I think this would work for the reasons you have mentioned. I could be wrong but aren't camera tolerances less likely to be different from same camera to camera. I've never heard of a smartphone camera lottery. The hard part has been done, the camera rgb to tv xyY algorithm and from the preview its only 0.5 de out. It's how they will get the patterns onto the tv and how the controls are adjusted either by app or manually. Then there's the biggie will it be added to current and older tv models by firmware and what series of phones will get it and pricing.How can a phone camera function as a substitute for a profiled colorimeter? Surely the variables and tolerances would be too broad for this to be reliable.
It'd be interesting to know how close this method gets when properly checked post-calibration. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a quick, cheap calibration solution, if we could rely on the results.
Modern camera phones are actually surprisingly high quality, mine has Leica components so it's hardly a Kodak Instamatic ( warning - Millennials may need to Google).I think this would work for the reasons you have mentioned. I could be wrong but aren't camera tolerances less likely to be different from same camera to camera. I've never heard of a smartphone camera lottery. The hard part has been done, the camera rgb to tv xyY algorithm and from the preview its only 0.5 de out. It's how they will get the patterns onto the tv and how the controls are adjusted either by app or manually. Then there's the biggie will it be added to current and older tv models by firmware and what series of phones will get it and pricing.
Counting how many different phone models there is, all using different cameras, i think it will be a bit of a mess, when we calibrate we normally profile to a reference spectro, and a good one of those need to be recalibrated yearly, on top of that we have very light sensitive colorimeters, so that we can actually measure the black level, as needed to calculate the right gamma curve.How can a phone camera function as a substitute for a profiled colorimeter? Surely the variables and tolerances would be too broad for this to be reliable.
It'd be interesting to know how close this method gets when properly checked post-calibration. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a quick, cheap calibration solution, if we could rely on the results.
Pro calibrators are never going to welcome something like this, but the writing is on the wall .Counting how many different phone models there is, all using different cameras, i think it will be a bit of a mess, when we calibrate we normally profile to a reference spectro, and a good one of those need to be recalibrated yearly, on top of that we have very light sensitive colorimeters, so that we can actually measure the black level, as needed to calculate the right gamma curve.
So even as a hobby calibrator you easy spend 10000 £ on calibration tools.
Would be interesting if someone calibrate a samsung tv with 3 different phones running the calibration app, and report back, ill guess we might see some messed up calibrations, however i think this is just a tool for those who dont really understand calibration, and like to think they got something calibrated, time will tell.
Its not really important who like what, its more a question if it actually works properly, i doubt it. A pro calibration dont always equal the best or good calibration, everybody can get a ISF or THX calibration certificate and buy the tools, not everybody have the flair for it.Pro calibrators are never going to welcome something like this, but the writing is on the wall .
Well if it doesn't look worse than before, it's hardly a problem.It could also mess up a tv set, normally these tools works best if you have something to controle measure with, as you wont know if you had a error reading that messed up 1 point, or more, i seen that on lot of autocal, and users with no calibration know how often dont wonder and check, they are naive enough to just trust the app and phone, no questions asked, and think they now have something calibrated, and it might be worse than before.
I don't use any. I am satisfied that the OOB accuracy plus a few tweaks to the white balance gets me at least 95% of the way there. I don't feel the need to shell out 300 quid for a miniscule visual improvement, but that's me, others feel differently.Its not really important who like what, its more a question if it actually works properly, i doubt it. A pro calibration dont always equal the best or good calibration, everybody can get a ISF or THX calibration certificate and buy the tools, not everybody have the flair for it.
I just dont think they can controle color temperature on 2000 different smartphone models. i doubt that 2 new smartphones made the same day have camera sensors that will see it the same way.
What calibration tools do you use for your setup?
I don't use any. I am satisfied that the OOB accuracy plus a few tweaks to the white balance gets me at least 95% of the way there. I don't feel the need to shell out 300 quid for a miniscule visual improvement, but that's me, others feel differently.
I would have to buy a better phone (I have a Nokia One) to be sure of getting good results.
Could be worth it.
Yes, I have had two previous plasma TVs calibrated including a Panny ZT. The improvements were subtle, whether they were worth the money was subjective.Out of interest, have you ever had your television professionally calibrated? White balance tweaks by eye won't (indeed can't) get you 95 percent of the way there.
After calibrating by eye you may end up with a picture you're happy with. In which case, great. You're pleased with the outcome, which is all that matters. That doesn't mean you're watching an image the aligns with broadcasting and mastering standards. In fact you won't be.
I was sceptical about calibration before I had this done, after which I concluded that calibration is not only desirable, but essential if you're to get the best from an expensive television.
To drag this back to discussion of Samsung auto-calibration by phone, I agree with @Stridsvognen.
Given the range of phone cameras available (and the reality that these won't have been profiled), users would very likely be substituting one inaccurate outcome for another. They'd be skewing the image toward phone camera inaccuracies, leaving them no better off. The outcomes might even be worse.
With that said, I think more effective DIY calibration solutions will become the norm. Panasonic televisions already generate calibration test patterns, while affordable colorimiters such as the i1 Display 3 (or pro-plus) are getting closer in terms of performance to meters that cost substantially more. I'd imagine we'll ultimately reach a point where you can buy such a colorimeter, plug it directly into your TV and let inbuilt software run.
Yes, I have had two previous plasma TVs calibrated including a Panny ZT. The improvements were subtle, whether they were worth the money was subjective.
With my OLED however, with delta errors below the visible, a few simple tweaks were more than enough . I know what an accurate picture looks like , having owned two calibrated plasmas, and I would be more than happy to put up my panel against a calibrated one and challenge 10 people off the street to spot the difference. I have always been clear by that way that I am sure a pro calibrator could produce some improved charts, but 300 quids worth? Nah, not for me.
I do agree that more calibration automation is inevitable, even if not by camera phone - all this "secret sauce" cobblers propagated by some pro calibrators is just that -cobblers.