Is it wrong to use a slightly cooler color temp

Greetings


As mentioned ... depends on what gear you used on what type of display technology. Maybe the gear is off or it just doesn't work right on that tech.


But assuming all is in order ... then you really need to read the thread about display calibration fundamentals ... stickied up top. It explains why we calibrate.


If the goal is not to get to image accuracy ... but to suit your taste ... then go do whatever you want. You are essentially asking to have 2+2= 9 for yourself ... rather than "4" because you don't think "4" looks right to you.


It's your display. Just don't go out there charging people to do what you do and tell them their display is ISF calibrated or THX calibrated. It's a Murilo calibration.


regards

Also some cable stations or more specific the cable boxes have a weird idea of why there are established standards based on scientific measurments of human vision.


The idea is that the signal is supposed to use a standard for color reproduction such as bt.601 or bt.709. These standards describe what the exact colors are for red,green,blue and white are.


Either because of cheap components used or manufacturer settings we often get displays or source components that don't output colors according to the established standards.


Sometime you can calibrate a display to compensate for these issues, other times either because of limited controls or designs even though you calibrate a proper greyscale you still have inaccurate colors or weird fleshtones.


I think you get much better results when trying to view a dvd or blu-ray on a calibrated display than say broadcast or cable since atleast on a pressed disc the color information is mastered to a standard and will not diviate from disc to disc. TV stations on the other hand are retransmitted and recompressed and alterered many time to get to you for display. On top of that each station might be slightly off in its colors versus the next.


In the end the standards are there for a reason and that is to reprodce accurate pictures not good looking pictures, it is up to the people who make the content to ensure that the pictures are captured in a manner that will look good when displayed according to the established standards and that is why we calibrate, so that we get a accurate picture based on what the creators envisioned. It is just sometimes, (way to often if you ask me) that gets screwed up in a effort to make displays look "good" at the store so we get red push to make flesh look "good" on a display with its greyscale set too high(towards blue.) Cheers



Quote:
Originally Posted by Murilo /forum/post/14120755


After setting my display to D65 calibration, I really found skin tones just a slight bit to red for me. Maybe its cause Im pale skinned, but it really bothers me to see red in faces, so I adjusted the color temp to be a bit cooler, is it wrong or innacurate to have a slightly cooler color temp then D65.

Click to expand...

It's not "wrong" to use some other setting, but it IS less accurate. No question about that.


But the real issue here is that you seem to be assuming your 6500K calibration is accurate and that accurate for your display is fleshtones that are too red. I'm not sure that's the right assessment. There are errors you can make when setting the color temp to 6500K that will make fleshtones look too red. There are also other things characteristic to the display that will cause fleshtones to be too red (like red push mentioned by others). There could be other settings in the User Menu that are causing fleshtones to be too red.


How did you set your display to 6500K? Did you use a good meter and a test disc or signal generator? Or did you simply pick a User Menu setting from a list of choices like warm, neutral, and cool because you read somewhere that the "warm" setting was closest to 6500K? If it was the latter, that could mean that "warm" really measures 5600-5900K but that is closer to 6500K than "normal" which measures 8000K or more. That wouldn't mean "warm" was accurate, only that it was closer to 6500K than any other setting.


My take on calibration is that you need to live with accurate for a while before you can make a decision about whether you like a less accurate setting better. When you are used to a picture that is too blue from watching TV that way for many years, the first time you see a display that's calibrated to 6500K, it may not look right to you even though it is accurate. 2 weeks later after watching a 6500K calibrated display, changing back to your old "too blue" setting ought to look pretty obviously bad to you. If that too blue picture still seems better to you after a couple of weeks, feel free to tweak the display as you see fit, but try to do it in a way where you can return to the "accurate" image for reference without too much trouble. It's always nice to have an accurate setting to use as a comparison, even if you do end up preferring changing some settings.

Murilo,


Please exercise a little common courtesy and answer at least the first 3 questions posed to you in the second post. All we can do is speculate about the nature of your difficulty, until we know some specifics. Are you satisfied with guesswork and assumptions? I'm still waiting to hear at least what your display is. It's so much easier to help someone if they are willing to carry on a dialog.


Best regards and beautiful pictures,

G. Alan Brown, President

CinemaQuest, Inc.


"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"