Originally Posted by GeorgeAB
What has been done for the cases you mention in the commercial cinema? How about computer monitors? Photo printers? If nothing has been done, why not?
Why, nothing, of course...they adhere to a reference standard because they must serve the larger audience, whose vision, on balance, probably approximates what the engineer doing the master has/had.
The difference here is that a display used in a personal environment may be set to the needs of a single individual...and indeed, may be the only place said individual has the opportunity to be imparted all the information normally visible to the majority of others watching displays calibrated to a reference standard.
I also understand that a reference display can be said to most accurately mimic reality, if said reality is recorded with a reference camera, etc., and the resultant image is measured with reference equipment. For some, that is enough. But for those experiencing loss of vision over time, television might be the only
refuge they have capable of providing an approximation of the sights and sounds they became used to over most of their lives, then were deprived of.
It is analogous to my example of prescription eyewear (but the example doesn't convey all aspects): I need glasses to read. You can speak all day on the advantages of a given printing or other process of production in the conveyance of clear images...but without my glasses in the signal chain, even the Mona Lisa herself is a blurry mess, and what is reported by my eyes could not be described in any fashion as "the intent of the artist". I'm not suggesting everyone view the Mona Lisa through my glasses; I am, however, suggesting that a personal device may be constructed (prescription glasses) by which the image, though altered from the norm, conveys more accurate information from the artist to the viewer, and enables more people to enjoy the work in measurably the same way that the artist attempted. By virtue of the controls on many televisions, I submit that a television could be another such device for some people.
Now, you can argue that manufacturers/artists do not by and large make print or artwork in sizes that take into account nearsighted people, but for a visual reproduction system in my own home, where lack of other alternatives exist, I may be very right in pointing out that there is a definite desire on the part of some consumers for devices that can...indeed, in some instances, there is a need.
I'm not suggesting that manufacturers or calibrators should account for glaucoma or retinal damage in their designs for consumer-grade devices, I was just wondering if any research has been done to, say, match a reference gamma curve to an individual's eyesight in order to provide a more meaningful approximation of the intended information in transit (and indeed, for said individual, more closely resembling that which the engineers saw on their reference display)...in other words, have we gone beyond the simple brightness/contrast adjustments to account for user eyesight in a measurable and predictable way, or is it a question that has not even been posed by display science (although I doubt this is the case)?
In a general sense, I believe that the reference standards exist for a valid and true purpose...if the engineer's vision and preferences can be regarded as "accurate" (which is quite the supposition in and of itself), and the medium of transmission and measurement be agreed upon, then reference points can provide an example of a display's ability to be adjusted and adhere to certain behavior in repeatable fashion. For a viewer whose vision behaves in accordance with the production team's, these reference standards may represent the points where a display best conveys the experience the artist intended. But I think people in this forum get "reference standard" and "best" confused. There is (gasp) a sense of elitism that exists here that doesn't take into account changes in vision over time, and neglects the end user's vision as a valid and often-times predictable and measurable component to information retrieval. I submit that if any user of this forum were given back the eyesight they experienced as a child, it would come as a shock to them with regard to the values they attribute to the color red, for example, and the amount of information they received about the world through those younger eyes. Perhaps what some regard as "wrong" settings, designed to sell televisions in retail settings, or set to the desires of an individual, more closely approximate that past experience of reality for some...and indeed, from an objective standpoint, could
serve to be more beneficial in terms of the amount of accurate information transmitted, for more people than would be guessed by the majority of forum members.
We would do well to remember that all these standards, the D65 gamut, standards for brightness and contrast, even the bit rate of various transmissions, are all organized within, or a subset of, a set of perceived boundaries of human senses. I believe that reference standards for display emissions exist as a starting point, and I envision (pun intended) a world where more differing aspects of the user's own senses are quantified and adjusted for, allowing us to come closer to achieving the common experience
and enabling a more personal means to communicate accurate information.
For the time being, we have enough of a problem just getting our sets to behave in accordance with agreed upon, uniform standards. One might express a certain level of concern that manufacturers are pursuing 3-D and internet-enabled entertainment in an environment where they don't even have color
right yet for the majority of consumers. In 2010! But my hope is that we can arrive at that point one day, and that we move on from there. Who knows? Perhaps reference quality will, for all intents and purposes, be achieved with OLED or some other technology...but my sincere hope is that we do not stop at that point.