[anibap]

PJ: IN72
DVD Player: Philips DVP3005
Connection: Component
Calib Ref : THX extra on Star Wars DVD

Purpose:
After looking at Gary's suggestion last night I did a simple experiment. The purpose of the experiment was to find out how different people perceive the calibration based on standard techniques and the most obvious technique - Our eyes and the way we like to see.

Subjects: 3 - Me, my missus, and my friend (who owns the PJ. I am thinking of not giving it back to him ).

Samples
1. Reset all to Factory standards - in other words Out of box. THX not used
a. All default - Everyone liked the clean picture and felt colour looks ok. Brightness was too high and was crushing the contrast. Overall impression - good but the punch is not present and needs tweaking.
b. Gamma settings- Most liked PC and CRT but felt Film had more shadow details. While changing gamma it became quite clear that different people like diff kind of settings.
c. Change Colour Temp - Default was 6500k and it was looking good. We changed it to 7500k and it looked better. Initially thought this may have happened due to my yellow walls and hence 6500k was looking warmer. Then I recalled that in reviews it was mentioned that 7500k has a flatter curve and more appropriate than the 6500k.

2. Used THX - at 7500k and gamma set to Film
a. Followed the instructions letter by letter. Result - Only 1 liked the final settings. One observation - Number of stars in dark sky was more than I ever saw.
b. From (2a) each of us started tweaking to their own taste with ample time till satisfied and saved it to presets. After doing that we had 3 presets and started off again with THX settings. Then we switched through presets.

While switching through presets, we felt that each of us like to see the image differently and only 1 setting was close to the THX settings. At this point we swapped discs (LOTR1, Spiderman, KingKong, Planet Earth, Aeon Flux, Toy Story2, Legally Blonde2 and a few others) and went through the presets again. Now we had some interesting observations.

In most discs the presets were fine based on our individual taste but with some discs we felt (randomly) that some tweaking is required in brightness or contrast or colour. We concluded that even if you calibrate something to your most satisfactory level, with DVDs and source the need to tweak never ends as quality and transfers are not always same.

Final conclusion - Again, I am a basic consumer and not expert. So bear with my lack of technical knowledge.

1. We all perceive displays in various ways and there is a point somewhere where all may like a settings even if that is not the best they would like to see and perhaps that point is a proper universal calibrated settings. If you take an example at home not all of you like the same settings on telly. There will be a fight and the remote will be ever busy

2. Calibration using standard and advanced techniques is definitely good and can take you to that point where it is universally accepted and probably you will start appreciating it though it may not look as punchy as you would like it.

3. Black levels and shadow details- Lets face the fact. We need to differentiate black levels we would like to see in a display and what we call is seeing black naturally.

This is a test. Try this one
1. Stand in a well lit room. Now close your eyes. What do you see?
a. All dark -you can't see anything
b. Now cover your eyes with your hand - It turns blacker
c. Now ask someone to switch off the light - It turns jet black.

So ideally, true black is complete lack of light which is a rare thing in any natural vision your eye sees. Even if you look at a jet black substance what you see is a very dark shade of grey. It appears blacker due to relative light reflection w.r.t adjacent objects. So the question arises why we are so excited in black depth and contrast settings in displays? There is a short and sweet answer to this.

In real world we see things in 3 dimensions. 3D is an effect which plays in our brain and we try to look for that in our vision (and also some like more colourful images). Whereas the displays are all 2D. Now to make the 2D display look like 3D we introduce so called black depth and contrast. These 2 elements are essential in creating the virtual 3D feel and also the most challenging part in PJ technology. In our experiment we saw that with THX recommendation, the image shows wonderful shades of grey and absolute black is not found and that is natural. So we changed to our presets to make things blacker. Look around you. You won’t see true black unless you are in complete darkness. So why does contrast rating and black depth matter then if you should see shades of grey? It matters because higher contrast ratio allows a device to increase the relative 3d effect which you eye likes to see. Units like JVC, Pearl, SIM2 can deliver CR in range of 10000:1 – 20000:1 (On/off) and 250:1 – 500:1 or more (ANSI) and hence you can see all shades of grey and the 3D effectas as well.

If you own a lower CR (<3000:1 for DLP and <8000:1 for LCD) PJ, at any time increase the brightness in a dark scene and you will see that some more detail is revealed but the image gets washed out and you loose the 3D effect. With PJ s having higher CR this washout is greatly reduced and the brightness crush gets controlled and you can see the details and the 3D effect remains.

In my case while using the H27 I was very happy with shadow detail and contrast and now looking at IN72 I can see how much more it can reveal and greyscale is better in the IN72. IN72 is definitely the best 480PJ I have seen. Obviously Darkship3 based units will be better and premium units like JVC, Pearl, SIM2 offers phenomenal contrast and black depth.

Everyone may not agree with me and I am not sure if technically I am correct with all what I said. I just stated what I felt. techies may correct me and provide us more information. I am eager to try out DVE / AVIA and see how it works out.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by anibap

Final conclusion - Again, I am a basic consumer and not expert. So bear with my lack of technical knowledge.

Superb post.

I feel I must comment on the bit I've quoted.

So what, mate?

You think the 'experts' see better than you?

Do you think someone got into selling projectors or calibrating equipment because their eyesight is 'better' than yours?

I'll give you another test. How many times have any of us been into an A.V store for a demo. Loads over the years, right. The 'expert' will tell you all about the latest technology, and how you'll have your TV set up incorrectly, blah, blah.

Do yourself a favour. Next time they start to swamp you with this info, say the following:

"I was very sad to hear that Freddie Francis died the other week. Do you think he was as good a cinematographer as Jack Cardiff?"

Cue blank expression from 'expert'.

Your eyesight, and that of your friend and wife, are most probably every bit as good as the expert.

Don't ever, ever let them patronise you with techie-talk. An A/V expert who actually loves cinema is as rare as a Jade Goodie fan club member in India.

Does anyone remember Linn hi-fi? They're still going, and they still make red-hot equipment. In the 1980s they ran an advertising campaign for their products, which simply said "If it sounds better, it is better".

And that still rings true today. If your projector looks better to you, the way you like it set up, then that's the best way for you to watch it. Any expert tries to tell you that your preference is 'wrong', and you should get your BS detector out.

An excellent experiment. An excellent conclusion. An excellent post.

Thanks.

Steve W

[Mr.D]

Took me years to develop an acute eye for quality appraisal of film and video imagery.

By all means setup your kit the way you prefer but I rarely see a display that's been setup based solely on personal opinion that I'd describe as acceptable let alone pleasing.

I've seen plenty of people employ the same viewpoint ( I hesitate to use the word argument) who are exceptionally proud and happy of their terrible looking display.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss calibration. I've yet to see a calibrated screen that looked worse than someone's idea of where a good image was on their display. A video image is quite fragile and calibration is all about portraying it the correct way which should maximise what available picture quality it contains. There isn't much margin for error in displaying video correctly let alone well.

You are welcome to your opinion of course , rightly or wrongly.

[phillfyspoon]

Calibration is meant to be done to get close to video standered, we can never get it perfect without a professional.

Calibration is a must for me, i have researched alot so i can get close with basic tools but most cant even get it close because the source and display vary so much.

If I go round someones house and look at there display I can see crushed blacks, overblown contrast, over saturated or off colour temp, ringing around edges because of too much sharpness, all these things are easy to spot to an av nerd and we do our best to correct them, but to the average person who doesnt know what there looking at a good picture is just bright and colourfull so even if I did correct all these problems most would just say " it looks dimmer" or "the colour isnt as good" or some other comment so i think why bother if they cant see the problems in the first place.

[Anim]

Great post mate. My lecturer always tells me that the Mark 1 eyeball is the best judge (3D CAD course). Technical bravo doesn't go far with him lol

But...

Third Party Calibration is as far as I know an attempt to show the source as closely as possible to the original. It doesn't really state that the image will be better for your personal tastes but its the image the director intended you to see.

At least that is what I think Prof. Calibrators aim to achieve

Anim

[anibap]

Thanks guys for posting your opinions.

I strongly believe in Calibration principle. It is like following or deriving from a standard. Everything in life works well if a standard is referred and the same applies to Video calibration. Millions of dollars are spent every year in display technology to come up to that standard. Tools like DVE, AVIA, and THX all are to help people to refer to standards of display settings.

I myself have seen as mentioned by Mr D many devices are not at all tweaked and they look awful and many people do not like playing around with their devices.

Take this example as a layman’s experiment.
Take 4-5 ppl to a TV store. You will see 30-40 sets running and they all look different to certain extents. Now before entering ask the TV store to switch off all TVs. Now stand in front of the TVs. Ask them to turn 10 of them randomly. Now ask the 5 guys to choose the best one they think. You will see there will be one which will get most votes. Now turn another 10. Ask them to choose again. You may see the choice has changed this time. Repeat with the rest and the choice may change again.

Why? Because your eye is trying to adapt to certain sets as standards (which you feel looks good) and then evaluating the new sets against them.

This is where calibration is important. Your eye is not that intelligent to choose the best until you see the best with the worst.

If you have followed my post carefully you should see that we started tweaking our presets from the THX settings and not from OOB. And 1 setting remained closed to THX and the other 2 were bit different and not totally different.

This shows that even though our visual perceptions are different, if properly advised, we all tend to come closer to a standard.

So even though I agree with Pecker about what I feel is my best setting is the best setting I still believe to achieve my best setting I need to refer a standard.

I really welcome calibration tools as it is a simple mean to achieve something close to a quality viewing at the same time keeping ones personal preferences. Everyone should try using them.

I am attaching a sample photo which shows the same image caliberated differently. There is one perfect one out of 12 and most will pick the one which is perfect but there will be a few who may pick some other. Now imagine if all the images are not kept together, it becomes difficult to make out which uses the right settings (other than some obvious ones . This sample is not a good example)

Which one would you pick?

Keep the interesting discussion going…

This is not a screenshot !!!

Taken from http://krasmuzik.biz/index.htm - Krasmuzic website

[Gary Lightfoot]

The idea behind calibration is that the display correctly shows what is in the source. That means you see the same detail and the same colours for example (to the limits of the display). It has nothing to do with someone having better eyes than someone else.

Data is encoded at the source (a DVD for instance), so you set the display to try and correctly decode that image information as best as it is able. That is all you're trying to do. If you want a Red Ferrari to look Orange, or a British Racing green Jaguar to look Lime, then that is up to you of course, but they won't be accurate (though you won't know that unless you know what those colours should look like). That's all it is about, and there are ways and means of achieving that if you want to. You may find that you prefer an Orange Ferrari after seeing a red one of course, but it still doesn't make it a correct image rendition.

Calibration should allow you to see everything correctly even if you don't know what things should look like (ISF calibration for example), so if you haven't been to the planet Epsilon Theta recently, seeing an image of one of the inhabitants on a correctly calibrated display will show you how exactly how they should look. If someone would rather they looked a different colour, that's their choice of course.

If you don't understand how or why these things work, then all sorts of errors can creep in, and you won't know it, although you may be very happy with the image.

Lets take History as an example. You may like a movie that is historically inaccurate because you don't know the true historical events it is meant to be depicting, but if you know the true history and see the events in that movie being depicted inaccurately, then you may not enjoy it as much, because it is now obvious to you that it is wrong.

If you don't have a tape measure, how do you know how big to make something? You may guess it, and it won't fit, but if you have a tape measure you will make it correctly and it will fit.

If you like the number '5' and want to write '2+2 = 5', then that's up to you. It will be wrong but you like it that way, even though an 'expert' in maths may point out the error and try to show you how to get the correct answer using a calculator. You might have some friends round who all like to push different buttons to get '5' or even prefer to see '6', but it still doesn't make it the right answer, even though you all prefer the different answers you get.

Sorry to give these 'patronising' examples, but I thought they might help to put calibration into perspective. It's just a means to set things up to show what the original image was like if accuracy is important to you. If you don't like it then that's your choice of course (it's your picture and your home after all).

Gary

[Gary Lightfoot]

Like the image examples anibap.

They from the old Milori (now Datacolor) website? The look familiar.

Gary

[theritz]

Sorry to give these 'patronising' examples, but I thought they might help to put calibration into perspective.

Gary,

I wouldn't call that patronising............

S.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by anibap

Which one would you pick?

Keep the interesting discussion going…

This is not a screenshot !!!

Bottom right.

[KelvinS1965]

The bottom line is if you are happy with the picture then surely that's the best you could hope for? I feel I have to calibrate everything first and find that I can relax and enjoy the picture/sound better once that's done. Thats just me...I was a calibration engineer for instrumentation a few years ago.

I'd love to be able to watch a TV and think the picture is perfect, but I'm cursed with looking for improvements in everything. I'm willing to bet that my Mum & Dad's recently purchased Sony LCD TV is still on the horrible 'Vivid' setting and yet they tell me that the picture is 'marvelous' and they even thought it was HD they were watching ( I had to correct that I'm afraid). But they are the lucky ones, because they are perfectly happy with the result...next time I travel 'up North' to visit I'll find out the truth...but I won't dare adjust the settings because by then they'll be so used to the picture that if I put it to something approaching calibrated they'll just think its looks 'dull'. Plus by then they might be blinded by full contrast/brightness/backlight.

I watched 'Life on Mars' on my PJ the other night and was distracted throughout because the whites looked overblown. My missus thought it looked fine though. It turned out that I'd forgotten to reset the controls for my PJ when fed from DVD to those for my HTPC and the DVD needs +17 contrast the PC only needs +2 (using the built in waveform monitor and a test disc). Tonight I'm going to program some presets to avoid that mistake in future.

Bottom right BTW (I could well be wrong though!!).

[ailean]

Originally Posted by Mr.D

Bottom right.

Agreed but I do 'like' the look of number 2.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by ailean

Agreed but I do 'like' the look of number 2.

Its clipped and crushed

[anibap]

Originally Posted by ailean

Agreed but I do 'like' the look of number 2.

That is an honest opinion. My wife picked that as well and there was a tie between 2 and 3 for her. She felt that 2 and 3 were punchy...

Explanation from the original Krasmuzic site

2- Contrast too high

Typical of displays set up to catch a buyer's attention, the Contrast of this display has been turned up to an excessive degree. Initially, this appears to create additional "punch" in the image, but extended viewing of the picture becomes quickly fatiguing, and possibly even damaging to the display device itself.

Note the complete loss of detail in his cheeks and nose as the highlight details are crushed.

3- Colour too high

The "Color" setting of this display has been turned up too high, possibly in an effort to make the display appear "richer" and more saturated.

One sign that the "Color" control has been misadjusted is when male subjects appear to be wearing bright lipstick instead of having natural lip color, or if normally fair skin appears sun burned

[Mr.D]

left to right top to bottom problems are :

too bright
clipped and crushed ( video levels remapped to PC levels)
wrong colour standard ( I suspect)
saturation too low
too high a colour temp
too low a colour temp
aggressive sharpening
gamma too low
gamma too high ( or vice versa depending on referring to end gamma or display)
grayscale nonlinearity
hue incorrect
correct

even without a reference correct image for comparison I would still have levelled those faults at those images individually.

[anibap]

Originally Posted by Mr.D

even without a reference correct image for comparison I would still have levelled those faults at those images individually.

Yes. The image is not a real tricky one. But serves the purpose of the post.

[Anim]

I too choose bottom right.

Although I think i've had all them pics at one point or another

[anibap]

Originally Posted by Anim

I too choose bottom right.

Although I think i've had all them pics at one point or another

Infact going through gamma presets, color temp, common controls etc will make at least 10-25 diff settings all looking diff. and most of us have gone through that.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

If you want a Red Ferrari to look Orange, or a British Racing green Jaguar to look Lime, then that is up to you of course, but they won't be accurate (though you won't know that unless you know what those colours should look like). That's all it is about, and there are ways and means of achieving that if you want to. You may find that you prefer an Orange Ferrari after seeing a red one of course, but it still doesn't make it a correct image rendition.

Gary, you sum it up better than I ever could.

I've seen some shoddy displays in my time, poorly set up. But I've never seen one so bad that a red ferrari looked orange. If any manufacturer produced something as bad as this, no one would ever stock it.

The argument "We're only trying to make it look like the director intended" is based on a lot of assumptions - most of them inaccurate.

Primarily, there's the concept that what the director shoots is what ends up on film. Colour correction of the film as it's developed and transferred from the negative probably has more to do with the colour on the film than anything the director did as the film was shot.

What about the telecine process?

DVD mastering?

The list is endless.

In short, reproducing the data on the DVD is absolutely, most definitely not the same thing as reproducing what the director intended.

Of course no-one wants to see a red ferrari as orange. But the very implication that any reasonable A/V display might do such a thing shows a real poverty of argument - a red (or perhaps orange) herring.

Ultimately, most modern displays come close enough that a person's eyes won't be able to tell the difference without a side-by-side comparison.

No-one likes a red ferrari to look orange. Such a proposal is, as you rightly point out, utterly patronising.

But not half as patronising as suggesting that someone would put up with such a thing. That is clearly not the issue, and obviously a smoke screen.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

Calibrating brightness, contrast, sharpness, and colour saturation is not particularly difficult. Ten quid on a disc and 30 minutes and you can have it as near as damn it.

We're talking about the colour of white and grey scale being D65, or how far away from D65 it is.

Any modern half decent A/V display will be close to this - close enough that the human eye will soon be able to compensate.

Steve W

[Gary Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Calibrating brightness, contrast, sharpness, and colour saturation is not particularly difficult. Ten quid on a disc and 30 minutes and you can have it as near as damn it.

Couldn't agree with you more. It really is that simple and in some cases can make quite a big difference to some displays, especially projectors.

Originally Posted by Pecker

We're talking about the colour of white and grey scale being D65, or how far away from D65 it is.

Any modern half decent A/V display will be close to this - close enough that the human eye will soon be able to compensate.

Steve W

Hopefully most displays will be good enough to not require an ISF calibration to D65, but quite often when you see some projector reviews showing how the RGBs track they do need some calibration to get them where they should be (by which I mean they are perceptibly inaccurate). It would certainly be a good thing for the consumer where that was something we didn't have to worry about though.

Gary

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The argument "We're only trying to make it look like the director intended" is based on a lot of assumptions - most of them inaccurate.

Primarily, there's the concept that what the director shoots is what ends up on film. Colour correction of the film as it's developed and transferred from the negative probably has more to do with the colour on the film than anything the director did as the film was shot.

What about the telecine process?

DVD mastering?

The list is endless.

In short, reproducing the data on the DVD is absolutely, most definitely not the same thing as reproducing what the director intended.

The director signs off on the final colour correction. A comparatively huge amount of time and effort is spent on this stage of the film process.
The DOP ( director of photography) also signs off on the final grade and usually okays the video transfer. I actually prefer to deal with DOPs as they are much more conversant in image appraisal than your average director.
Either way someone at a primary level in the film's creation will sign off on the ultimate look. Occasionally the director will even come back and sign off on later video transfers years after the films release because of improvements in mastering technology or inclusion of previosly diregarded material that never had a final film release colour grade.

I'm sorry but you sound as if you are justifying your arguments with totally incorrect supposition.

Correct calibration and adherence to standards should not be dismissed as elitist in the way you are inferring. Awareness of the various issues involved in calibrating a display correctly only ever improves the ultimate potential satisfaction that a viewer will get from their display. As I have said before video is designed to be displayed within a very narrow performance envelope, drift away from that and you are only ever compromising the image.

You seem to be making a lot of ill formed assumptions of your own in an attempt to belittle adherence to video standards because of some malformed perception its elitist. If you can't appreciate the issues involved that is your opinion , however please don't justify it by posting erronious information.

Grayscale calibration is simple to do , I can calibrate an average display to D.65 in about 10 mins to be honest. Grayscale is only a part of the process.

[The Prof.]

This is very interesting reading and I've always been amazed at what people call a "good image"..
I have a friend who has his TV contrast, brightness and colour way up, and thinks the picture looks great..But when he sees my projector image (which has been calibrated) he thinks that looks great as well!!
Never once said " It's not bright enough" or " the colour's a bit weak"...and he's not the sort of guy who wouldn't say what he thought...go figure!!

Originally Posted by anibap

One sign that the "Color" control has been misadjusted is when male subjects appear to be wearing bright lipstick instead of having natural lip color, or if normally fair skin appears sun burned

That's an interesting point you've made...
I very carefully calibrated my colour and tint( did it 3 times ) using DVE, and yet to me, fair skin people do look a little sun burnt..pinkish..
I'm even using a higher Kelvin temp. than the factory recommendations..
Is this how their supposed to look?!!..Doesn't make sense..

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Mr.D

Occasionally the director will even come back and sign off on later video transfers years after the films release because of improvements in mastering technology or inclusion of previosly diregarded material that never had a final film release colour grade.

Right, occasionally. In other words, they usually don't.

Originally Posted by Mr.D

I'm sorry but you sound as if you are justifying your arguments with totally incorrect supposition.

Surely, if the director only "occasionally" signs off the video transfer, then all the rest of the time I am right, and you are trying to justify "seeing it as the director intended when, as you've said, this will only be "occasionally".

I wasn't making definitive statements, I was giving examples. Let me put it in a more simple way. What ends up on the DVD (and we're talking about information correct to very close tollerances, as corrected in calibration) is rarely "what the director intended" in any meaningful sense of the word. Your comments about directors only occasionally signing off video transfers confirms this. So what are you arguing about?

Originally Posted by Mr.D

Correct calibration and adherence to standards should not be dismissed as elitist in the way you are inferring. Grayscale calibration is simple to do , I can calibrate an average display to D.65 in about 10 mins to be honest. Grayscale is only a part of the process.

As Gary has agreed (above) brightness, contrast, colour saturation, and then as you point out greyscale, are all easy enough.

Just exactly what other aspects of a home cinema device's image can be calibrated, other than the above, tint and sharpness?

All the other variables (gamma, etc) are effectively sub-components of the above.

I don't think calibration is elitist either, and have never said so.

What I've said is that there is a genuine snobbery abroad about the odd 1 or 2 % here and there which is genuinely outside the experience of the avarage viewer, and the average viewer shouldn't be bullied into buying into the emperor's new clothes.

Steve W

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by profsproj

I very carefully calibrated my colour and tint( did it 3 times ) using DVE, and yet to me, fair skin people do look a little sun burnt..pinkish..
I'm even using a higher Kelvin temp. than the factory recommendations..
Is this how their supposed to look?!!..Doesn't make sense..

Could be colour decoder errors ( red-push). Make up can make people look somewhat burnished too.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Right, occasionally. In other words, they usually don't.



Surely, if the director only "occasionally" signs off the video transfer, then all the rest of the time I am right, and you are trying to justify "seeing it as the director intended when, as you've said, this will only be "occasionally".

I wasn't making definitive statements, I was giving examples. Let me put it in a more simple way. What ends up on the DVD (and we're talking about information correct to very close tollerances, as corrected in calibration) is rarely "what the director intended" in any meaningful sense of the word. Your comments about directors only occasionally signing off video transfers confirms this. So what are you arguing about?

Occasionally in that new video masters are occasionally struck not that the director can only be bothered to show up occasionally. As I've said the director and or DOP usually signs off of the look. If they don't then some other experienced person attached to the production will be entrusted with the sign off . Sometimes this is the colourist who the director has trusted to grade the final look of the film.

Your insistence that video masters are not representative of the director's approved look is erronious.

Originally Posted by Pecker

As Gary has agreed (above) brightness, contrast, colour saturation, and then as you point out greyscale, are all easy enough.

Just exactly what other aspects of a home cinema device's image can be calibrated, other than the above, tint and sharpness?

All the other variables (gamma, etc) are effectively sub-components of the above.

I would have assumed someone who is so ready to dismiss calibration as "the emperor's new clothes" would perhaps have spent some time investigating what is involved.

Originally Posted by Pecker

I don't think calibration is elitist either, and have never said so.

What I've said is that there is a genuine snobbery abroad about the odd 1 or 2 % here and there which is genuinely outside the experience of the avarage viewer, and the average viewer shouldn't be bullied into buying into the emperor's new clothes.

Steve W

Somewhat contradictory your above statements.

Its ridiculous to suggest that anyone is being bullied , your bombastic attitude to this subject is frankly bizarre. People are entitled to setup their kit whatever way they like . However you are simply wrong to suggest that calibration will not produce an improvement in display performance.

If the difference calibration makes is lost on you this is more indicative of your own level of image appraisal and appreciation rather than indicative of the level of effectiveness calibration represents.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by Pecker

.

I'm sorry you feel unable to keep the conversation at a civil level.

Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with you, I will not discuss this with you further.

Steve W

I have been perfectly civil to you and I stand by all my observations as to your comments.

If you wish to continue posting in an overly bombastic manner that is entirely your perogative.

However your inability to withstand criticism of your misinformed opinions is entirely your inadequacy not mine.

[Timbo21]

I think many who own projectors endlessly fiddle with settings (I know I have).

You get a setting you feel is good, but then find on other films you feel it's not right. So many colour effects used in films these days; is it really meant to look that way?

Personally, I just don't believe that most projectors are near D65 out of the box, or even have the correct relational colour balance.

It's for the above reasons I employed the services of an ISF calibrator, and I will again.

I now get to enjoy a film Knowing that my colours are correctly balanced, and reaping the benefits from it. I absoloutely know I couldn't have arrived at that without the proper tools, or expertise.

It never ceases to amaze me how people pay thousands for their quipment, but IMO aren't willing to pay a little more, in relation to their initial outlay, to get it properly balanced. That is fine, and I don't feel people should feel obliged, or pressured, but I feel, personally, if you want to see what your gear can do...

Just to give a little analogy, I work in music, and realise many people like their music bright, and some like it duller with more bass etc. Some like to whack both the bass & treble settings up. This is all fine, but there is a great deal of variation on all our CD's, so if you have a CD which is very bright, and you've calibrated your system to boost treble, you're going to get ear splitting top-end, and will be reaching for your tone controls. If you have a well balanced system, then on the majority of discs you play you will be getting a good balance, whilst still getting variations; you then don't have to keep adjusting your bass & treble. Likewise, with your projector, you can either have it calibrated to a standard to reflect what's on the disk, or be forever reaching for your controls.

The above is perhaps not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.


T.

[jhjerpe]

Originally Posted by Timbo21

Personally, I just don't believe that most projectors are near D65 out of the box, or even have the correct relational colour balance.

Very much agree with this, my H79 looked great but when I went through the calibration process I was amazed by how much is was out by. After calibration it's gone from great to excellent... not quite fantastic yet. Saving that for a new PJ!.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by Timbo21

The above is perhaps not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.


T.

Its a very good analogy.

[Timbo21]

Originally Posted by jhjerpe

Very much agree with this, my H79 looked great but when I went through the calibration process I was amazed by how much is was out by. After calibration it's gone from great to excellent... not quite fantastic yet. Saving that for a new PJ!.

Bung a good vp on it like the Lumagen, and it takes another leap.

I don't know if your saw my thread, but if you ever need a new lamp, I would highly recommend this