AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
401 - 420 of 428 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,575 Posts
And this is exactly why there was to be an “out of the box” uncalibrated score for each tv also generated during the event so that consumers also had a reference for what the sets could do with no professional calibration.
Once you use the expert picture modes for calibration, not every set has enough extra expert PMs to do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoman94

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,575 Posts
I think asking questions about a) a well-known movie that was not previously noted for a raised black level and then showed as such on 2 of the 4 displays and b) the impact of an altered white point on the final accuracy of a display designed for a different white point, is not being defensive but rather trying to clarify legitimate issues. I think this is especially legitimate given the somewhat different results in other reviews by well respected entities.

With that said, those that know me know I always appreciate the work of the calibrators. On the flip side, and this is something that many calibrators will admit, there is a degree of 'art' in calibration. As a result different calibrators can get different results...better or worse. ;)
Ken you brought up a couple of good points and I answered them, no problem. As far as calibration being an "art", well my personal opinion is while that's still true, it's not that much as in the "old days". Now with the new calibration software and the much better calibration controls on the TVs, it's less of an "art" and more of using reference equipment and the professional and or enthusiast calibrator's experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spizz and shoman94

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,915 Posts
It should look neutral, with no cast, otherwise you should ask for a new calibration, or a refund and find a new calibrator. Competence is a separate issue.

Now, if I were to guess, that sort of result can happen if you have a colorimeter that is not properly profiled for each display type, or that has drifted and where the profiles are no longer valid. The measurements will all say it's spot on, but there will be some built-in error. This is also an issue with the whole idea of using a cheap meter and CalMan to do DIY calibrations.

With a TV that's far from accurate, a rough calibration with a cheap meter will produce an improvement. To get the kind of results you see at the shootout, all the gear used to calibrate the TVs also needs to be calibrated. Finally, with these TVs coming with such good out-of-the-box color, it's necessary to use accurate equipment to gain a significant improvement.
All i can say is that the XBR8 has limited calbration controls.. because of RBG LED use it als seem to have color drift. Before calibration i played around with settings on the KRP the green-ish cast was always there, eventhough i tried no way i could get rid of it. From what i understand one needs to go in deeper controls which probably would mean in the service menu, which plenty of pro's are not willing to do, to make some corrections in both cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,575 Posts
Have those scores been posted yet? I assume all the final scores posted previously were after calibration, but I could be wrong.
Interestingly, from my experience, all the TVs at the shootout usually have a very good out of the box calibration so they would have all looked good. Calibration these days, unless you have a panel that's out of spec, brings the set to the next level in accuracy and picture quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djoberg and sd13

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,905 Posts
Interestingly, from my experience, all the TVs at the shootout usually have a very good out of the box calibration so they would have all looked good. Calibration these days, unless you have a panel that's out of spec, brings the set to the next level in accuracy and picture quality.

This recently became a bigger topic for the A9G because one of the more well-known review sites rated it as one the least accurate TVs OOB in recent memory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,375 Posts
This recently became a bigger topic for the A9G because one of the more well-known review sites rated it as one the least accurate TVs OOB in recent memory.
You’d probably need to asses several of the same displays, OOTB, before generalizing. So that may be true of the A9G or they may have gotten an oddball sample.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,575 Posts
Interestingly, from my experience, all the TVs at the shootout usually have a very good out of the box calibration so they would have all looked good. Calibration these days, unless you have a panel that's out of spec, brings the set to the next level in accuracy and picture quality.

This recently became a bigger topic for the A9G because one of the more well-known review sites rated it as one the least accurate TVs OOB in recent memory.
I’m not familiar with that review or how they measured the set but with the Sony Master Series you have to set CalMAN to the Judd white point that was set at the factory or you will get a scan that has a lot of error if you measure at D65 which is what they may have done. In all the A9Gs I’ve calibrate the ootb calibration always looks good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,016 Posts
I look forward to the tone mapping portion of Scott article, there is no excuse for improper tone mapping for 1000-4000 nit content,DV and HDR10.



Sent from my LGMP450 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,575 Posts
rtings does a good job at reviewing but because they and others can only look at one sample it's hard to make an overall judgement call if an anomaly like ootb calibration being poor, without looking at another sample.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
I agree Sony's tech in terms of just picture processing (including scaling and motion) is better. To most, it is not $900 better when you see how close the results are. That's the point I think some are trying to make.
Some folks prefer and value Sony's Acoustic Surface Audio solution, and are willing to shell out a bit more for that. Ken Ross and other LG fans can try to downplay the differences all they want, claiming "most people" would not notice the difference, and they are correct, but the reality is, some of us video enthusiasts are not "most people". I notice all sorts of things that "most people" do not notice. I bought a C7 and A1E in 2017 and watched 'em side by side with HDMI UHD HDR splitter. The A1E has noticeably better processing, much more than "2%-3%" difference. The A1E has noticeably better motion, not "2%-3%" difference. Coupled with the much better sound on glass solution on the Sony, and the much better build quality, meant the A1E was easily worth paying a bit more for than the LG. I will admit that the LG C7 OS and remote is miles ahead of Sony's garbage A1E Android system (which admittedly did improve over time with updates), but picture and sound quality trump tricks and gizmos. So naturally, I ditched the C7 and kept the A1E. The fact that the A1E had much less vertical stripe banding on 5% vs. the C7 was icing on the cake.

Ken Ross says he doesn't watch lower quality sources, so there are no major differences for him. Well I watch plenty of lower quality sources and I am not an immature child who plays video games all day, so I could care less about LG's lower input lag.

It's nice that we have choices. For "most people" who aren't very discerning about processing and motion differences, and for children who like to play games all day, by all means enjoy their LG.

Some of us will gladly pay a bit more for noticeably better experience, which is more than the 2-3% difference in scores would suggest. 2-3% difference in scores does not necessarily translate to 2-3% difference in quality observed.

The scoring system is arbitrary and by no means scientific.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
We set dark room to 120 nits gamma 2.4 all motion off and basic picture processing like local dimming at default. Bright room was set to as bright as the set would go gamma 2.2.
Since all motion processing is off in these shootouts, Sony's superior motion implementation never really gets to strut its stuff. No wonder many are claiming there is only a 2-3% difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
In your professional opinion, why did rtings give the a9g a 7.1 for color accuracy? That’s lower than tcl and vizio...lower than incredibly inaccurate displays such as the q9fn. I really can’t wrap my mind around that one at all.
Simple. Don't pay attention to rtings scoring system. It has been flawed for years and I don't take their scoring system seriously at all. Enjoy some of the measurements they provide, a few which are useful, but take their absurd scoring system with a grain of salt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,942 Posts
Simple. Don't pay attention to rtings scoring system. It has been flawed for years and I don't take their scoring system seriously at all. Enjoy some of the measurements they provide, a few which are useful, but take their absurd scoring system with a grain of salt.

I still would like to see improve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
^thanks Jrref, I think sometimes folks on here tend to only think of max nits rather than dynamic range as you mentioned, and dark rooms Oleds simply dominate.
OLEDs do not always have a better dynamic range than LCD's in every scene. In certain scenes with some small bright specular highlights sprinkled along with blacks, yes, of course the OLEDs look more impressive. But not all HDR scenes are like this. Some are bright outdoor scenes with no blacks, and the higher peak brightness of the LCD looks much more impressive, like in the beach scene from Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. Looks way better on LCD than on any OLED.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
^luckily for me I dont need you to remind me of how that works as I have LCDs and Oleds in my home. Provide facts rather than your opinion with your responses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
^your gonna get ax murdered for that post!
Why should he? Who is so gullible as to take rtings overall scoring system seriously? I never have. I was the first one here years ago promoting Vincent as by far the best and most useful reviewer, and now everyone is on the Vincent bandwagon. rtings and flatpanels I simply can't take seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,983 Posts
^bro...that me being sarcastic...context context context. I dont seem to remember anyone asking you what you believe is a worthy review site...that all a personal preference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Ross

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,375 Posts
Some folks prefer and value Sony's Acoustic Surface Audio solution, and are willing to shell out a bit more for that. Ken Ross and other LG fans can try to downplay the differences all they want, claiming "most people" would not notice the difference, and they are correct, but the reality is, some of us video enthusiasts are not "most people". I notice all sorts of things that "most people" do not notice. I bought a C7 and A1E in 2017 and watched 'em side by side with HDMI UHD HDR splitter. The A1E has noticeably better processing, much more than "2%-3%" difference. The A1E has noticeably better motion, not "2%-3%" difference. Coupled with the much better sound on glass solution on the Sony, and the much better build quality, meant the A1E was easily worth paying a bit more for than the LG. I will admit that the LG C7 OS and remote is miles ahead of Sony's garbage A1E Android system (which admittedly did improve over time with updates), but picture and sound quality trump tricks and gizmos. So naturally, I ditched the C7 and kept the A1E. The fact that the A1E had much less vertical stripe banding on 5% vs. the C7 was icing on the cake.

Ken Ross says he doesn't watch lower quality sources, so there are no major differences for him. Well I watch plenty of lower quality sources and I am not an immature child who plays video games all day, so I could care less about LG's lower input lag.

It's nice that we have choices. For "most people" who aren't very discerning about processing and motion differences, and for children who like to play games all day, by all means enjoy their LG.


Some of us will gladly pay a bit more for noticeably better experience, which is more than the 2-3% difference in scores would suggest. 2-3% difference in scores does not necessarily translate to 2-3% difference in quality observed.

The scoring system is arbitrary and by no means scientific.
I don’t play video games either, but geesh, judgmental much?

And if you don’t watch much 480 material, then the processing differences are minimal and those who “aren’t very discerning” should equally enjoy both sets. I’ll have to tell my wife ‘I’m not very discerning’ about video quality. That should give her one of the biggest belly laughs she’s had in a long time.

And thanks for the new ‘OLED4UNME scoring system’. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,942 Posts
Why should he? Who is so gullible as to take rtings overall scoring system seriously? I never have. I was the first one here years ago promoting Vincent as by far the best and most useful reviewer, and now everyone is on the Vincent bandwagon. rtings and flatpanels I simply can't take seriously.


It’s not a matter of being gullible. Some people are newbies and their only source for making a decision is either online publications such as rtings or the BB display wall. Rtings has zero influence on my purchase decisions after owning a few sets and seeing severe contradictions between their numbers and what I saw with my own eyes. I wish Vincent still had a website with analytical data on there for all his reviews. I still find his reviews to be the closest match to my experience with many of these sets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,375 Posts
I think what we need is the Wayback Machine to bring back some of your old posts where you tried to downplay the differences in processing from your LG B6 and your older generation Sony 940C LCD, which does not even have the X1 Extreme processor that Sony introduced in 2016, the same year as the B6, and these displays of yours were not even in the same room to compare side by side. Then, next year when you got your 77 C7 you began raving about how much nicer the processing was. When it suited your argument you claimed that from regular seating distances the differences were hardly noticeable unless you pressed your nose to the screen, but then when you upgraded to the 2017 LG model, you admitted the processing was much better.

Am I the only one who remembers this? I'm sorry, I can't take your always trying to downplay the differences in processing and motion seriously between LG and Sony.

Are you sure you and Video_Analysis are not the CEO and CFO of LG?
The tenor of your posts never change, derogatory and demeaning. And wasn’t it you that just classified those that play video games as immature children? Interesting.

To help clarify my posts from the past for you, I have always insisted that many of the processing differences do become far more minimal at normal seating distances. Saying I saw an improvement going from my B6 to G7 doesn’t change my opinion nor does it make my comment about seating distances mutually exclusive. They can both apply. And having 2 displays in 2 different rooms does not make it impossible to see differences.

Give it a rest.
 
401 - 420 of 428 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top