Originally Posted by Kamikaze_Ice
I think what he was trying to say is that this information has been scattered around in posts on the forums and not in a centralized area.
This thread is already 25 pages long.
And this was a fairly simple yes or no answer.
Mine is no, I'm not using judd voss.
Not trying to continue the quarrel - but thats wrong.
THis is an issue of if we wan't to take "calibrations myths", "polls", "I dont know WWCD (What would Chad do)", over any factual explanations, why the Judd Voss observer curve would be needed.
Its a "religion" over "science" argument.
Sony acted irresponsibly, when they recommended it on one OLED model - because to them it was a quick marketing solution to go with it.
Spectracal acted highly irresponsibly when they suggested it would be for OLEDs (lie) it would be good for OLEDs (lie) and it would help solve the metamerism failure issue (lie).
Chad B is acting irresponsibly by supporting the notion that this is something that you could be put down to a poll, and by making this a "social event", or even a vote.
All others that are following Chad Bs example are acting irresponsibly by giving this the touch of a social event, where in the end the power of "several guys staring at goats" (basically) would lead to any discernable knowledge.
Its not the answer itself, its the way you come to the conclusion.
The issue is, that it doesn't matter what Chad B sees, or says - nor does it matter what I see or say, or the giy asking the question sees or says - as the the issue still fundamentally is - that color metamerism failure means, that people aren seeing the same color, when the look at the same screen.
Doing polls is useless and silly - because NO majority opinion will help solve this issue.
Suggesting a CMF that only ever tells you to push blue some more also doesnt even come close to anything that would mitigate the issue.
Not only isn't Judd Voss the solution here, its not the solution for color metamerism failure related issues EVER. Not even on that one Sony OLED.
This entire scene, has a severe problem of believing in stuff where rational explainations are long gone. And people choose to do it, simply because they put trust into other people that have - very strong incentives to lie, when they see their livelyhood endangered.
This is not such a case. This is a case of the explaination for why anyone should use "Judd Voss on OLEDs" being utterly wrong and nonsensical. On factual grounds. Judd Voss is not made to solve the issue, Judd Voss is not capable to solve the issue, its an issue that doesn't affect OLEDs more or less than other current display technologies to begin with - and the only reason why we are talking about it, and not about the actual issue (color metamerism failure quadrupling), is because some utter idiots populariced the wrong things, on the wrong generalized technology, as a fake solution.
Now - thats not going to be solved by a poll about the popularity of using that "fix".
Also you aren't helping if you pronounce "you liked it in the past...".
The thing is, when 1932 2° breaks (the issue Sony had with their OLEDs and no one agreeing on the color of white they would see), you cant just choose the next best CMF and announce, that it would fix the issue -
when the science doesnt support it.
In fact, color scientists worked for about three years to find a solution to this issue and threw hundereds of CMFs (their arent anything special - they are mathematic models that predict how "normal" people see colors --) at the problem to understand it (thats called a simulation - which is done in addition to actual scientific experiments on perception), with the result being, that there was no simple "replacement CMF" that would solve the issue (people all of a sudden not agreeing on color perception on newer displays any more). Period.
Some suggested to seperate all people into five or six groups, and getting in people that needed calibrated screens for testing in which group they would fall, then tell them which CMF to use - but guess what - the "Lets just ignore the issue, and continue on -" fraction won, because - the "solution" wasn't seen as commercially viable.
So PLEASE - take care, why you "immitate" a proposed solution, and take at least some pride in knowing what you do instead of "listening to your good friend Chad B".
Chad B propagates quite a few myths in a long day - like "what gamma to use for bt 709 calibrations based on how the crow flies, and on what step of his ladder the weather frog sat in the morning".
And simply trying to mimic opinions has brought this "scene" into the mess it is in at the moment.
If there are actual factual explainations for why something works or not - try to learn them for yourself - to keep the "experts" honest. Otherwise they will just come up with best practices all day - that have no factual underpinnings, and pronounce thing standards, that arent in any way capable of standardizing anything.
(bt 1886, "Chad Bs gamma curve", Spectracal recomending Judd Voss for OLED, Sony trying to get out of the publics eye by pronouncing Judd Voss as a fix in the first place, ... all those are unsubstantiated myths. Fake solutions, that get sold to people who are buying trust, but don't care to learn or understand things in the first place.)
And the thing is, even if "guy" liked a "Judd Voss calibration on a plasma in the past" - guess what, it leads to perceptuall different results on all other TVs -- depending on the spectrum of that TV. Thats the issue in the first place. Thats also why CIE 1932 2° is breaking.
So in addition to the "color metamerism failure issue meaning, that everyone sees colors differently", it also means that "optimal "average" CMF, changes from TV to TV" (not from "display technology to display technology" as in "there are five on the market").
So please don't try to put that into a believe system - where you would find the solution in asking five people on an internet forum "what CMF is best?" for OLED. Please yes/no - reading is hard.
Also shame on you Chaad B for entering in the "no no - just give them what they wan't - if the ask WWCD, you give them what they ask for" mode of answering, because its actually an unethical thing to do in this case.
Also - the thing with science is - when a theory holds up 90% of the way - and then only breaks for lets say 10% of implied use cases - you call it a failure, and shut the theory down.
In "color science" you ignore it for the better part of three years, and teach people fake solutions to those "applications" where it became somewhat public that something went wrong.
Like Sony having to admit - that one of their OLEDs produced colors, that for a significant population in the color correction market didnt look, as they should have - according to measurements, and the CIE 1932 2° model (the industry standard for calibration).
There is a huge issue there as well, and I don't just want people to ignore it, and to resort to
"What would Chad B do" or
polling of the electorate instead.
"How do you feel?!" isn't always the answer, nor is it always the right question to ask (millenials...)
- listening to "experts" isn't always either.
But let me tell you this "please only answer with yes/no" is just as anti-intellectual as it is anti-democratic. If issues come up, and you wan't to basically "ban" their discussion - I will do everything in my power to stop that process.