its better to get it right one than to have it wrong even if it could be consiustently wrong which it can't be in your scenario. You argument fails..

" He says he wants his colors in the HT to look the same as he would see them elsewhere. The fact that they would vary all over the place relsewhere is ignored. What not have them correct in your HT if you could? Its better to get it right one than to have it wrong even if it could be consiustently wrong which it can't be in your scenario. You argument fails.."

 

I know you're not going to let this go, Mark ('dog with a bone'), but to keep you amused ...  :   I would like my display to look to me like I was looking at real life; this doesn't 'vary all over the place'.     Otherwise it will look artificial to me, for 'the real world' is the only reference I have.

Of course it varies. You can experiment. look at colors outside your HT under various lighting conditions and viewing conditions. Shaded looking at something in the sunlight. The same objects have quite different colors. In your HT, in the dark, calibrated, a source will always have the same color. It won't very. A stop sign in a movuie will not look the same as a stop sign outside even under the same lighting coinditions which for the most part would not be same. You do not acknowledge this. even with our yellow filtered eyes, the colors would not be so bad as to be unreal. Either in or outside our HT, just wrong and varying wrong. Why not make them right thew one can you can . Not that you could make them exactly right but you could make them less wrong.