[J4CK DANIELS]

OK... i know i'm gonna get lynched on here with this(probably by Phil and all the guys at AV Forums HQ!!) but anywayz.....

firstly, i DO understand all the great benefits of IS calibrating (and any other kind of calibrating for that matter DVE etc...) but ultimately isn't it fair to say that a lot of people have some kind of colour blindness (around 1 in 12 i hear...) so what looks 'good' to a machine/spyder/human/your partner doesn't necessarily look good to you. OK so D65 is the goal but in actual fact i quite like my whites to have a hint of blue about them so the temp is higher than 6500k anyway.

Soooooooo many people ask "what is the best setting for my TV" and post LOADS of different settings, some that have been calibrated and others that haven't, i;ve tried loads of them on my TV and they all look pretty different to me. Of course ambient light has an effect on this calibration malarky but just looking around my livingroom now i have a desktop lamp (incandescent) 2 uplighters (Halogen) and ceiling light (halogen) but all are never on at the same time so that can't be the definitive setting either...

The way i see it is like someone coming into my house and telling me what's the BEST kind of music to listen to (cos thats what the director intended!) but I may not LIKE that 'director'. i'm not an audiophile but do they have the same 'issue'?!

this really isn;t an argument to all you guys that have spent money etc.. on right up from a DVD with a THX calibrator for a few quid through to having someone come to your house and calibrating the TV for a few hunderd pounds but i just say to anyone that asks what the best settings are:....

"whatever looks good to you mate"

OK. let the bashing commence!! (sorry in advance!)

[Michael]

Basically, as far as you're concerned, amatuer-level calibration is all you need; no going into dev menus, no spyder, no £200 for someone to do it.

Just try and cali the tv at the same time of day that you do most of your watching, and either use a THX dvd, or maybe something like DVE.

Digital Video Essentials: HD Basics BD
Digital Video Essentials DVD

[Gordon @ Convergent AV]

D65 isn't the goal....it's only a part of the goal. Too tired to reply now......I have replied to post like this before in last few years...so will try to find them to link to...or will write reply if I have time over weekend....Will just add that the fact you or anyone else may be colourblind is completely irrelevant to calibration....and will try to explain why later.

[J4CK DANIELS]

I think i get it but surely the only major variable between how they leave the factory to how they get to your house is ambient light? if that's not the case why doesn't every manufacturer set the TV to its optimal setting before it leaves the factory!!?...

P.S. i'm not colourblind but I would just like to know the difference between personal preference and professional/best calibration settings in your (professional) opinion.

[Michael]

No, TV manufacturers very rarely set their tvs to default at optimum performance, they mainly set them up to look as bright and colourful as possible on the shop floor, miles from the best picture performance.

Case in point: I bought my downstairs TV about 3 years ago, cal'd it 2 years ago, and it still looks much better than a friend's 3 wk old tv, which he refuses to calibrate (He's afraid he'll break it).

Seriously, caling is worth it, even if you just use the THX optimizer to get it close to calibrated.

[J4CK DANIELS]

Originally Posted by Michael_L

No, TV manufacturers very rarely set their tvs to default at optimum performance, they mainly set them up to look as bright and colourful as possible on the shop floor, miles from the best picture performance.

Sure, i totally realize this but with most TV's now coming with a store mode and a home mode, surely within the HOME mode can be a setting called.... wait for it.... "BEST"?!?...

[Pulse1]

Originally Posted by Hyperboy

Sure, i totally realize this but with most TV's now coming with a store mode and a home mode, surely within the HOME mode can be a setting called.... wait for it.... "BEST"?!?...

That's what a THX mode tries to do in a display. It gets it as close to accurate as possible but you have to remember that dvd players, set top boxes, blu ray players and cables etc are all different so how does a manufacturer know which make and models you or anybody else will be using and in what lighting conditions ? As you can now appreciate it's a problem for everybody but it's getting better

[Phil Hinton]

Originally Posted by Michael_L

even if you just use the THX optimizer to get it close to calibrated.

Lets no get carried away here please.

THX optimiser is a test pattern set up, like DVE, AVia and so on. It is for setting the front panel controls only (Brightness, Contrast etc) which will get those items as correct as possible for your environment and sources. However, it is not a calibration as you are not setting the most important parts of the image - the greyscale and colour management. Those areas can only be calibrated using a good meter and software, but they are the most important parts to get correct and what I would call a calibration. Using just test patterns for set up by eye only, does nothing to correct these issues which vary from display to display.

Picture presets: Some manufacturers have introduced THX picture presets or cinema or pure modes. These picture presets are designed to try and get the greyscale and colour management (gamut/colour space) as close as possible and consistant with their displays. This can help matters and allows a consumer to get something that attempts to get close to where we want to be. It is however not perfect and even with these presets it is still essential to calibrate the greyscale and colour management.

[Pecker]

I'm very interested in the comments made here. I've checked out numerous calibrated displays before, and had my own PJ calibrated a short time ago.

I look forward to reading a few more detailed responses before I contribute, as I find some of what has been said to be...interesting.

Steve W

[J4CK DANIELS]

I appreciate the comments made here but i'm still not sure that people are understanding my point...

I have no doubt at all that TV's SHOULD be calibrated properly to get the best results.... HOWEVER:

The TV can only produce the most amount of greys/blacks/whites (colours) as it can and this is a always a 'constant' and you can't get 'more' from the TV, only adjust what it already has....

Now if someone said to me, take your car to VW (Golf GTi) and get it calibrated and it'll give you an EXTRA 50Bhp then i'd see the value in it the same way as i don't deny there would be value in 'calibrating' the gearbox so that the ratios were 'better' for me (taking something that is already there and adjusting it) rather that giving something MORE....

Basically i'm still just trying to say, I have a million things i can tweak on my LG TV (thanks to the expert controls) and I have spent time tweaking settings until i am happy with what I like. i'm glad LG offer so many settings to tweak too. But i just don't see a guarantee that if it was ISF calibrated that i would necessarily 'like' the results.... if anyone doesn't have the time or the knowledge to do the tweaking themselves then by all means get an expert to do it for you.

Once again please let me remind you i'm not having a pop at anyone who is ISF certified i'm just confused to why it would work (or not) for me!

[Gordon @ Convergent AV]

Originally Posted by Hyperboy

I appreciate the comments made here but i'm still not sure that people are understanding my point...

I have no doubt at all that TV's SHOULD be calibrated properly to get the best results.... HOWEVER:

The TV can only produce the most amount of greys/blacks/whites (colours) as it can and this is a always a 'constant' and you can't get 'more' from the TV, only adjust what it already has....

Now if someone said to me, take your car to VW (Golf GTi) and get it calibrated and it'll give you an EXTRA 50Bhp then i'd see the value in it the same way as i don't deny there would be value in 'calibrating' the gearbox so that the ratios were 'better' for me (taking something that is already there and adjusting it) rather that giving something MORE....

Basically i'm still just trying to say, I have a million things i can tweak on my LG TV (thanks to the expert controls) and I have spent time tweaking settings until i am happy with what I like. i'm glad LG offer so many settings to tweak too. But i just don't see a guarantee that if it was ISF calibrated that i would necessarily 'like' the results.... if anyone doesn't have the time or the knowledge to do the tweaking themselves then by all means get an expert to do it for you.

Once again please let me remind you i'm not having a pop at anyone who is ISF certified i'm just confused to why it would work (or not) for me!

The purpose of a calibration is not to get an image that you may @like@ it is to get an image that is accurate to the tv standards so you see it the way the folk who made the content want it to look. You may feel that when you watch the Matrix you want the @in matrix@scenes to look red tinged but that is not correct

I'm in a rush as I'm supposed to be heading off to Scotland...

1: Just to comment on the "The TV can only produce the most amount of greys/blacks/whites (colours) as it can and this is a always a 'constant' and you can't get 'more' from the TV"
Actually this is wrong as well. If contrast, brightness or gamma on your tv or perhaps even your SOURCE are incorrectly set then you will not see all the gradations of brightness available to you in the signal. This will lead to a lack of detail in the image or a difficulty to differentiate detail. Also, dependant on the display adjusting the black and white levels may allow you to gain greater dynamic range from the display.


As Phil has pointed out manufacturers do put in presets they feel are accurate. Or rather they are as accurate as they can make them for the costs they sell the tv's for. You need to remember these are domestic televisions, not guided missile systems. The capacitors in your tv will not be 0.1% tolerance parts, handpicked for consistency. They will be the cheapest parts with much wider tolerances that the purchasing department could get that month. One week they might be philips another week someone other manufacturers. These parts bed in during their initial use. To get all these tv's to remain consistent and accurate would require the tv manufacturers to use more expensive parts and then burn them all in for 100hrs BEFORE calibrating them in house. It's not going to happen....and even if it did what do you do when the default of your BD player is too saturated or has a strange gamma response because the manufacturer thought that might look cool.....

The point of calibration, any calibration, be it isf or thx or diy is to get the set to behave the way a broadcast monitor would for the format of material you are playing back. That means for HD it's rec709, for PAL it's ebu and for NTSC it's smpte-c. Film that is converted to video for broadcast or for dvd in UK is mastered on monitors that adhere to our tv standards. They are colour corrected (graded) to have the look and feel that the director intended, within the much more limited gamut of tv land compared to the wide gamut of film itself. TV is a CLOSED system. The methods of capture, transmission and broadcast are written down so that the creators of the content can be assured that if they do what they are supposed to do properly and the end user is viewing on a monitor that adheres to the standards, then they will see what is intended.

NO ONE is saying that you need to like what you then see. it's your tv, you can tweak and alter what you want. That is the point of calibration though and that's why tv manufacturers could, but most likely wont have a default super accurate setting.....

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Gordon @ Convergent AV

1: Just to comment on the "The TV can only produce the most amount of greys/blacks/whites (colours) as it can and this is a always a 'constant' and you can't get 'more' from the TV"
Actually this is wrong as well. If contrast, brightness or gamma on your tv or perhaps even your SOURCE are incorrectly set then you will not see all the gradations of brightness available to you in the signal. This will lead to a lack of detail in the image or a difficulty to differentiate detail. Also, dependant on the display adjusting the black and white levels may allow you to gain greater dynamic range from the display.

Gordon, I could be wrong, but I think you've misunderstood his point (though it might be me).

I think he's saying that, for example, take a Ford Focus. It has a top speed, maybe 105mph. Now you might be able to tweak it, and fine tune it, but it will only ever do 110mph. It has a theoretical maximum top speed, that no amount of fine tuning can change without replacing the engine, and effectively making it a different car (as opposed to a tweaked version of the old one).

Similarly, a display has a built-in best that you can reach by calibrating, but which you can't surpass. My HD73 will never look as good as a more expensive projector.

At least I think that's what he meant.

Steve W

[Pecker]

In answer to the OP/thread title, as I think Gordon has implied, it's up to you. It's your money, and you might to choose to spend it on a better display, better sources, better sound system, more discs, or more beer to drink whilst watching the ones you have.

If you want to read my experience of calibration you can check out the link in my sig. I feel the biggest problem is that I feel ISF is 'sold' incorrectly. The big selling points appear to be that (a) your colours will otherwise be wrong (as Gordon has suggested with his Matrix comparison), and (b) "Hey, look at these comparison pics!" which invariable show a calibrated image alongside something utterly horrible.

On the latter point, I fully understand why people post widely differing A/B comparisons, but I suspect it's counter-productive. In general, I've never seen a TV 'calibrated' using DVE (or similar), and then basic colour temperature set by eye (put up a set of grey ramps and flick between the pre sets to see which looks most ‘white’ with no tint), look all that bad on a modern display. Sure, your Uncle Herbert's TV may look that bad. But if you care enough to be even discussing ISF, and you've got a fairly decent modern display, and you've 'calibrated' it accurately using DVE, it won't look as bad as any comparison pic I've ever seen - not even close.

Gordon, I've never seen anyone with a red Matrix. If anyone has ever had a red Matrix after a DVE 'calibration' then it's a very rare thing indeed. The ridiculous comparison pics, and the hyperbole made in claims for ISF actually put me off getting my set up calibrated for a long time, and I know that I'm not alone. This is just my opinion, but I think more people would get ISFd if we didn't keeo seeing 'pre-calibration' pics that look a hundred times worse than our displays look after DVE.

Regarding colour, very occasionally on very troubling/difficult scenes the colour on my calibrated set up looks more natural, but for 99% of the time the actual colour looks great uncalibrated. I've switched between calibrated and uncalibrated on various still shots, and the difference is barely perceivable. The idea that a director badly wants me to see one rather than the other is close to laughable. I suspect that if I stuck up a still and asked you to leave the room and return 2 minutes later, you wouldn't know if it were the same image or if I'd swapped from calibrated to uncalibrated. I suspect Phil or Gordon might, but it's pretty much their job to stare at screens looking for even minor colour differences. But for the average punter an ISF calibration will not get you colours closer to what the director intended in any meaningful way, unless you've set your display up like a complete numpty in the first place.

The primary benefit I've found is that the picture has a better balance, higher contrast, better gamma, all resulting in a more film-like look and more visible detail. For example, in darker scenes I can see more visible detail, a little of which was previously hidden. Previously, if I'd adjusted brightness/contrast to see the same amount of detail I could, but that'd introduce a degree of noise. I now get the detail without the noise.

A secondary benefit is knowing that my set up looks as good as it can, given the limitations of the kit I own and the environment in which it's used.

So it's your choice. But from my own experience I think I'd always want any future projector I buy to be calibrated...though I'll offer a caveat. There are a couple of current displays out there which appear to come very close in THX mode - the latest Pio plasmas and the JVC HD750. Both had a slight tinge which was bettered by ISF calibration.

Sadly, as we know, the Pios are no more. However, early comments from reviewers/owners suggest the tinge has now gone. As knowledge, education, customer expectations, and manufacturing techniques and tolerances improve, so we increase the chance that these modes may largely negate the need for calibration, for all but the complete perfectionist. I may be wrong, but time will tell, but it appears that they’re getting closer with every new generation of display.

If my next PJ has a THX mode that is that good, I might not have it calibrated, otherwise I definitely will.

Steve W

[Gordon @ Convergent AV]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The big selling points appear to be that (a) your colours will otherwise be wrong (as Gordon has suggested with his Matrix comparison), and (b) "Hey, look at these comparison pics!" which invariable show a calibrated image alongside something utterly horrible.



Gordon, I've never seen anyone with a red Matrix. If anyone has ever had a red Matrix after a DVE 'calibration' then it's a very rare thing indeed.

Your colours will probably still be wrong after calibration...it's just that hopefully, if the person has done their job well, the error will be less. I make it plain to my customers that I'm not going to guarantee the difference will be massive, just that there will be one and afterwards it will be more accurate. Sometimes this difference is very significant and sometimes it isn't. The viewers perceptual ability and tolerance to the errors obviously affects their belief of how significant the difference is.

I have also never seen a red matrix...and I dont' believe I suggested that after a calibration it would be. I am suggesting that the directors of that film intentionally made the matrix itself green cast and the real world a blue cast. You may remember that when it came out many folk hit the forums complaining their tv's had a green cast...they didn't realise it was supposed to be like that. it's perfectly feasible to believe that they may have wanted to remove that unpleasant green cast but in the process they may well have made it nicer to view but they would have significantly altered the original artists intent. Again, no problem with that here.

Steve I think you actually have a good handle on what calibration is all about. I also agree that screen shots are largely a complete waste of time. ( I should really remove the ancient ones off my website).

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Gordon @ Convergent AV

Your colours will probably still be wrong after calibration...it's just that hopefully, if the person has done their job well, the error will be less. I make it plain to my customers that I'm not going to guarantee the difference will be massive, just that there will be one and afterwards it will be more accurate. Sometimes this difference is very significant and sometimes it isn't. The viewers perceptual ability and tolerance to the errors obviously affects their belief of how significant the difference is.

I have also never seen a red matrix...and I dont' believe I suggested that after a calibration it would be. I am suggesting that the directors of that film intentionally made the matrix itself green cast and the real world a blue cast. You may remember that when it came out many folk hit the forums complaining their tv's had a green cast...they didn't realise it was supposed to be like that. it's perfectly feasible to believe that they may have wanted to remove that unpleasant green cast but in the process they may well have made it nicer to view but they would have significantly altered the original artists intent. Again, no problem with that here.

Steve I think you actually have a good handle on what calibration is all about. I also agree that screen shots are largely a complete waste of time. ( I should really remove the ancient ones off my website).

Hi Gordon. I wasn't really suggesting you said there was a red Matrix or two out there - I suppose I was just illustrating the point.



The people who thought something was wrong with their TV when they put The Matrix on need educating first about film and cinema. The rest should follow.

Best wishes.

Steve W

[J4CK DANIELS]

Originally Posted by Gordon @ Convergent AV

The purpose of a calibration is not to get an image that you may @like@ it is to get an image that is accurate to the tv standards so you see it the way the folk who made the content want it to look. You may feel that when you watch the Matrix you want the @in matrix@scenes to look red tinged but that is not correct

you hit the nail right on the head... and proved my point/(cleared it up for me)

(you're both right!!) thanks for your comments!