AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In the audio realm, you can go to great pains to get a ruler flat response from your system, i.e. equalization, room treatments, speaker selection placement, etc.


The only limit is how "calibrated" you want to get. There's always another level you can take it to if you have the patience and $.


After all this, it has been discovered that you need a "house curve" if you want it to sound good. In other words, calibrate til the cows come home, but then tweak it by ear until it sounds good, because flat doesn't sound good. Everyone's "sounds good" will depend on their gear, room, sources, ears, tastes, etc.


However, there does not seem to be a similarly accepted idea for video. A perfectly calibrated display, whatever that is, is considered" perfect."



I have not had a "professional" calibration, which I'm sure would do a better job than me and my DVE disc. Still, I found the calibrated color to be too saturated. It may be calibrated, but it does not look real to me. So I lowered it a bit.


Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Greetings


Kind of assumes you actually did it right ...and there is so much more to calibration than setting the color saturation.


See the thread at the top ... root fundamentals of calibration.


Regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael TLV /forum/post/15564971


Greetings


Kind of assumes you actually did it right ...and there is so much more to calibration than setting the color saturation.


See the thread at the top ... root fundamentals of calibration.


Regards

And your post assumes I did it wrong.


I've seen that thread, and yes I know there is much more than saturation. That was a simple example. You missed the point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Greetings


There is also the possibility that color saturation and tint don't work right on your tV ... which happens ... also the filter might be wrong ... which also happens ... lots of other possibilities.


But if your intent is to drag up the argument once more about how standards don't matter ... you should take it somewhere outside a calibration forum area.


regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael TLV /forum/post/15565324


Greetings


There is also the possibility that color saturation and tint don't work right on your tV ... which happens ... also the filter might be wrong ... which also happens ... lots of other possibilities.


But if your intent is to drag up the argument once more about how standards don't matter ... you should take it somewhere outside a calibration forum area.


regards

Yes, those are possibilities. Perhaps that is the case. We can leave my TV out of it, although it is regarded as a "pretty good" one. (SamsungPN50A550) I'm sure it is not top of the heap.


Not "dragging up the argument" - that is precisely not at all my point. Perhaps I did not make the point well enough in the original post.


I was trying to convey the concept of the house curve that is subjectively applied AFTER an audio calibration in order to make it "sound good," and that there does not seem to be an analogous concept that is widely accepted for video.


You flatten out an audio response with various technical adjustments, and then you fudge it to make it sound right. This is similar to what I did with the saturation.


I realize that audio is not video, and we are talking about psychoacoustics and perceived flat response in audio, not video. They are not exactly equivalent. The point is it is a subjective adjustment to make it "sound right."


I find it interesting that there is no analagous concept accepted for video. It is either calibrated or not, although there is still variation and error there as well. There seems to be no allowance for the individual viewer however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
Greetings


Preference comes in if you don't like what calibrated represents ... and there is no crime in that. Set the TV to what pleases you and go on with life.


You know what the goal of image calibration is ... but if your TV cannot get there ... then some compromises have to be made ... that is life.


We can't get to perfection ... no one can ... but on many of these sets today ... we can get pretty close.


2+2=4 ... no one says you have to like it there ... maybe 9 works better for you ... which is okay ... but that type of subjective argument is best taken outside of a calibration forum.


regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I think with both audio and video the purists share a similar idea, calibrate the display to meet the calibration standards and keep EQ and other nonsense out of the audio chain to keep the signal as pure as intended. If done right in the first place the source should be as good as it can get on a well setup audio or video system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristo /forum/post/15565311


And your post assumes I did it wrong.


I've seen that thread, and yes I know there is much more than saturation. That was a simple example. You missed the point.

He didn't miss the point. The premise for your (subjective) argument is the fact that the results of calibration for saturation presented an unrealistic image. One must first ask then, was it done right? Though i am in no way insinuating that it was entirely your fault, but i am saying that dve's method for working out saturation is flawed in many ways. Its more of a very rough guide than a method of true calibration. Dve works off of the blue filter, however many display technologies, and many displays within those technologies have their blue spectrum vary a bit, because of this it is impossible to make a single blue filter that works accurately on all sets. That and is does not guarantee your saturation for each primary is linear.

But even putting that aside, imo, both audio and video have very set standards which should be met. However, not all subscribe to this idea, but that is because they usually lack the understanding of why.

For video, if you're not calibrated correctly, you more than likely will see less detail in the image, possibly not have the must optimal black level that is possible by the display... and many other things.

With audio, you must think from an engineering perspective. If you're building a device to playback recorded audio, what kind of a response would you give the device? Answer, a flat one! If you record a sound, and play it back, it will be played back equally (or as close as we can get) on a linear frequency response system. If you miss calibrate it and possible, lets say, boost the lower frequencies, then the reproduced audio will now be incorrect and not the same as when it was recorded.

Now, it is true that no one has to abide by these rules if they don't wish too. If you don't like what calibration gives, that is fine. But imo, it is useless to argue such a thing when your position is as subjective as it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,056 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristo /forum/post/15565311


And your post assumes I did it wrong.


I've seen that thread, and yes I know there is much more than saturation. That was a simple example. You missed the point.

And your original point assumes that "real audiophiles" believe in EQs and house curves.


Micheal is absolutely correct, calibration is about the science of what is correct and the art of compromising what you can do within the limits of the equipment.


If you believe there is an additional step to correct for your preferences that is okay, but it is no longer calibration and therefore not a discussion for this forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
One other thing to consider is that one many displays it may simply not be possible to get every parameter right on spec so you have to decide what you want to trade off.


As a specific example, if you had to trade off a perfectly flat greyscale vs a perfectly smooth gamma curve, which would you choose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,871 Posts
It seems plain to me that the original poster is looking for a way to adjust his video equipment to compensate for variations in his room. Just as audio gear might have been designed to perform well in an anechoic chamber but then needs to be adjusted yet for the listening environment of the user. Viewing environments affect how a display performs regardless of whether or not it has been calibrated by instruments to a reference standard.


I'm a bit surprised those responding to the OP haven't addressed this. There are "sticky" threads at the top of this section of the forum which address the viewing environment component. Room acoustics require adjustment of sound equipment. Viewing environments require adjustments beyond instrument readings due the human perceptual factors. This should not be unfamiliar to anyone well versed in imaging science and display industry standards and practices.


Christo, this article may satisfy your query: http://www.cinemaquestinc.com/ive.htm . Let us know if it does.


Best regards and beautiful pictures,

G. Alan Brown, President

CinemaQuest, Inc.

A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate


"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB /forum/post/15567833


It seems plain to me that the original poster is looking for a way to adjust his video equipment to compensate for variations in his room. Just as audio gear might have been designed to perform well in an anechoic chamber but then needs to be adjusted yet for the listening environment of the user. Viewing environments affect how a display performs regardless of whether or not it has been calibrated by instruments to a reference standard.


I'm a bit surprised those responding to the OP haven't addressed this. There are "sticky" threads at the top of this section of the forum which address the viewing environment component. Room acoustics require adjustment of sound equipment. Viewing environments require adjustments beyond instrument readings due the human perceptual factors. This should not be unfamiliar to anyone well versed in imaging science and display industry standards and practices.


Christo, this article may satisfy your query: http://www.cinemaquestinc.com/ive.htm . Let us know if it does.


Best regards and beautiful pictures,

G. Alan Brown, President

CinemaQuest, Inc.

A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate


"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

I could be reading his post wrong, but i don't think that is what he is attempting to address.

From what it seems, he is calibrating the audio and video within the correct environment. But he is talking about applying a "house curve", in otherwords tweaking it by eye/ear after doing a correct calibration to adjust it to the (keyword) "tastes" of the individual. Which, as others have said, he is more than welcome to do so, but then it is no longer called "calibration".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeAB /forum/post/15567833


...Viewing environments require adjustments beyond instrument readings due the human perceptual factors..."

That's pretty much what I was trying to get at, because as I understand it it, is exactly "human perceptual factors" that lead to the use of house curves for audio EQ, which are designed for achieving perceived flat response.


So the intent of my post (which has clearly failed miserably) was to question if there are, in a general sense, analagous concepts for video - adjustments to otherwise calibrated video to provide the video equivalent of a perceived "flat" response.


I'm not trying to redefine what is or isn't calibration. No need for everyone to rush in to the defense of calibration with sabres rattling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,871 Posts
Typical adjustments to compensate for varying ambient lighting conditions include: LCD panel back light level, white level (contrast), black level (brightness), gamma, etc. Otherwise, it's really the room conditions which have to be 'adjusted,' rather than the display. This would be analogous to the use of acoustic treatments in a room to compensate for audio problems that cannot be resolved effectively with electronic adjustments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,224 Posts
Video and audio adjustments aren't directly comparable, Cristo. Overall, audio is far more dependent on in-room conditions than video, IMHO. Case in point: if I take an audio system that has been properly set up for great sound in one room and move it lock, stock, and barrel to another room, the complete setup will have to be redone. However, if I move a calibrated display such as a plasma or LCD flat panel from one room to the next, when the display arrives in the other room, it is still calibrated. I may have to adjust room lighting or the display's brightness and contrast a bit, but most of the display's calibrated settings such as grayscale, color decoding, etc., won't need to change. GeorgeAB made the point in the post above, I think. Video calibration is primarily innate to the display device, while audio calibration involves the room probably even more than the electronics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,458 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristo /forum/post/15570145


So the intent of my post (which has clearly failed miserably) was to question if there are, in a general sense, analagous concepts for video - adjustments to otherwise calibrated video to provide the video equivalent of a perceived "flat" response.

Like Rolls-Royce commented, the room affects audio far more than video. The main thing that affects video calibration is light in the room, because perception changes depending on such things as relative light levels. The most basic adjustment for video is that you might have to raise or lower black-level (brightness) depending on how much light you have in the room. An ideal target for gamma, or how light increases from black to white, might also vary depending on room lighting - but many displays don't offer a way to adjust gamma.


As far as the "house curve" bit goes, one comparison for video is that some people like primaries that are over-saturated. For example the Hdguru.com review of the Pioneer plasmas say that he personally prefers the more inaccurate colorspace. He admits that the colorspace he likes is less accurate, but that's what he chooses to use.


Another similar comparison of where personal preference rules over accuracy would be a blue-ish grayscale. Many people will prefer more blue in the grayscale than what is recommended as accurate for reproducing an image. If you measure what people judge by eye as white, generally it will tend more toward blue than the standard. The room might affect this judgement, but generally TVs ship with a very blue grayscale. If people found the tilt toward blue offensive then the TV makers wouldn't ship them that way. Of course the tilt toward blue in the default settings might have to do with the expected lighting of showrooms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,871 Posts
The display itself is only one link (granted, a primary one) in the chain. Far too many people don't think beyond the display when considering calibration. Complete adjustment must take the entire signal chain and system into account, including room conditions and human perceptual factors.


Two foundational and seminal documents in traditional display use and calibration are: SMPTE RP166: 'Critical Viewing Conditions For Evaluation Of Color Television Pictures'; and SMPTE RP167: 'Alignment Of NTSC Color Picture Monitors.' They are considered companion documents and each make reference to the other. Note which document was published first.


Whether audio is more or less room dependent than video is irrelevant. Genuine electronic display alignment cannot ever be divorced from viewing environment issues and human perceptual factors considerations. When some practitioners do, either out of ignorance or negligence, consequences to overall performance can be assured.


Cristo did make reference to "ears, tastes..." in his original post. It bears repeating that, in the video industry, universal standards are implemented to preserve the program producer's vision and judgment all along the signal delivery chain. "Looks good" is authentically defined by the originator's approval of the image on a reference monitor, in controlled viewing environment conditions. However, in circumstances where a consumer's equipment and/or viewing conditions fail to provide ideal performance, compromises must be intelligently made. Defaulting to individual image assessment judgments is unavoidable in such cases. If image fidelity is the primary goal, such judgments should be made only after system calibration is attempted. The foundation for such judgments should still be experience with display behavior and image quality on monitors that have performed correctly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,185 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristo /forum/post/15570145


That's pretty much what I was trying to get at, because as I understand it it, is exactly "human perceptual factors" that lead to the use of house curves for audio EQ, which are designed for achieving perceived flat response.


So the intent of my post (which has clearly failed miserably) was to question if there are, in a general sense, analagous concepts for video - adjustments to otherwise calibrated video to provide the video equivalent of a perceived "flat" response.


I'm not trying to redefine what is or isn't calibration. No need for everyone to rush in to the defense of calibration with sabres rattling.

The essence of the issue here is what I've highlighted. The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) have defined standards for the presentation of both video and audio. These are relatively rigorously defined, and even have provisions for the effects of things like the illumination provided in-theater of exit signs.


Where audio diverges quite a bit from video is in the translation to a home set-up. Ironically, while there are defined standards for what a mastering room set-up is like for theatrical presentation, there are not equivalent hard-and-fast standards for something as foundational as speaker locations (there are something like 17 allowable speaker topologies allowed!!). There was an article published a bit ago from some people at DTS that goes into this more. Google is your friend (too lazy to pull it for you).


So, given the above, it is understandable, then, that there is a lot of confusion in the consumer space about what the target actually is. Consider, for a moment, trying to explain the concept of a decibel. Then try explaining the difference between dBA and dBC. People aiming for a "flat" response are making choices and assumptions about what target they should be aiming for without any real knowledge. For music, this is akin to the Wild West. Lots of opinions and lots of space for everyone to disagree, but lots of people seem to go looking for a fight (e.g., were your speakers voiced with a "BBC Dip" or not...). For movies, though, there is some help...


More than 25 years ago, SMPTE decided on what is known as the "X Curve" . Because of the challenges inherent in hitting a defined acoustical target with a theater that deviates even slightly from the assumptions embedded in the standard, consumer theatrical presentation can vary substantially from this standard. However, the targets used in the mixing studio are very much doable in-home (though it may not be aesthetically pleasing).


If your home acoustical environment ultimately matches the environment that the movie was mixed in, then you have a pretty good shot that the movie will sound right (barring some of the issues with speaker topology noted above). Otherwise, then it just won't. Imagine, if SMPTE mixed to a flat response, but then someone had set up a tweeter with a 6dB/octave rise from 2.5kHz and up, then a movie would still sound overly bright. Hence you have the birth of THX processing in the home. Tools like TrueRTA, RoomEQ Wizard, ARTA, etc. are your friend here.


This is a pretty big topic unto itself, and it really belongs more in the audio section of the forum, but hopefully this helps.


Hope this helps!


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
My problem with his post is that he is talking about calibrating the audio like crazy to get it dialed in... then using a house curve to get his flat response. The problem lies in the fact that if you're calibrating the audio system correctly, you're already taking in the environment variables into consideration. Hence, at the end of the day, there is no need to apply a "house curve" since it is already built into your calibrated settings. Hence my confusion when it stated calibration then applying a house curve.

This whole subject is different when we talk about video though. There, even the colors of nearby walls can affect our actual perceptions of onscreen color that a meter won't pickup. The best way to deal with this, is to design the room to be of neutral color to begin with imo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,566 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristo /forum/post/15570145


because as I understand it it, is exactly "human perceptual factors" that lead to the use of house curves for audio EQ, which are designed for achieving perceived flat response.

Other than non-linear frequency response due to volume I have no idea what you're talking about but it sounds suspicious. If you mean "what should I do if my display is in front of a brightly illuminated green wall" or if runway landing lights are shining into your TV room then those are well known issues with pretty straightforward solutions. They don't typically involve changing the display.


On the other hand invariably watching dark content in a bright room will probably motivate a change in display settings the same way you might turn up the stereo to compensate for the aircraft on that runway. Both of those solutions are sub-optimal abient light or sound sensors notwithstanding.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top