In my newest issue of The Perfect Vision magazine, they have finally dropped the "after professional calibration" results and have come to the down to earth with "user picture menu tweeks" for their test results. It's about time common folk like myself can read how they (the experts) get the best picture using the user controls only! I think either Sound and Vision or Home Theater Mag is being pressured by the public to do the same. 'Bout damn time I say. Not everyone can, or for that matter wants to, shell out hundreds of hard earned dollars for a Pro Calibration. I did it once and didn't like the results. To dark and too red. Hoo-ray I say! Katzman
Realistic Results
-
LIVE: AVSForum Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 5 Click here for details.
-
Enter to be our Home Theater of the Month Click here for details.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
To each his own.
IMHO, it's a step backwards. Very few displays can be made to look their best using the traditional user menu controls. Software and devices for calibrating are readily available at reasonable prices these days. IMO, calibration is a necessity until manufacturers come up with a system for doing it accurately at the factory. I'm more interested in knowing the displays true potential than knowing whether or not it can be made acceptable.
IMHO, it's a step backwards. Very few displays can be made to look their best using the traditional user menu controls. Software and devices for calibrating are readily available at reasonable prices these days. IMO, calibration is a necessity until manufacturers come up with a system for doing it accurately at the factory. I'm more interested in knowing the displays true potential than knowing whether or not it can be made acceptable.
Joined
·
436 Posts
I don't think it will EVER be done at the factory. These sets need to be the brightest possible to compete on well lit showroom floors. A D65 calibrated set will look way too dark in a brightly lit department store. The reason behind calibration is to get every last drop of detail out of your new set ONCE it is your viewing environment. I too agree that only so much can be done with the traditional user controls. To get that PRO look one would have to venture into the HIDDEN service menu.
Just my 2 cents.
Carmine.
Just my 2 cents.
Carmine.
Joined
·
6,723 Posts
greetings
From now on ... 2+2 does not equal 4 ... it equals whatever you want it to be ... 9 ... 20 ... 999?
Either you want to see the art the way it is intended ... or you don't. So make my mona Lisa green tinted please and let's really brighten her up too.
Regards
From now on ... 2+2 does not equal 4 ... it equals whatever you want it to be ... 9 ... 20 ... 999?
Either you want to see the art the way it is intended ... or you don't. So make my mona Lisa green tinted please and let's really brighten her up too.
Regards
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
The only way to please everyone is publish both types of results. I agree that some people won't spend for the calibration and would like to know how the set can perform with user menu tweaks. But all of the sets I have owned have been considerably improved with calibration. I want to see how a set will perform when it has been taken to its highest level of performance.
I can try to get in top physical condition by myself, but I am more likely to get in top physical condition with the help of a personal trainer.
I can try to get in top physical condition by myself, but I am more likely to get in top physical condition with the help of a personal trainer.
Well I guess I lit a few fires! Didn't mean to offend serious videophiles but I did want to point out that somebody is thinking "the average Joe". I think doing it with user controls and then checking greyscale and color temps would be enlightening, maybe even surprising!
I find it a bit amusing that anyone would conclude anything else. Why not report both? This would be very valuable information for users. Some displays can get pretty close with just proper user control adjustments. That doesn't mean that those same displays don't benefit from professional calibration, but since most people will not have it done it anyway it seems obvious that the best adjustment with user controls would be an interesting result.
This is exactly what I have been suggesting and doing for some time. When we install a set, we do basic user level adjustments and attempt to educate the user on how to make them. When we go out to do specialty calibration (SC), we start with a more detailed version of that process, measure the display as the client was using it and after the basic user level calibration (BULC). We then discuss the differences and how much farther more claibration will like get the set, and proceed according to the client's wishes. Some sets don't need much more, but that is rare. The big point is that with some education, the client can get a large part of the benefit of calibration. The can also better deal with aberant programming when on-the-fly adjustment is needed.
The thing that the ISF people seem to miss is that many more people are likely to be willing to pay to get that lower level of service. Many might not need it if the reviewers were doing a real service by providing both types of information. The need for more advanced calibration might actually be better understood if this was the case.
I find it a bit amusing that anyone would conclude anything else. Why not report both? This would be very valuable information for users. Some displays can get pretty close with just proper user control adjustments. That doesn't mean that those same displays don't benefit from professional calibration, but since most people will not have it done it anyway it seems obvious that the best adjustment with user controls would be an interesting result.
This is exactly what I have been suggesting and doing for some time. When we install a set, we do basic user level adjustments and attempt to educate the user on how to make them. When we go out to do specialty calibration (SC), we start with a more detailed version of that process, measure the display as the client was using it and after the basic user level calibration (BULC). We then discuss the differences and how much farther more claibration will like get the set, and proceed according to the client's wishes. Some sets don't need much more, but that is rare. The big point is that with some education, the client can get a large part of the benefit of calibration. The can also better deal with aberant programming when on-the-fly adjustment is needed.
The thing that the ISF people seem to miss is that many more people are likely to be willing to pay to get that lower level of service. Many might not need it if the reviewers were doing a real service by providing both types of information. The need for more advanced calibration might actually be better understood if this was the case.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
