Bad isf calibration - Page 4  

I agree with all of that, except:

"They are not a professional organization like those for Engineers ... Lawyers ... Doctors ... nor does the ISF pretend to be."

I've never seen a body trying to pass itself off as a professional organisation without good cause without justification as much as ISF.

A quick trawl of the websites of various ISF calibrators, and you'll see the term 'ISF professional' bandied about left, right and centre.

I'm sure many are superb at setting up TVs, but ISF really should offer a better policing role.

As soon as someone's been to one of their seminars and passed their exam, they're not policed at all. ISF, by its own lack of organisation, have created this situation.

I bet every decent calibrator out there would be proud to have their work periodically inspected, and would be glad to see the few chancers kicked out of the organisation, and have their right to use the ISF tag removed.

Steve W

Greetings

Can't really argue with that ... except that there is no money to police anyone here. No one pays dues ... unlike those other organizations.

For the most part ... the ISF tends to be silent ... and permits others to perpetuate a myth ... but you don't see the organization actually doing it. (And what is the ISF really ... a small office with 2 people in it.)

It provides those who take the course with a good foundation on why things should be done a certain way. It is not the ISF way ... it is simply the way it was supposed to be in the first place ... but then the marketing game took over.

The sheet of paper says you successfully attended a class on the science of imaging ... and nothing more. The organization does not teach people how to calibrate the different TVs. How good one becomes depends entirely on the individual ... here's the theory ... now go apply it.

Regards

Cetification is just that... a paper that says you passed a course.
No different than an ASE certified auto mechanic. There are good one's and bad. And I'd be willing to bet that they do not periodically test every tech on every make/model/year car that they may come across for repair.

What a mess.

Some time ago I started collecting reports from owners who have had their sets professionally calibrated. (Note: I didn't, and haven't for some time called it ISF Calibrated. ) The idea was to get information about owner reaction to having their TV sets "standardized".

If you are interested the link is at the bottom of my post.

I've mainly picked up reports from the RPTV threads that I read, and from people who give me a heads up about reports that I've missed.

I agree that the main value of this thread is in the discussion by the folks who are doing this kind of work.

I was amused to read a statistical analyses by one poster that 80% of professional calibrations resulted in a negative or indifferent report from the customer. The reports that I've found have all been positive. Mabe I need to spend some time reading threads that are not in my main interest area.

I will now include a link to this thread, with some caveats, for the hardy who are interested in the dark side of the force. I'm going to have to take some time coming up with just the right caveats.

I hardly think I tried to pass it off as 'statistical analyses'.

The post is here, if anyone's interested:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showp...3&postcount=14

I think the telling comment is the last one:

"No-one offers a money-back guarantee for the subjective results. Money speaks louder than words in my world..."

If an ISF certified technician isn't prepared to give a money back guarentee if you're not happy, why should you trust him? He can show you the picture, and return the display to its default settings if you're not happy when he's finished, without telling you the ISFed settings.

If the technician is confident that he's providing a better picture, which is value for money, he'd be confident enough to offer this service.

If he doesn't, he's obviously not confident that the majority of his clients will think he's provided a big enough improvement in PQ to warrant the outlay.

If the technician isn't that confident in his own abilities, why should his customers be?

That's a simple and fair question to ask anyone in any trade.

But in this instance it would appear that it's not just one calibrator, but that the poster can't find a single ISF certified calibrator prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

That surely speaks volumes.

Steve W

As I have said before, I am not ISF certified, and I have been critical of some of their techs. They are essentially my competition. It is completely unfair and simply incorrect to make the kind of statements that you have. Many ISF techs are very careful to be sure that clients realize what is possible and what their capabilities are. Many have also stated that they will offer refunds if the results are not satisfactory. You have made a great error in characterizing all ISF technicians in this manner. Many are very professional, as any reading of the various forums here will demonstrate.

The vast majority of reports on calibrations are very positive. Reports of unprofessional behavior of ISF certified techs is surprisingly rare in an industry that is notorious for misinformation, unqualified sellers, lousy service people, and pureyors of snake oil. If you have been reading much at all on AVS you cannot miss that point. One can only assume from your remarks that you are arguing from a heavy bias or simply have not been paying attention. You would be much more accurate to berate service technicians (maybe even NESDA techs) than to generalize in the manner you have about ISF.

Starting with Joe Kane, and Joel Silver, and the many that they have trained over the years, ISF certified people have made a greater contribution to the quality of what you see than most will ever appreciate. Yes there are some who use the ISF moniker to grab the money and run, but they appear to be rare. Yes, the organization could do even more to make itself significant and expand its vision and the success of its students, but credit must be given where it is due.

If you have comments about this specific case, they can, perhaps, be useful or interesting. If you just want to unfairly characterize lots of people who DO act professionally, you are a bore and a time waster.

I can't understand where you're coming from. Have you actually read my messages?

I have never criticised ISF calibrators as a whole.

I have not characterised them (ISF calibrators as a whole) in any way shape or form, good or bad.

I have bent over backwards to repeatedly say that I'm sure many are very good, and worth the money for many people.

I have never said that none offer 'money back' guarentees.

I'm sure some do, and I fully support them in this.

I have never said otherwise. If I have, feel free to quote me.

One thing to remember is that I live in the UK, as does the poster I quoted. ISF certified calibrators are thin on the ground over here. We have 15 million people living in a thin strip known as the M62 coridoor, and last time I checked there wasn't one there.

Please do not read a few sentences of my posts and then characterise me as 'anti-ISF', when the reality is quite different.

Steve W

Pecker, you said,

"But in this instance it would appear that it's not just one calibrator, but that the poster can't find a single ISF certified calibrator prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

That surely speaks volumes."

What was the intent of that remark? If I misunderstood your point, or if you were quoting what someone else said, I certainly apologize. It certainly seems to me to be an unfair and incorrect statement.

"But in this instance it would appear that it's not just one calibrator, but that the poster can't find a single ISF certified calibrator prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

That surely speaks volumes."

I don't agree with this statement at all. When I calibrate someone's display, I let them know that I calibrate for accuracy and sometimes it may not be what they want or like as they are not use to the change. The biggest change is when I go to someones house and they have all the user controls at their highest levels and then I have to lower them to match the test patterns, especially the brightness pattern.

I also let them know that if they aren't satisified with the results, I will not charge them. Speaking to a prospect on the phone gives me a good idea as to what it will take to make them happy. I usually spend some time on the phone explaining to them what will happen and what changes to expect. Sometimes I ask them to prepare for the fact that their picture may be darker if they haven't touched the user menu.

Also, keep in mind that no matter how hard you try and no matter how much time you spend, there will always be that client that can't be pleased.

In my opinion, when I speak to someone on the phone and they sound a little too arogant or it looks like they will be a problem, then I just won't have them as a client and they can go anywhere else they want.

I am sure that anyone here that works in Customer Service has met the client that couldn't be pleased.

I think you lads really need to look up the meaning of the phrase "But in this instance..." .

It's a phrase you both quote, and then conveniently ignore; instead choosing to imply that I was referring to all ISF calibrators in all instances.

This is the trouble with the internet. You think you're having an intelligent discussion, then two peple in a row quote a sentence, and both convieniently ignore four important words at the start.

It would be bad enough if you misquoted me, or editted a portion out, but to actually include that phrase, and then ignore the way they change the meaning of what I said, is incredible beyond words.

Specifically, bgarner, I actually said in my last post "I have bent over backwards to repeatedly say that I'm sure many are very good, and worth the money for many people. I have never said that none offer 'money back' guarentees. I'm sure some do, and I fully support them in this.", and you have chosen to say you're upset, because you offer a money back guarentee.

Words fail me.

Steve W

Steve,

You certainly do give the impression that you have a big downer on the ISF as a whole, regardless of some of your phrasing. Is there a reason for it?

Gary

For those who didn't read the link posted by Steve, the sample was five.

I apologize Steve. You are clearly not amusing.

On the other hand your intent is clear.

May one ask how familiar are you with American slang?

Maybe it's the context where you used the phrase "But in this instance..." that confussed us lads.

Hey Pecker,

I don't know what to say, so I will try this.

Maybe we both need to take an English class as it seems when I implied what you said with the "But in this instance....", I obviously misunderstood. But you don't seem to be too bright either as you implied "... and you have chosen to say you're upset".

Maybe if you read it twice you will notice that I didn't say I was upset.

I don't have a downer on 'ISF as a whole', if by that you mean all ISF trained calibrators. As I've saidf in this thread, more times than I care to count, there are lots of very good ISF trained technicians out there doing a good job.

I do have a downer on an organisation that lets people take a seminar/exam and then lets them lose on the world without any further follow up.

I also obviously have a downer on all poor ISF trained technicians, but surely we all do, don't we?

I certainly don't have a downer on good ISF trained technicians who provide a good service.

My reason for these opinions is the grief caused in all too many circumstances.

Look at the problem that started this thread. Look at the problems I quoted in that link.

Ultimately, there appear to be at least some people out there who are dissatisfied with the service offered. It appears that ISF as an organisation offer no comeback for dissatisfied customers, but are happy to take the money from people taking its seminars and exams.

That's simply not a fair or acceptable situation.

ISF are happy to list people with ISF qualifications on its site - this is obviously supposed to infer some sort standard. And yet they are unwilling to guarentee any sort of standard if things do not turn out as well as customers expect.

That's wrong. That's what I have a downer on.

Steve W

You actually said "I don't agree with this statement at all.". To say you were 'upset' with my statement was just paraphrasing - saying the same thing in a slightly different way.

That's totally different to me saying "In this instance..." and you taking that to mean "In every instance...", which is the exact opposite to what I said.

Steve W

Let me be clear on my view, since I did make some criticism of ISF. Unlike Pecker, I do not think that there are a significant number of people complaining about the services of ISF techs. Actually, I believe they are very, very rare. It is exactly that fact that prompted my suggestion that ISF might be smart to have some input or provide some mediation process. It is not unusual, nor unreasonable, nor unethical for an organization to provide educaitonal services with no follow-up. It happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with that. My point was simply that in an environment where a handful of problems can be exagerated into a need for a ful recall, or a single individual's behavior gets generalized to a whle group by many readers, it would be sensible for ISF to be proteting the equity it has in the reputation of its students. This reputation is rather strong for a group that simply teaches seminars, and future success could be enhanced and assured if the concern was addressed. It was simply a suggestion for the organization that was meant to be constructive, not really a criticism.

IMO, Pecker's view is unrealistic. Far more organizations provide the kind of services that ISF does than provide the kind of services that he suggests. There is nothing wrong with that and the market will sort it out. It would be exceptional for a group to operate as he suggests, I just don't see it as a requirement. A good idea and one that requires some additional vision, but just a good idea.

Enough on the matter.

The problem that started this thread was the OP doesn't like a properly calibrated television. From everything I've read and seen, the ISF calibrator did a great job. But if you like your fog looking like a red cloud of smoke, then go ahead and start a thread bashing the ISF guy.

Actually, I think the biggest problem flagged up by the OP's complaint is that you struggle to get a decent picture on many LCD TVs.

I doubt it would be difficult, expensive, or time consuming for ISF to have a complaint e-mail address. If someone starts to receive a number of similar complaints, ISF could investigate and, if necessary, remove their name from their website.

This shouldn't be difficult at all if, as has been argued, most ISFs are succesful.

But I don't think that's the real problem.

Steve W

For some reason I am not receiving e-mails from AVS forum about new posts so I thought that this thread is dead.

After traveling to West Coast for over a week I was very busy next week to catching up, so I didnt have a time to log to AVS forum. I logged today and found that this thread is still active.
Ive read last posts from Tower and

Couple years ago I had lunch with regarded and experienced calibrator. We were talking about software, hardware and techniques used for calibration, variation between TVs even in the same model etc. Also we were talking about differences between calibrated and out of the box TVs, and that some people prefer Vivid or other Enhanced mode to any other mode. What then?

In some point he said: Zygmunt, if ever happen, that your client is not happy with the picture after calibration, call me. I will do calibration for your client. If he is still unhappy, I will set all controls back to initial position and we both will loose our time. Check goes back to client.
This is my policy for years and policy of all ISF calibrators I know.

Tower never let me return with more experienced calibrator, never let me send a check back to him, never talked to me since the calibration, never answered my messages and refused to answer my phone calls.
He wrote above; My intent was not to complain (or to hurt you in any way) .. but (I just find out) he sent complaint to BBB and posted here more accusations; (For example: I never wrote nor said that I will call district attorney).

I consider that report belongs to owner of the TV because he paid for calibration and report, so I dont have a right to publish it. In this case, this report belongs to me so I can do it. Here you go. I removed his name address and tel. # from report for obvious reasons.

Every one who made comments on pictures presented by Tower stated that picture after my calibration looks better with more details. Now you can see reports as well. There are three reports: 1-Before Component, 2-After Component and 3-After HDMI.
There are also tables in my reports sent to clients with all controls before and after calibration but it is irrelevant here.

I am tired of Towers accusations, so I am not going to read this thread anymore. If someone has a question or suggestion, please e-mail me or send me PM.

 

LN-S4692D-1-Before Comp.pdf 59.01171875k . file

 

LN-S4692D-2-After Comp.pdf 59.01171875k . file

 

LN-S4692D-3-After HDMI.pdf 59.052734375k . file

Greetings

Sometimes ... we all get the nightmare client.

Regards

Steve,

It seems to me you have issues with what are in fact a very small minority of unhappy ISF customers, but choose to blow up a molehill into a mountain. I think that if you look into many industries you will find unhappy customers at a far greater level of numbers than we have here, so maybe your efforts should be concentrated there rather than here (franchised garages, ISP providers, plumbers & builders are but four that come to mind). You're going to be busy...

Looking at Zygmunts data in conjunction with the pictures Tower posted, it seems that a successful calibration was indeed carried out and Zygmunt was stiffed for his fee. A nightmare client indeed.

Gary

I feel for you, Zygmunt - alot. In everyone's business, you get the malcontent, the poseur, the clown who's always looking to get somethin' for nothin' - and complaining in a loud voice while stiffing the payment usually works for them - kind of a nice, diversionary tactic.

Sadly, the fact remains that you did not get fair compensation for what now appears to be a good service. In my opinion, you should go after that money - and added costs for defamation of character - if it can be proven.

No, I don't have an issue with that.

This is a discussion thread at a discussion group about "Bad ISF calibration", so I think it's fair to discuss it.

I have absolutely no issue at all with the number of happy customers there are, and I'm merely commenting on the reasons there may sometimes be for the unhappy ones.

BTW, you are completely wrong in one respect. You say "I think that if you look into many industries you will find unhappy customers at a far greater level of numbers than we have here...franchised garages, ISP providers, plumbers & builders are but four that come to mind."

The Federation of Master Builders and other organisations most certainly do police their members, will follow up complaints against them, and if necessary remove them from their organisation. Check out this page, which is the FMB's CODE OF PRACTICE:

http://www.findabuilder.co.uk/why/practice.asp

Look at the bottom. They have a clear procedure as to What to do if you and your builder have disagreement. They have a clear Complaints and Disputes Resolution Procedure.

Where is the equivalent page at the ISF website?

It doesn't exist.

That is the entire problem. Why the hell it's somehow wrong of me to point out something so blindingly obvious at this thread is beyond me.

Thanks for bringing this up Gary, as you've enabled me to show exactly how ISF should be operating, but aren't.

Steve W

ps. the Association of Plumbing and Heating Contractors also protect their members' customers:

http://www.competentplumber.co.uk/consumers/

As do the Internet Services Providers' Association :

http://www.ispa.org.uk/complaints/

As do the National Franchised Dealers Association :

http://www.rmif.co.uk/consumers.aspx?id=0

In other words Gary you couldn't be more wrong on this one. Sorry, mate.

SW

From the start I have said that the data should settle the matter. Based on the pre-post data that Zygmunt has attached above, it looks like a reasonable service was provided.

Well thx to tower for starting this thread. I've learned that ISF certified means nothing more than a 2 day seminar and a minor exam. I believe there are a lot of good and bad ISF calibrators out there and all don't come a cv of their previous work experience. Basically all you have to go on is word of mouth which for something that could end up being quite expensive is risky and the results might not be to your satisfaction thus causing concern to quite a few people out there. But I agree with showing the customer statisical information before and after the process, that is something no one can deny.

For what it's worth, I agree. I prefer the ISF'd picture (in as far as it's possible to make a judgement from the pics we've seen), though I don't think either settings show a PQ I'd pay extra money for.

But ultimately, that's not the point, because ultimately it's not my money.

Steve W

Looking at Zygmunt's post calibration (both comp. and hdmi), should the point gammas be so low? I agree that the grayscale tracking looks really good, but to me gamma looks quite low.

jeff

Steve,

If you ever saw "That's Life" and "Rogue Traders" you will know that even with those bodies you state, you can still get bad service withe little recompense. Not all join those bodies either, and in some cases the membership is worth less than the paper it is printed on. Sorry, but that's the truth. I don't think I've seen an ISFer mentioned on Rogue Traders just yet either, have you?

Greeno,

Depending on how the gamma was calculated in the program, you can get numbers as low as that. Colorfacts uses a measured black instead of using the linear tail of Rec 709 for example (IIRC - Kras?), so the 1.95 could be closer to 2.2 for example. Most displays don't allow you to alter the gamma much, other than some presets like 'video' or 'film' and they can even alter other aspects of the image (sometimes detrimentally). I would think that it would be accurate though, given Sencores reputation.

The 1/95 numbers means brighter dark areas compared to a higher gamma, so that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if watching in a room with some ambient.

Gary

This is not a complaint that the original customer did not think ISF goals of D65 are worthy - it is a complaint that he thought calibrator used not the best set of controls to get there. But the data shows however he got there - he got there. Pecker trolling in this thread that calibrators either fail to achieve D65 or customer does not like D65 does not belong in this thread as it does not apply in either case. Customer went out and bought a Spyder system with the funds from the stopped check - so he clearly values D65 enough to pay for software to do it himself.

I first got into calibration because I had sent mine in to a remote ISF to be calibrated over VGA input - and I learned since that VGA is an input that source variances will affect greyscale and RGB clipping - but I did not stop the check even though I ran out to buy ColorFacts afterwords - the calibrator did do what he was hired to do.

Gary is correct a lower gamma is desirable in ambient environments - increased black levels are common with LCD, and displays often do not have gamma adjustments just presets.

Zygmunt, if ever happen, that your client is not happy with the picture after calibration, call me. I will do calibration for your client. If he is still unhappy, I will set all controls back to initial position and we both will loose our time. Check goes back to client.

My policy as well - there will always be the customer who did not realize the display would be so dark. I do make them watch the calibration for two weeks - then they can switch back to compare. Takes a while for people to realize what they have been missing all along.