Black Panther 4K UHD (2018)

[woodley56]

Or you can even go into the numerous forums for your model and try different settings that people post.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by woodley56

Or you can even go into the numerous forums for your model and try different settings that people post.

This is not a good idea. Panel variance is too great even among the same series televisions. What works on mine probably won't work on someone else's. In fact, it could make someone else's set look worse.

What looks accurate to one person may not even be close to accurate at all. Without the proper equipment, there's really no way to tell just how far or how close to reference your grayscale, gamma tracking, and colors are. Also for HDR, you really cannot tell how closely you are tracking to an accurate EOTF curve without the proper tools. Certain things you do own your own with little to no tools, such as setting brightness and contrast, but again, that doesn't necessarily mean you are getting the right gamma. Panels can also have variance in the peak luminance by a little bit, which can also make someone else's settings relatively invalid.

Also, using someone else's settings might look "okay" to some, but that, again, does not mean that it is accurate.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

But we can agree that pre-calibration, 4K LED offers more shadow details than oled, yes or no?

Not necessarily. One way it might possibly "show" more shadow detail is due to higher illumination. Because LCDs are backlit (or sidelit) they are at the mercy of the back light control algorithm. Say, for a FALD TV, it will illuminate a square behind the LCD based off of the peak (usually) or average, depending on the algorithm, light output of that area. If there's a spot of bright within that square, but the rest contains a lot more low level detail, it might elevate the entire square more so it is "easier" to see the low level detail.

Just as a hypothetical example, if their is a flashlight shining in one of these FALD squares at 100% luminance and there dark detail, like a hand holding a flashlight at 20% luminance, the TV will probably illuminate that square somewhere in the middle or closer to the peak luminance. That would mean You're seeing all of the 100% flashlight burst, but you're probably seeing what's 20% illumination of that hand at a higher illumination. Maybe you're seeing that 20% illuminated detail at something closer to 40 or 50% illumination. These are just relative numbers as an example.

That same square on an OLED might "show" differently for that same area because it is capable of showing that 100% luminance (arguably) but also retain that shadow detail at the 20% luminance. The detail is there, but harder to see because it is less illuminated.

This is assuming neither set is clipping detail on either end of the light spectrum.

This then poses the question, which is more accurate? In this case, I'd venture say the OLED's image is closer to reproducing the image you as are supposed to see it. There are also so many more factors probably that go into the algorithm for backlighting an LCD's image, but that's partly why I answered with, "Not necessarily."

The reverse situation can also be true. With the example of star studded space images. If there is one star at maybe 40% luminance against a 0% luminance black background, FALD TVs will do their best to illuminate the star, without diminishing the black background. However there's usually the associated sacrifice is that those stars are illuminated much dimmer than they were intended. Maybe closer to 15-20% luminance for that one star against a 1-5% illuminance black background. If it illuminated it at full intended brightness, then the result would be back light blooming, and in some of the worst cases a grayish square in the image.

Anyway, long post... sorry!!

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I wouldn’t bother then. You like your panel now so just enjoy it. Calibration will send you down a rabbit hole and it takes a lot of trial and error. It’s a terrible idea if you even have the slightest OCD tendencies like I have.

This is why I wont bother with a pro-cal. Just too expensive for something that will just bug me at some point anyways. My set looks great to me and anyone I show it to so thats good enough.

Its "user-calibrated" lets say. I did spend time tweaking the contrast, brightness, etc using basic tools.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

This is why I wont bother with a pro-cal. Just too expensive for something that will just bug me at some point anyways. My set looks great to me and anyone I show it to so thats good enough.

Its "user-calibrated" lets say. I did spend time tweaking the contrast, brightness, etc using basic tools.

You could just pay a Pro Cal instead of getting Pro-cal!

But hey, as long as you are satisfied, then that's all that matters!

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

Not necessarily. One way it might possibly "show" more shadow detail is due to higher illumination. Because LCDs are backlit (or sidelit) they are at the mercy of the back light control algorithm. Say, for a FALD TV, it will illuminate a square behind the LCD based off of the peak (usually) or average, depending on the algorithm, light output of that area. If there's a spot of bright within that square, but the rest contains a lot more low level detail, it might elevate the entire square more so it is "easier" to see the low level detail.

Just as a hypothetical example, if their is a flashlight shining in one of these FALD squares at 100% luminance and there dark detail, like a hand holding a flashlight at 20% luminance, the TV will probably illuminate that square somewhere in the middle or closer to the peak luminance. That would mean You're seeing all of the 100% flashlight burst, but you're probably seeing what's 20% illumination of that hand at a higher illumination. Maybe you're seeing that 20% illuminated detail at something closer to 40 or 50% illumination. These are just relative numbers as an example.

That same square on an OLED might "show" differently for that same area because it is capable of showing that 100% luminance (arguably) but also retain that shadow detail at the 20% luminance. The detail is there, but harder to see because it is less illuminated.

This is assuming neither set is clipping detail on either end of the light spectrum.

This then poses the question, which is more accurate? In this case, I'd venture say the OLED's image is closer to reproducing the image you as are supposed to see it. There are also so many more factors probably that go into the algorithm for backlighting an LCD's image, but that's partly why I answered with, "Not necessarily."

The reverse situation can also be true. With the example of star studded space images. If there is one star at maybe 40% luminance against a 0% luminance black background, FALD TVs will do their best to illuminate the star, without diminishing the black background. However there's usually the associated sacrifice is that those stars are illuminated much dimmer than they were intended. Maybe closer to 15-20% luminance for that one star against a 1-5% illuminance black background. If it illuminated it at full intended brightness, then the result would be back light blooming, and in some of the worst cases a grayish square in the image.

Anyway, long post... sorry!!

Ok I get it you're on Oled team
So am I otherwise I wouldn't own a C6!

[bookcase]

With this picking up so many Best Picture nominations, I finally sat down to watch my copy. I was very pleased with the PQ, but I was startled how neutered the audio was -- I finally see why people have complained about it. As for the movie, I thought it was good, but nowhere near the top tier of these movies for me. Nothing felt particularly surprising or revelatory. The acting was good across the board, so I was engaged throughout, but like most MCU movies these days, the over-reliance on CGI just grew tiresome. It removes me from the film and I walk away having enjoyed it, but feeling absolutely zero emotional connection to it.

[NoFro]

Yeah one of my biggest problems with the film is its insanely unnecessary overuse of CGI. Often pretty poorly executed CGI at that.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by NoFro

Yeah one of my biggest problems with the film is its insanely unnecessary overuse of CGI. Often pretty poorly executed CGI at that.

How was it overused?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

How was it overused?

It was used too much.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

It was used too much.

Ooh! That's the worst kind of overuse!

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

How was it overused?

jesus, you just can't help yourself, can you?

[StingingVelvet]

The CGI itself can look rough at times (underground train fight for example) but the most annoying thing is that they used CGI for scenes that didn't need it. Standing in a field? Standing on a farm? Standing in a hanger? CGI CGI CGI! That kind of thing drives me nuts, especially when the film is so pro-Africa and all that but barely shot there at all.

[levcore]

Was any of this actually shot in Africa, and if so which parts? As has been said, everything looks so artificial and green screened throughout that it looks like hardly anything was done on location anyway.

[lgans316]

Doubt if this was shot in Africa.

Wakanda appears to have the best border protection though..

[levcore]

I only ask as SV said barely shot there at all, implying that at least some of it was.

[whitestang06]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The CGI itself can look rough at times (underground train fight for example) but the most annoying thing is that they used CGI for scenes that didn't need it. Standing in a field? Standing on a farm? Standing in a hanger? CGI CGI CGI! That kind of thing drives me nuts, especially when the film is so pro-Africa and all that but barely shot there at all.

It gives the impression that the higher-ups at the studio didn't really give a crap about it, during the production phase.

[bookcase]

Was I alone in thinking the spaceships looked really fake? They reminded me of the miniseries V.

[levcore]

Considering all the complaining about the VFX here, no?

[XavierTheaterPotato]

I'm also on this Bandwagon. God damn. Felt like someone was too ambitious using the CG for everything. I will always direct to the underground train fight.