Originally Posted by KenTech
(I deleted the reply to your post, where I wring my hands about term ambiguity, as it no longer applies.)
Note: I deleted my post also, to hopefully cut down on the "clutter" in my posts a bit, as the portion of it you quoted seemed more than suffiencent.
Originally Posted by KenTech
Some very knowledgeabe folks who write good online technical articles on this stuff have opined that the three terms should be these:
Agree 100% with your post, the terms they came up with(well except for their "contrast" term), and your take on them.
A "real" contrast control would be nice for that "pasty stuff" - which was causing me difficulty in some cases when trying to find the best values for SPIC, balancing overall brightness(as defined by the "experts") and user menu Picture slider/etc.
As I think I've mentioned, I also have movie mode set up with lower gamma -- Have GAMM=1 set up for GAMR~GAMB=3 for movie mode. Although It does come in handy at times, I must also admit that I rarely use it, and that I actually like the "dark" look of "Lost"(at least the HD version) ....
Originally Posted by KenTech
Nor mine with my 36XS955. I significantly improved overall focus by drilling an access hole to the physical focus control inside the set and redoing everything according to the service manual's procedure. This is what I wrote up in my previous article #13 starting here
Using your article #13 (precision focusing - I had also checked dynamic focus adjustments in 2170D-4 QPAM~DQP and your article #7 on a previous occasion, but revisted them again when using article #13) made the procedure probably one of the "funnest" things I have done concerning calibration of this set. And although it just turned out to be the case with my set that it wasn't necessary, it's nice now that I don't have to wonder about whether or not it is as good as it can be. It's allways been a question I've had with various sets, and I end up checking the focus on just about all of them, and some of those sets DID need the adjustment.
It just happened to turn out in my case on my XBR that the adjustments pertaining to focus/dynamic focus apparently had already apparently been properly adjusted at the factory.
It is possible however a small improvement may have resulted via my adjustment of the focus pot -- I thought I may have noticed a slight improvement, anyway -- but it's hard to say. Because it was fine as it was, and if it the "knob" did end up being in a little different spot that it was after I adjusted it for best results with the "focus" test patterns/etc, it wasn't much ... say, something along the lines of probably 10:35 o'clock position for one of the "slits" on the knob intead of from the factory 10:45 or 10:30.
What *did* help on my set was adjustment of the D-CONV settings with a cross hatch pattern up, as I had horizontal misconvergence(and it was pretty bad, enough to cause "blurriness" in those areas - which is why It's good I did this before looking at the "focus" adjustments) visable in vertical lines in what would be in the "side bars"(outside of 4x3 "area") on this 16x9 tube - moreso on Left than right, and to a different degree in the corners. The D-CONV settings worked marvousely(spelling, I'm being lazy today sorry) to correct this.
I can detect a slight bit of vertical misconvergence(but only with a cross hatch pattern up) , at extreme top+bottom of screen -- more significant at right top corner perhaps -- but only present on the very "top and bottom" visable cross-hatch pattern lines. It is not effecting the next line "inwards" at all, so can't be effecting much more of the screen than say, 1/2" or less from top or bottom. It's not noticable at all during programming material, and I see no reason whatsoever to "mess with it" so to speak.
Geometry Isn't absolutely perfect, but for the most part I'm very happy with it, as it was from the factory. For the most part, I wasn't able to improve on geometry(straighting out "lines" that are for the most part already straight) with the relevant P2170D-1+D-2 settings.
I did reduce overscan a bit, and "sort of" centered the raster -- There is also a slight bit of a Horizontal Linearity issue - referencing screen center, occuring about in the left and right "middle" of each 1/2 left+right side of screen. It's not noticable -- excepting via "measurements" via comparison of the horizontal width of the "little squares" in a cross hatch pattern. I did notice(and I wasn't expecting this) that adjusting HCNT also improved this H-Linearity issue. HCNT is now at "40" it was "37" from the factory. Actually, I paid more attention to minimizing the H linearity issue than centering the raster when I noticed that HCNT effected H linearity (which is something I didn't quite expect). I didn't check the raster centering precisely by "opening the shutters(HBLK/etc)" yet, but have that on my list. V-linearity seemed to be right on from the factory, if it had been off, or I needed to adjust it because of other changes I make, V linearity of course is quite "adjustable" from within SM.
I haven't messed with any of the MID geometry/overscan related values yet, don't know if I ever will, except if I want to perhaps try to reduce overscan a little more(it's mostly at about 4% currently) -- Mainly, If I ever get around to it, I do want to reduce overscan more for "HD Zoom" mode specifically -- although I adjusted from the set defaults so proper aspect ratio would result for "zoom" or "HD zoom" via setting ASPT=52(the set default of 43 made for example - "squashed" circles), It looks like with "HD Zoom" It's cutting off "more" of the top and bottom(and the sides too for that matter) of the frame(say from a 4x3 upconvert from a station sending 1080i) than it should be, or more than what gets cut off with "zoom" mode from SD sources. This is especially noticable, and mostly an issue for me if letterboxed 16x9 programming is being sent within a 4x3 frame, within the 16x9 1080i or 720p ATSC format actually being sent by the station.
Anyway -- I did have the back off the set at one point just to "peek around", and noticed that it did get the chevron magnet treatment at the factory. There are 6 or 7 I could see placed in spots on the back of the tube.
I don't know how significant(or if they are really significant at all) deflection/geomtery issues concerning the alignment of the set would be if the set were instead, say being used in say, Japan, or if it had been made in asia/etc. In any event, in my case perhaps it is nice to know that my set is facing directly west, and that the PA plant where the set was made is only a bit more than 200 miles away from my location, at probably the same latitiude - such that the Earth's magnetic field probably has about the same effect at the set's manufacturing site as it does at my location.
I think I've covered just about everything somewhere or another that I've encountered or adjusted/etc on my set, I hope some of it is useful to someone in some way.