2020 LG OLED CX-GX Owner's Thread + FAQ (Posts 1-6) - No Price Talk - Page 155 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6165Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #4621 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 07:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 431 Post(s)
Liked: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrref View Post
I don't see any raised blacks at all in any PM. HDR and DV look sharper and a little more depth but once it's available you will be able to see for yourself. In my opinion the HDR and DV PQ are better than my on my Sony when placed side by side. I haven't taken any measurements but i didn't see any visual shifts in the CMS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
npsacobra and FullyTorqued10 like this.

LG 65CX l Apple TV 4K l PS4 Pro l Nintendo Switch | Logitech Harmony Companion
saiyanzzrage is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4622 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 07:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kokishin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,409
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1463 Post(s)
Liked: 1608
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrref View Post
I don't see any raised blacks at all in any PM. HDR and DV look sharper and a little more depth but once it's available you will be able to see for yourself. In my opinion the HDR and DV PQ are better than my on my Sony when placed side by side. I haven't taken any measurements but i didn't see any visual shifts in the CMS.
I envision C9 and A8H owners still in the return window getting itchy trigger fingers.

Denon AVR-X6200W, Outlaw Audio 7125 Amp, Oppo UDP-203, Oppo BDP-103, Amazon FTV Stick 4K, Tivo Roamio Pro, Pioneer Elite Andrew Jones Dolby Atmos Enabled EFS-73 Fronts/EBS-73 Surrounds, Chane A2.4 Center, SVS SB-2000 Sub, Panasonic Plasma TH-58PX600
avsforum Members Atmos & Auro Configuration Spreadsheet
I'm just a caveman. Your modern world frightens and confuses me. RIP Phil Hartman
kokishin is online now  
post #4623 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 07:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
macmane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 2,483
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlue83 View Post
I’m sure the filmmakers intent isn't a blurry mess that looks like it was shot using a potato. These high end TVs look like crap with everything turned off. You want a basic picture, buy a basic TV.
The only thing that looks like trash to me is low quality old 60s movies I'm in my 30s I don't watch DVDs or any of that no offense to the older crowd but I watch mainly decent to high quality content and my set isn't a blurry mess but to each his own

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
avernar likes this.
macmane is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4624 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 08:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: The Forbidden Zone
Posts: 488
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlue83 View Post
I’m sure the filmmakers intent isn't a blurry mess that looks like it was shot using a potato. These high end TVs look like crap with everything turned off. You want a basic picture, buy a basic TV.
Film in a movie theatre, compared to what we are used to seeing on tv is quite different. Television shows are bright, crisp, and full of awesome color. I like this for shows, sports, and nature videos where I want to "be there" with them, up close and real.

The traditional look of film for the last 100 years, even going toward the present, is far from "real". The flat look of film has nothing to do with a 3D pop/depth look. The motion is blurry-something inherent in 24fps - a standard we have had for around 100 years. This was firmly established in 1927 and has been with us ever since, along with the resulting flat look and motion blur.

So yes, you are quite correct. This look people are after here, when compared to other formats is, whether they want to admit it or not, is quite flat, dull, and not very sharp looking. Attend a movie in an actual theater today and no matter the resolution of the film, it WILL look 720p tops. This is for the simple fact that the film has to travel from a tiny square in the back of the theatre and then project its size many times over all the way across the room.

The dichotomy here is that this look of film, when compared to reality, is FAR from accurate. But for those who like this traditional look, there exist "standards" and "rules" for a lack of better words, to achieve this traditonal look.

Film traditionalists want to view the outside real world through the lens of a movie theatre. Setting your sharpness at zero and keeping your brightness down etc is both a representative and quantitative "extension" of this goal.

Others see this attempt and goal as a very antiquated and "contrived", resulting from set of standards from the 1930s that were established and governed not by a "standard preference" or some "accurate settings rules" but rather by the limitations of the tech back then as well as budget concerns. The odd result is attempting to "preserve" something that is not representative of real like and then call it "accurate". This is a source of the confusion. If you are comparing this to real life, it isn't accurate. If you are comparing this to the look of film, it is to be judged by a set of standards resulting from decades of film.

What has happened is that "look" has taken hold in our culture and has been sought after ever since.
When tvs were invented, movie companies in an effort to bring people back to the theater came out with widescreen movies such as CinemaScope - a breath taking aspect ratio that one could not get on their tvs at home. Superior theater sound advancements followed.

For years, people have wanted and sought to be able to "experience" this movie theater look, sights, size, and sound at home. Up to now, the theater was the only place where one could experience this. The younger generation today, those that grew up being content with BlockBuster, HBO at home, and streaming, don't realize that both experiencing and replicating a movie theater experience was and is highly prized.

What has taken place today is that modern tvs can accomplish TWO very different things. They have the ability to bring that "cinematic" experience to the home and they also have the ability to bring the outdoor world to your home with blazing brightness, HDR, sharpness, etc. There is even a movement to ditch 24fps and go with 44fps like the directors Peter Jackson and James Cameron have done. The result is an unbelievable level of smoothness and clarity.

Purists hate the presence of 44fps and I personally question the merits of HDR. HDR is not a "look" that has been a part of the film world going back for decades and decades. Not having Gone with the Wind or 2001 in HDR is just fine by me. HDR has been included with 4K movies in part for the simple fact that, while 4K on paper is twice as clear as 2k, the eye cannot really resolve those differences. So the inclusion of HDR "sweetens" the purchase. But HDR does make a movie more "life-like" and representative of real life.

I personally applaud your preference and take on this as well as all those who seek to have a "traditional" film look.

People often talk about the "directors intent". Enthusiasts just want to "see" the movie from the frame of mind that the director envisioned when he made his movie, knowing in advance how it would look in a movie theatre.

For purists, it would be like taking a Picasso painting and then "dolling it up" by adding color and sharp lines to it.
For purists, film, its look, and a directors intent is a "work of art" that must be both "preserved" and "replicated" as closely as possible. The look of film IS evolving. But purists don't want to move beyond each director's intent.

But if one doesn't understand the actual "history" of all of this, it can appear quite strange that people would set their tv with less brightness, less color, less sharpness, 24p on, and somehow call it "accurate".

But make no mistake here. Traditionalist enthusiasts aren't content to see a 1927 "penny arcade" presentation. The new tvs, with their robust tech provide a welcome addition of massive size, sound, contrast, black levels, etc, that are in no way antithetical to what purists are after. So these new tvs have something to offer for everyone.

We are in the middle of a big transition with the advent of these high tech tvs. There is a growing movement of people who aren't interested in the "art" and "historical preservation" of all of this for the simple reason that, for the first time, these tvs have the ABILITY to recreate REAL life with all its colors, brightness, pop, and 3D look. 60fps anyone?

The confusion and dichotomy rests in what each side is "measuring". And no I'm not speaking of zero on a sharpness slider. Rather I'm taking about a "macro-measurement"- (cinema or real life), two very different types of experiences.

Depending on which side of the coin you are, will determine the "micro-measurements" that you will use and speak to on this forum.

The "correct" answer to all of this lay in the question, "What are you measuring?"
Nausicaa, koan, DJL53 and 2 others like this.

Last edited by Sargon 1; 05-25-2020 at 12:04 AM.
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #4625 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 08:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tjcinnamon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,499
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2169 Post(s)
Liked: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrref View Post
I don't see any raised blacks at all in any PM. HDR and DV look sharper and a little more depth but once it's available you will be able to see for yourself. In my opinion the HDR and DV PQ are better than my on my Sony when placed side by side. I haven't taken any measurements but i didn't see any visual shifts in the CMS.
Does the C9 have raised blacks? Or is this improvement exclusive to the CX?

77" C9 + NAD 758 v3 with Dirac 7.6.4 + Rotel 976 + Panamax M5300-PM
Speakers: Paradigm Prestige 75F's + 55C; 8x Paradigm CI Pro P65-R's
Subs1: 2x LRK Build Thread + 2x Rotel 981 (bridged); retired: VRK Build thread
Subs2: 2x Rythmik LVX12; 2x Dayton HF 12's Ultra-NearField + Crown XLS 2002
MiniDSP HD & Non; DIY Room Treatments: Dutch Floral Prints
tjcinnamon is offline  
post #4626 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 08:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
EMINENT1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere in Dallas, Tx USA
Posts: 534
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcinnamon View Post
Does the C9 have raised blacks? Or is this improvement exclusive to the CX?
Yes, when introducing a 1DLUT in HDR/DV. This also goes back to 2018 and possibly 2017's as well.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
tjcinnamon likes this.

2019 LG C9 65"
2019 LG SL10YG Soundbar
I1D3 OEM
Calman Home RC1
Lightspace/Colorspace
EMINENT1 is offline  
post #4627 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 08:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tjcinnamon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,499
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2169 Post(s)
Liked: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokishin View Post
I envision C9 and A8H owners still in the return window getting itchy trigger fingers.
Ugh! I’ve got a 77C9 currently on break-in at VE set to ship on Thursday! I hope they apply the fix to the 77C9 as well.

77" C9 + NAD 758 v3 with Dirac 7.6.4 + Rotel 976 + Panamax M5300-PM
Speakers: Paradigm Prestige 75F's + 55C; 8x Paradigm CI Pro P65-R's
Subs1: 2x LRK Build Thread + 2x Rotel 981 (bridged); retired: VRK Build thread
Subs2: 2x Rythmik LVX12; 2x Dayton HF 12's Ultra-NearField + Crown XLS 2002
MiniDSP HD & Non; DIY Room Treatments: Dutch Floral Prints
tjcinnamon is offline  
post #4628 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 08:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrref View Post
I don't see any raised blacks at all in any PM. HDR and DV look sharper and a little more depth but once it's available you will be able to see for yourself. In my opinion the HDR and DV PQ are better than my on my Sony when placed side by side. I haven't taken any measurements but i didn't see any visual shifts in the CMS.
Dam** now I am tempted to install this FW but after being stuck on FW 5.20.03 (i think) on my C8 without being able to downgrade or upgrade to the latest FW , I am afraid LOL.

How did you install it? using the links from the russian forum or using the Engineering option in Service Menu?

TV : LG OLED 65CX [U]
Dreamer2018 is online now  
post #4629 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 08:42 PM
Senior Member
 
rajendra82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 473
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon 1 View Post
Film in a movie theatre, compared to what we are used to seeing on tv is quite different. Television shows are bright, crisp, and full of awesome color. I like this for shows, sports, and nature videos where I want to "be there" with them, up close and real.



The traditional look of film for the last 100 years, even going toward the present, is far from "real". The flat look of film has nothing to do with a 3D pop/depth look. The motion is blurry-something inherent in 24fps - a standard we have had for around 100 years. This was firmly established in 1927 and has been with us ever since, along with the resulting flat look and motion blur.



So yes, you are quite correct. This look people are after here, when compared to other formats is, whether they want to admit it or not, is quite flat, dull, and not very sharp looking. Attend a movie in an actual theater today and no matter the resolution of the film, it WILL look 720p tops. This is for the simple fact that the film has to travel from a tiny square in the back of the theatre and then project its size many times over all the way across the room.



The dichotomy here is that this look of film, when compared to reality, is FAR from accurate. But for those who like this traditional look, there exist "standards" and "rules" for a lack of better words, to achieve this traditonal look.



Film traditionalists want to view the outside real world through the lens of a movie theatre. Setting your sharpness at zero and keeping your brightness down etc is both a representative and quantitative "extension" of this goal.



Others see this attempt and goal as a very antiquated and "contrived", resulting from set of standards from the 1930s that were established and governed not by a "standard preference" or some "accurate settings rules" but rather by the limitations of the tech back then as well as budget concerns. The odd result is attempting to "preserve" something that is not representative of real like and then call it "accurate". This is a source of the confusion. If you are comparing this to real life, it isn't accurate. If you are comparing this to the look of film, it is to be judged by a set of standards resulting from decades of film.



What has happened is that "look" has taken hold in our culture and has been sought after ever since.

When tvs were invented, movie companies in an effort to bring people back to the theater came out with widescreen movies such as CinemaScope - a breath taking aspect ratio that one could not get on their tvs at home. Superior theater sound advancements followed.



For years, people have wanted and sought to be able to "experience" this movie theater look, sights, size, and sound at home. Up to now, the theater was the only place where one could experience this. The younger generation today, those that grew up being content with BlockBuster, HBO at home, and streaming, don't realize that both experiencing and replicating a movie theater experience was and is highly prized.



What has taken place today is that modern tvs can accomplish TWO very different things. They have the ability to bring that "cinematic" experience to the home and they also have the ability to bring the outdoor world to your home with blazing brightness, HDR, sharpness, etc. There is even a movement to ditch 24fps and go with 44fps like the directors Peter Jackson and James Cameron have done. The result is an unbelievable level of smoothness and clarity.



Purists hate the presence of 44fps and I personally question the merits of HDR. HDR is not a "look" that has been apart of the film world going back for decades and decades. Not having Gone with the Wind or 2001 in HDR is just fine by me. HDR has been included with 4K movies in part for the simple fact that, while 4K on paper is twice as clear as 2k, the eye cannot really resolve those differences. So the inclusion of HDR "sweetens" the purchase. But HDR does make a movie more "life-like" and representative of real life.



I personally applaud your preference and take on this as well as all those who seek to have a "traditional" film look.



People often talk about the "directors intent". Enthusiasts just want to "see" the movie from the frame of mind that the director envisioned when he made his movie, knowing in advance how it would look in a movie theatre.



For purists, it would be like taking a Picasso painting and then "dolling it up" by adding color and sharp lines to it.

For purists, film, its look, and a directors intent is a "work of art" that must be both "preserved" and "replicated" as closely as possible.



But if one doesn't understand the actual "history" of all of this, it can appear quite strange that people would set their tv with less brightness, less color, less sharpness, 24p on, and somehow call it "accurate".



But make no mistake here. Traditionalist enthusiasts aren't content to see a 1927 "penny arcade" presentation. The new tvs, with their robust tech provide a welcome addition of massive size, sound, contrast, black levels, etc, that are in no way antithetical to what purists are after. So these new tvs have something to offer for everyone.



We are in the middle of a big transition with the advent of these high tech tvs. There is a growing movement of people who aren't interested in the "art" and "historical preservation" of all of this for the simple reason that, for the first time, these tvs have the ABILITY to recreate REAL life with all its colors, brightness, pop, and 3D look. 60fps anyone?



The confusion and dichotomy rests in what each side is "measuring". And no I'm not speaking of zero on a sharpness slider. Rather I'm taking about a "macro-measurement"- (cinema or real life), two very different types of experiences.



Depending on which side of the coin you are, will determine the "micro-measurements" that you will use and speak to on this forum.



The "correct" answer to all of this lay in the question, "What are you measuring?"
You are missing the point of the calibration to match intent. It isn't to match film, because the master's we start from have already been scanned in and converted to digital. The intent is to match the mastering display as closely as possible.

Remember that beginning sequence in Jaws? The woman swims naked into the ocean, and as the shark approaches, there is a shot from below. In the original master version, the scene is quite dark, and you are not sure if she is actually nude. If you do lift the shadow detail, then you can clearly see everything. The detail is there in the master but is meant to be hidden. By changing calibration settings, you completely change the mood of the shot, thus destroying the filmmaker's intent. Whether the genitals of the actress should be visible or not should be up to Stephen Spielberg, not you the viewer.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
Reflex-Arc, koan, avernar and 2 others like this.
rajendra82 is offline  
post #4630 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 08:50 PM
Senior Member
 
zeromothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 293
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I bought the Sony yesterday.... it went back today. I enjoy my E7 more than I did the A8H. The Sony IMO was dull, grain exaggerating and had occasional SOE even with the recommended settings. Not effective in a brighter room. Thought it might even out with critical nighttime viewing in a dark environment...it did not.
My 65" CX arrives Wednesday.

Last edited by zeromothra; 05-24-2020 at 08:56 PM.
zeromothra is online now  
post #4631 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 09:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
venus933's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,627
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2509 Post(s)
Liked: 2112
Folks who don’t consider older movies are missing out on lots and lots of great storytelling and great actors. Some are restored but some are not but they’re still worth watching nonetheless.

Don’t get me wrong I love watching HDR content but if it’s crap I’m not watching it for the sake of Its video quality.
hogues, koan, Sargon 1 and 4 others like this.

LG 65B8
Sonos Playbase
MS Xbox One S (using strictly as a disk player)
venus933 is online now  
post #4632 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 09:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: The Forbidden Zone
Posts: 488
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajendra82 View Post
You are missing the point of the calibration to match intent. It isn't to match film, because the master's we start from have already been scanned in and converted to digital. The intent is to match the mastering display as closely as possible.

Remember that beginning sequence in Jaws? The woman swims naked into the ocean, and as the shark approaches, there is a shot from below. In the original master version, the scene is quite dark, and you are not sure if she is actually nude. If you do lift the shadow detail, then you can clearly see everything. The detail is there in the master but is meant to be hidden. By changing calibration settings, you completely change the mood of the shot, thus destroying the filmmaker's intent. Whether the genitals of the actress should be visible or not should be up to Stephen Spielberg, not you the viewer.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
Perfect example you gave btw. More isn't always more. Sometimes, it's less.

Yes, we aren't matching to the film. It's already been accomplished and the task that remains is to match the mastering display.

But that fact doesn't negate the importance with regard to getting at why people would seek to preserve this look in the first place. You are focusing on the end; I'm focusing on the beginning, - an entrenched desire of movie goers and directors to see this being preserved.

You can't have the end without the beginning - the "idea" (the macro), and the "execution" of that idea -the tech (the micro).
The calibration that matches the mastering display, that matches the transfer, that matches what the director intended, that matches his continuing a 100 year tradition of film. It isn't necessary to parse this. It all runs along a continuum of ideas and the execution of them.

Both our points are an integral part of this discussion, - the desire to preserve a film-goers experience AND the mastering and calibration involved in the execution of that intent.

I purposely left the calibration out of my discussion as I outlined that I was delving into the "macro" rather than the "micro" end of this discussion.

I just believe that going into the history behind all of this, as well as the "pull" away from a film tradition resulting from advances to the tech, might resonate more with people who don't understand the core intent behind all of this. History is powerful in that it provides people with perspective.

Last edited by Sargon 1; 05-25-2020 at 01:24 AM.
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #4633 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 09:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: The Forbidden Zone
Posts: 488
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by venus933 View Post
Folks who don’t consider older movies are missing out on lots and lots of great storytelling and great actors. Some are restored but some are not but they’re still worth watching nonetheless.

Don’t get me wrong I love watching HDR content but if it’s crap I’m not watching it for the sake of Its video quality.
OMG!
Love your comment here.

Last edited by Sargon 1; 05-24-2020 at 09:28 PM.
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #4634 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 09:14 PM
Member
 
Dymblos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 12
what is that stuff of raise blacks?
is good or bad? there is a lot of post talking about that.. also, what mean "PM" ?
Dymblos is offline  
post #4635 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 09:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tjcinnamon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,499
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2169 Post(s)
Liked: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMINENT1 View Post
Yes, when introducing a 1DLUT in HDR/DV. This also goes back to 2018 and possibly 2017's as well.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
If I’m getting mine CalMan’d that’s a 3DLUT correct? How is a 1D LUT introduced?

77" C9 + NAD 758 v3 with Dirac 7.6.4 + Rotel 976 + Panamax M5300-PM
Speakers: Paradigm Prestige 75F's + 55C; 8x Paradigm CI Pro P65-R's
Subs1: 2x LRK Build Thread + 2x Rotel 981 (bridged); retired: VRK Build thread
Subs2: 2x Rythmik LVX12; 2x Dayton HF 12's Ultra-NearField + Crown XLS 2002
MiniDSP HD & Non; DIY Room Treatments: Dutch Floral Prints
tjcinnamon is offline  
post #4636 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 09:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
EMINENT1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere in Dallas, Tx USA
Posts: 534
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcinnamon View Post
If I’m getting mine CalMan’d that’s a 3DLUT correct? How is a 1D LUT introduced?
By doing gray scale autocal before the Color 3DLUT.

Hopefully, no longer an issue soon if this test firmware is the real deal. But, should not be an issue unless you are watching in a pitch black room.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

2019 LG C9 65"
2019 LG SL10YG Soundbar
I1D3 OEM
Calman Home RC1
Lightspace/Colorspace

Last edited by EMINENT1; 05-24-2020 at 10:07 PM.
EMINENT1 is offline  
post #4637 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
macmane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 2,483
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by venus933 View Post
Folks who don’t consider older movies are missing out on lots and lots of great storytelling and great actors. Some are restored but some are not but they’re still worth watching nonetheless.

Don’t get me wrong I love watching HDR content but if it’s crap I’m not watching it for the sake of Its video quality.
If thats in response to my old movies post its not a knock on em I have watched some older movies and some ive enjoyed I was stating that most low quality content is from old movies and the quality of the movie won't stop me from watching them its just i dont really have an interest in watching old ass westerns and the such lololol

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
Cam1977 likes this.
macmane is online now  
post #4638 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
avernar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,935
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1269 Post(s)
Liked: 1547
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlue83 View Post
I’m sure the filmmakers intent isn't a blurry mess that looks like it was shot using a potato. These high end TVs look like crap with everything turned off. You want a basic picture, buy a basic TV.
If the filmmaker didn’t make a blurry mess of a movie then the TV won’t display a blurry mess with all processing shut off. A UHD disc and high quality streaming do not need any edge enhancement.

Many people here would love to buy a TV that can do 4K HDR with amazing contrast, 120Hz, low latency, etc. with absolutely zero extra processing features. That is far from a “basic TV”. An unaltered picture is not “basic” in any way.

But some people like all this extra processing crap. Some content may warrant it. That’s why the TV has configurable options.

Why are you getting so distressed about how other people have their TV configured?

Last edited by avernar; 05-24-2020 at 10:30 PM.
avernar is online now  
post #4639 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: El paso
Posts: 5,940
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3386 Post(s)
Liked: 4167
^man, thats such a great point...I dont understand why folks get so worked up about what other people see or do with there sets.

In my case I used DTM even though I knew Inwas wrong...it wasnt gettting calibrated so why not.
Cam1977 is online now  
post #4640 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
avernar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,935
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1269 Post(s)
Liked: 1547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam1977 View Post
In my case I used DTM even though I knew Inwas wrong...
Gasp! How could you! I can’t even...

Cam1977 and wardie like this.
avernar is online now  
post #4641 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: El paso
Posts: 5,940
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3386 Post(s)
Liked: 4167
^well that is until I got a pana ub820!
mrtickleuk likes this.
Cam1977 is online now  
post #4642 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: The Forbidden Zone
Posts: 488
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam1977 View Post
^man, thats such a great point...I dont understand why folks get so worked up about what other people see or do with there sets.

In my case I used DTM even though I knew Inwas wrong...it wasnt gettting calibrated so why not.
His post could actually be a frustrated response to how people on here are coming across about how a tv should be set up.

People are pretty rabid on here. I don't get that breezy feeling of a "prevailing wisdom" with regard to correct tv settings. Perhaps he didn't either.

(Just a thot.)

I too "fudge" on some of my settings and don't give what others think.
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #4643 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: The Forbidden Zone
Posts: 488
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by avernar View Post
If the filmmaker didn’t make a blurry mess of a movie then the TV won’t display a blurry mess with all processing shut off. An unaltered picture is not “basic” in any way.
Elegantly stated.
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #4644 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
macmane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 2,483
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon 1 View Post
His post could actually be a frustrated response to how people on here are coming across about how a tv should be set up.



People are pretty rabid on here. I don't get that breezy feeling of a "prevailing wisdom" with regard to correct tv settings. Perhaps he didn't either.



(Just a thot.)



I too "fudge" on some of my settings and don't give what others think.
Tbh nobody told him how a tv was to be set up. Someone was explaining what the differences were to the sharpness setting with factual information. The way he processed it was an entirely different story. I mean he can be frustrated all he wants but his frustration should lie with what the facts are and not the person saying what those facts are. I personally could care less what anyone does with their money their tv etc but if someone ask a question and the question is answered with facts don't shoot the messenger

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
avernar, ataneruo and Cam1977 like this.
macmane is online now  
post #4645 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: El paso
Posts: 5,940
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3386 Post(s)
Liked: 4167
^this.
Cam1977 is online now  
post #4646 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
avernar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,935
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1269 Post(s)
Liked: 1547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon 1 View Post
His post could actually be a frustrated response to how people on here are coming across about how a tv should be set up.

People are pretty rabid on here. I don't get that breezy feeling of a "prevailing wisdom" with regard to correct tv settings. Perhaps he didn't either.
Almost. There are several ways on how a TV should be set up, including making it as close to what was on the mastering monitor as possible. The frustrating part is that some here think that one way, their way, is the only way it should be done. Especially when someone asks for one in particular, someone answers and they argue it shouldn’t be done that way. Sigh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon 1 View Post
(Just a thot.)
No comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon 1 View Post
Elegantly stated.
I try but often don’t succeed.
Cam1977 likes this.
avernar is online now  
post #4647 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Sargon 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: The Forbidden Zone
Posts: 488
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmane View Post
Tbh nobody told him how a tv was to be set up. Someone was explaining what the differences were to the sharpness setting with factual information. The way he processed it was an entirely different story. I mean he can be frustrated all he wants but his frustration should lie with what the facts are and not the person saying what those facts are. I personally could care less what anyone does with their money their tv etc but if someone ask a question and the question is answered with facts don't shoot the messenger

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
I get you here.

I meant how people respond in general, NOT anyone on today's posts.

Over the last 10 years, I've picked up the aroma of a dogmatic "religion".

But today - it's only a "CULT".
Sargon 1 is offline  
post #4648 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 10:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Cam1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: El paso
Posts: 5,940
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3386 Post(s)
Liked: 4167
^in the end, you paid for your set, not me or anyone else...enjoy it the way you want to enjoy it
Cam1977 is online now  
post #4649 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 11:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
venus933's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,627
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2509 Post(s)
Liked: 2112
Speaking of settings, I wish reviewers would at least give AI picture a chance to see if it works at cleaning up the picture. I'm hearing good things from some users.

LG 65B8
Sonos Playbase
MS Xbox One S (using strictly as a disk player)
venus933 is online now  
post #4650 of 7419 Old 05-24-2020, 11:19 PM
Member
 
BigBlue83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by avernar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlue83 View Post
I’️m sure the filmmakers intent isn't a blurry mess that looks like it was shot using a potato. These high end TVs look like crap with everything turned off. You want a basic picture, buy a basic TV.
If the filmmaker didn’️t make a blurry mess of a movie then the TV won’️t display a blurry mess with all processing shut off. A UHD disc and high quality streaming do not need any edge enhancement.

Many people here would love to buy a TV that can do 4K HDR with amazing contrast, 120Hz, low latency, etc. with absolutely zero extra processing features. That is far from a “basic TVâ€Â. An unaltered picture is not “basicâ€Â in any way.

But some people like all this extra processing crap. Some content may warrant it. That’️s why the TV has configurable options.

Why are you getting so distressed about how other people have their TV configured?
I’m not distressed at all. Actually it’s quite the opposite on here where people try to discourage you from using those processors all because the picture won’t be “accurate”. Unless you get your set calibrated, a lot of people would just blindly turn off everything and then wonder why their TV doesn’t look as expected. A lot of these sets need those processors as a crutch. I’m all for everyone doing whatever they want. But I’m just stating my opinion on the subject of people trying to dial everything they can down to 0 all because that’s how some say you will achieve the most “accurate” picture. A lot of people misinterpret that statement. Maybe somebody wants that pop and depth and not that old school flat film like picture. But coming on a forum like this, they’ll use settings they read on here randomly and in turn, not get the picture they would consider “accurate”. Just playing devils advocate.
BigBlue83 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
detection issue , earc , g-sync , lg cx , lossless audio , lpcm 7.1 , new purchase , pcm , surround sound and speaker , troubleshooting

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off