Video Bias Lighting (SMPTE Recommended Practice- CIE D65/6500K White Light Only) - Page 60  

Thanks, Alan. Assuming I can win the battle to lose the cabinet doors, I'll follow your advice and install a false backboard for wall-mounting the new 46" TV. Hopefully, I should be able to figure out the best depth/setback, considering that I'll also need to re-do the shelves for the accessories. A new Blu-ray disc player is also on my Menu, so I'm excited about making all the changes.

I remember reading somewhere here about the paint specs, so I'll try to find them and paint the backboard (and maybe the sides) accordingly. I'll also use one of the Idealume fixtures, as folks here have recommended, and try to follow your excellent instructions for adjusting the light output.

Next I have to decide on the TV itself. I haven't visited those forums for awhile, so I'll go see if the Samsung is still the top recommendation for my size. Finally comes the fun of shopping for the TV, including installation, warranty and calibration, but I suppose the members here still know best about that, too.

In any case, thanks again for your help.

Lynn
PS: I couldn't quickly see how to imbed a photo with this posting, so my cabinet photos are within the attached Word doc. Later on, I'll show you the end results.

 

Cabinet Photos for New LCD TV.doc 81k . file

The new Panasonic G10 series plasmas look very promising. They have a 46" model. I prefer plasma over LCD for overall image fidelity. Match a photo gray card or maybe a little darker in your case. Flat latex should suffice, or fabric perhaps.

If you have not purchased a TV as yet, have to agree with Alan's advice on selecting a plasma over an LCD. While the soon-to-be-extinct Pioneer Kuro is the best out there, they do not make anything smaller than 50". The 46" Panasonics are nice alternatives and having installed several of those for friends they are a great value.

Velcro is a trade name. Hook and Loop I believe is generic and describes how it works (sometimes / kind of). There are also different types. Some need 2 different parts (a hook piece and a loop piece). Some types can stick to themselves. Cable organizers have part "A" on one side and "B" on the other so it can wrap around and stick to the backside of itself.

I prefer Samsung LCD's LN 6 series and 8 series over plasma....i went from panny plasma to these ....plasma cant even compare in image quality. the glossy screen makes ALL the difference...not even the same as matte LCD's TOTALLY DIFFERENT tv's. JMO

for anyone wondering i bought these 6500k LED light rope.....from here: http://www.orangetreetrade.com/shop/...roducts_id=417

looks AMAZING and does not even get warm.. my wife said i was crazy for getting this and now she is a believer. I have a 46" and the 10 ft was great, especially for me with a 1.25" wall clearance. i would take a pic but no digi camera except my phone and it wont show up good. I also have a slate/dark blue wall....looks kick arse!!!

See post #1469 in this thread. That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition. At least we're back to the topic of this thread.

Your post in 1469 references "blue" and 13000K. In the information from the link provided, they reference "white", and 6500K. How do you get to your conclusion?

Here is the info from the link;

"Pure white LED, with color temperature 6500K, is similar to cool fluorescent white but shaper. It is manufactured by InGaN technology which is trustable and sophisticated, producing the exact white color we expect."

By studying human perceptual factors as they relate to video imaging, researching consumer lighting solutions for over a decade, understanding that inaccurate claims of color temperature are rampant across that industry (especially among Chinese LED suppliers), ordering a sample of the product from the company for testing, then measuring the illumination with a spectroradiometer in lab conditions.

I wasn't questioning your credentials, simply asking how you reached the conclusion that the referenced rope lighting was 13000k or twice the 6500k advertised by this vendor. Looks like their claim is inaccurate at best.

In your post 1469 you did not state that you had "purchased and tested" their product. What you said was, "Even the "white" LED option from orangetreetrade has been measured to be about 13000K."

You asked me how I "got to" such a conclusion. I gave you a comprehensive yet concise answer. Those points are not my credentials. They are all the basic steps that brought me to my conclusions and stated analysis.

Your conclusion was, "That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition."

The last statement you made in your reply to my post, was how you reached your conclusion; "ordering a sample of the product from the company for testing, then measuring the illumination with a spectroradiometer in lab conditions."

The rest of your statement; "By studying human perceptual factors as they relate to video imaging, researching consumer lighting solutions for over a decade, understanding that inaccurate claims of color temperature are rampant across that industry (especially among Chinese LED suppliers)," is more about you, not any testing that led to your conclusion.

I have read through this thread and you have provided valuable information the subject of bias lighting. You have a vested interest in this discussion, so I hope any conclusions you reach are not self serving.......... Nuff Said.

I read the #1469 post , which may or may not be accurate ..personally i think it looks awesome and i have a very dark wall behind it. As far as the 6500K being accurate to cinemaquest specs is fine and dandy , but for me i needed it for reduced eye strain. I think it looks amazing and i have found from years in these types of audio and visual forums is this..its up to the individual. i for instance HATE most of the preferred HDTV calibration settings on my model of TV and have found i like it the way i like it with the colors to POP. where most like a more drab picture..no thanks. I also believe that my LCD looks better than many plasmas out there as i had a panasonic and most of my friends have plasmas and they seem to prefer my GLossy screen Samsung LCD makes theirs look bad. it has same vibrant glossy plasma like screen but sharper detail..truly must be seen to appreciated especially the Samsung TOC 800's and 46 and 50 650's...AGAIN personal preference which is why buy and use what you think looks good... so if you are looking to reduce eyes strain and get a nice glow, and have a flush wall mount and are not extremely ANAL about specs....lol then this is a good option.

The specs aren't my company's. They are the entire video production world's. I am simply an advocate for reference quality in video. There are consumers (especially in this forum) who appreciate image fidelity, who make the extra effort to align their display system according to industry standards and best practices. Then there are seemingly the majority who prefer their own individual concept of picture quality. This forum was founded with an appreciation for imaging science, hence its name. Along the way it has become populated by plenty of members who find it appealing to diminish such appreciation for technical precision, faithfulness and excellence. You are free to consider such appreciation laughable. Perhaps you would find this other "sticky thread" helpful: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021933 .

Sorry about dashing your hopes, but my conclusions are largely self-serving. Not just because I manufacture technically superior solutions for videophiles, but because I AM a videophile and have an abiding personal interest in imaging excellence. My contributions to this forum go far beyond this bias lighting discussion, because I am an imaging science advocate for the elevation and education of the home theater community at large. I enjoy helping others in response to the help others have given me over the years.

The "rest of my statement" described specifically the process through which anyone may learn to discriminate between poor ambient lighting practices and that which authentically enhances video viewing. Also, how I concluded that what I measured was excessively blue in spectrum, then also why LED claims of 6500K should be suspect and needful of independent verification.

What you consider is 'enough said' about this topic differs from my perspective. Potentially hundreds of forum members are subscribed to this thread, and it has been made a "sticky" because of the ongoing educational value within it. It is read by many thousands of people other than you and I. I endeavor to be clear, informative, and precise when adding to the thread. When I see misleading statements, I submit corrections. Why do you persist in challenging and misrepresenting what I've contributed in this discussion? Am I right in perceiving a bit of defensiveness and cynicism in your attempted intervention?

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Just a reminder that whatever your personal preference and even if you don't find the often accepted assertions about the CinemaQuest products to be as precise or specific as you might like this is the 6500 thread. If you have some facts, tech, science or even informed opinion about standards based bias lighting then please share but if you want to share other things then there are better threads to be found or started.

Why is asking a question about your conclusion defensive and cynical? You are the "expert", on this subject, and I am a novice, trying to learn. My post stated that I have learned a lot from reading your posts. My "nuff said", has nothing to do with this thread. It was regarding the subject of your "conclusion".

I don't know what the hell you mean by. "attempted intervention". Since when is asking a question in a public forum an intervention? Who is being defensive? This forum is for experts, novices and those in between. Because you are the expert, it doesn't mean this thread is your personal sandbox, and questions about your conclusion become "intervention".

Where did you find that I was suggesting such a thing? This appeared to me to be a defensive response.


What's wrong with any conclusion being self serving? This statement of yours was not a question and appeared cynical to me.

Your sudden entrance into the discussion about boyo3221's LED back light recommendation appeared to turn confrontational for no particular reason. I can accept that you weren't intervening on anyone's behalf. It's evident we just don't understand one another very well.

I don't lay any claim to the thread, but the topic is my chosen field of interest and study. Until such a day that I would be blocked from contributing, I'll maintain a subscription to it and comment when I perceive a need. Perhaps we can have a more congenial dialog in the future.

[quote=GeorgeAB;16085725]


Your sudden entrance into the discussion about boyo3221's LED back light recommendation appeared to turn confrontational for no particular reason. I can accept that you weren't intervening on anyone's behalf. It's evident we just don't understand one another very well.



What "sudden entrance" did I make. BOYO posted that he was very happy with his rope lighting solution. You replied to his post, stating; "That product measures about 13000K- WAY too blue for correct video color rendition.

I didn't make a "sudden appearence", by jumping from behind a black curtain, I simply asked how you reached the conclusion that the advertised 6500k product became a 13000k product.

I guess I should ask the question to Orangetree, since it is them who are misrepresenting their product, not you. At least BOYO is happy.

[quote=rstand;16086860]
This thread is not about being "happy"... it is about attaining lighting conditions that match the standard that video content was authored. The subject can be very "dry" and at times difficult to follow.

I keep an eye on this thread and see the regular challenges to Alan's information perceived as "self serving" due to the product his company offers. Even if he does benefit directly or not, the science of what he is attempting to educate us on is not of his making. It is what the industries use to master video; like it or not. If someone elects to ignore the "facts" in favor of personal preference - that is okay. Just don't expect to achieve the optimal results.

(and, yes, I elected to purchase, install, and use the Ideal-lume product behind my 60" Kuro panel after researching in and out of this thread - not just taking Alan's word on it.)

[quote=rstand;16086860]
I'm in favor of moving on from this. We aren't communicating very successfully about this incident and it's long past becoming tedious. At least we have video standards that can be agreed upon. That is their intended purpose and benefit.

[quote=Duck05;16087117]
Jeez Duck, lighten up sorry I used the word HAPPY. You don't know whether BOYO's setup is ideal, nor do I. I am doing the same research as you did, and will very likely end up with the Ideal-Lume behind my panel.

That said, I am not naive enough to believe there are not other lighting alternatives that will also provide "optimal results".

[quote=GeorgeAB;16087399]
We can agree to agree on this.

[quote=Duck05;16087117]
So how do you like having 5800K bias lighting behind your Kuro instead of 6500K bias lighting?

What product are you providing, BeachComber?

I recently purchased a 67" Samsung (hl67a750) and after some tweaking am completely satisfied with my purchase.

I will be adding some bias lighting. It will either be one or two gooseneck lamps or one or two 18" fluorescent bulbs.

My question is, with a TV this size, is two way too much, or reasonable?

Thank you.

The one he stated he was using

I would start with one, Measure against the 10% standard on the DVE disc, (do a search of this thread), and go from there. Make sure the bulbs are 6500K and of sufficient wattage.

Regardless of what anyone else has told you, this product is close to 6500K out of the box. It looks much better than the Chryon LED which is about 1000K over 6500K.

Even though it is close to 6500K, its not perfect by any means as the Spectral Balance is rather uneven and the RGB balance is off.

The other unknown is how long it lasts at 6500K before the doping applied to the LEDs wears off - as does all LEDs to achieve 6500K.

As can be seen by Y, its the most dim in terms of light output of all the options listed thus far (which is good for bias lighting).

Regardless, its certainly is NOT 13000K as some people have claimed in recent posts.

Photoshop is nifty. Provide some verified scientific proof of your claims.