Is HDTV Calibration worth it?

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by franklinpross

At the beginning of any CNET review of any TV they do a review on, they
say specifically that the recc. settings are subjective. This depends on room lighting, the source,personal preference . . . . actually what does that mean?

This is in some respects true. Your room determines pretty much determines what an appropriate peak luminance should be to avoid eyestrain. But it does not change what the color of gray should look like. The source and other equipment also change what the SETTINGS should be, but they don't change white, black and the colors. White and gray should not have blue or red tints to them, if you want them to be ACCURATE. If you like gray to look pink than it if perfectly okay to watch it that way. Just don't call it accurate.

Is that like saying a steak should be cooked only one way? Or all cars should be BLACK? Does it mean that just because somone went to college they are assumed to be
intelligent? . . .no . . . .of course not . . . .

We could argue about the steak. Not all cars should be black. A truly black car should be truly black, not blue-black and not gray, unless you want a blue-black or gray car, which is okay, but don't call it black. This, like the 120Hz concept, is difficult for many to understand. There is only one accurate picture. You can modify that picture to suit your preferences, but they are not accurate. You can play a round of golf with your buddies and give mulligans, and have a blast, but that is not playing by the rules. 49 + 50 is about one hundred, and in many applications, you can simply consider it 100, but that's not accurate either. Colors and grays are numbers. Only one set is correct.

imho, even though folks go out and buy calibration discs or use techs
to tune-up their TV sets . . . .does that mean that everybody else is NOT seeing the RED color they're supposed to? Or that the SHARPNESS they are living with isn't what the maker of the set wanted them to see?

The maker of the set doesn't care how you watch your set. But a filmmaker sees his/her product on a standard display, and would probably like you to see it that way, though I'm sure some don't care, as long as you pay for it. Chances are, out of the box, the red, gray, black, white and sharpness are not accurate.

What I'm saying is that this mania of calling ISF or whatever - is silly.

This is in the face of everyone who desires to see an accurate rendition of a picture. Let's just agree that for some individuals, an accurate picture is important, and for others, it is not, and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is only one way to see an HDTV picture. And that is what the buyer likes looking at. It's America.

Agreed! There are 300 million ways to see a picture. BUT, there is only ONE accurate picture.

was there such clamour over black and white TV in the 50's. Not at all.
You plugged it in, made it brighter or darker, punched up the contrast
and lo and behold . . . . . . magic.

Don't make such a big deal out of this . . . .


OK . . . . . . ready . . . aim . . . FIRE . . . .

It's not a big deal, really. It bothers a lot of people, though, that some want to invest in calibration and it bothers a bunch of others that some don't. I don't care how you or my next door neighbor watch television or movies. But I myself am interested in getting the most accurate picture I can with the resources I choose to expend. People posting in this forum ask all the time whether calibration is worth it. If you read these threads, the vast majority of those who say it is have had it done, and the majority who say it is not worth it, have not had it done. That says a lot.

I for one admit that I have not had an ISF calibration done. I have spent many hours with a consumer level colorimeter, free software, my PC and my display and Blu-ray player, and I think I have achieved a result that would be hard for a pro to make a noticeable improvement on. Every time I watch a well done movie and I see true black, excellent shadow detail for a LCD display, and when I am not blinded during very bright scenes, I consider it time well spent.

[kccarl]

I have a DLA-RS1 projector and have asked myself this question only a hundred times. The reason I ask the question is because the picture right out of the box is so nice. Deep colors, great blacks, it looks very realistic. My concern is always that once I mess with this setting that even though a pro says, wow look at what I've done, I might say, hmmm, hardly see a difference. He walks away richer, I sit down and mainly see what I saw before.

I thought about buying that blu ray calibration disk, but even then I have the same problem. So, if there are any DLA-RS1 owners out there who have a Stew filmscreens black hawk P3 grey screen in a fully light controller home theater and have gone ahead and paid for calibration, I would love to hear from you.

KCCARL

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by franklinpross

At the beginning of any CNET review of any TV they do a review on, they
say specifically that the recc. settings are subjective. This depends on room lighting, the source,personal preference . . . . actually what does that mean?

Is that like saying a steak should be cooked only one way? Or all cars should be BLACK? Does it mean that just because somone went to college they are assumed to be
intelligent? . . .no . . . .of course not . . . .

imho, even though folks go out and buy calibration discs or use techs
to tune-up their TV sets . . . .does that mean that everybody else is NOT seeing the RED color they're supposed to? Or that the SHARPNESS they are living with isn't what the maker of the set wanted them to see?

What I'm saying is that this mania of calling ISF or whatever - is silly.

There is only one way to see an HDTV picture. And that is what the buyer likes looking at. It's America.

was there such clamour over black and white TV in the 50's. Not at all.
You plugged it in, made it brighter or darker, punched up the contrast
and lo and behold . . . . . . magic.

Don't make such a big deal out of this . . . .


OK . . . . . . ready . . . aim . . . FIRE . . . .

I think you're confusing accuracy with personal preference. As has been stated many times, an ISF calibration will set your picture to accurate colors, grey scale, etc. This is not subjective. True white (or red or whetever) is defined by a certain number using a certain device. Period. Once these are set on a TV, everything shown on that TV will now be as close to what it looked like in real life as possible.

Will all people like this? Probably not. I think it's safe to say that the general population (sheeple, as I call them) thinks an overly bright, overly color-saturated, hard-edged picture is how a TV is supposed to look. Good for them. I'm not about to tell someone what they should like/dislike in a picture, but I will try to explain why that picture is not true to life.

This site is frequented by folks who choose to get more out of their viewing experience than the average joe. To help that experience, ISF calibration is recommend to those who are interested. No one is forcing this on anyone, and it's certainly not something to get into huge debates over.

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

This site is frequented by folks who choose to get more out of their viewing experience than the average joe. To help that experience, ISF calibration is recommend to those who are interested. No one is forcing this on anyone, and it's certainly not something to get into huge debates over.

Exactly!

And I think what sometimes happens is someone gets an HDTV for the first time and is so amazed by the improvement over the old SD CRT that it seems good enough. But once they get into the HD movies, start spending more money and start noticing that these movies that looked so real in a good theater look so fake at home, or start noticing that they can't see what's going on in dark scenes, get interested in picture quality.

[franklinpross]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

Exactly!

And I think what sometimes happens is someone gets an HDTV for the first time and is so amazed by the improvement over the old SD CRT that it seems good enough. But once they get into the HD movies, start spending more money and start noticing that these movies that looked so real in a good theater look so fake at home, or start noticing that they can't see what's going on in dark scenes, get interested in picture quality.

This FORUM has made me re-think my original settings on my XBR 2.

I've reset the backlight- 3
Color- 50
Gamma- off
Picture- 94

No ISF yet . . .but I am so much more pleased with the PQ.

Because it's an XBR, I'm able to push the set to deliver a very sharp,
detailed picture. Blacks are exc. Colors: so much more accurate.


NR- -off
Detail Enhancer- high
Sharpness - - 98
DRC palette - 73/23 (TV) (Time-Warner)

All this with no edges or ringing or repetative noise . . .

Thanks for getting to me . . . . . .

[LIONSFAN20]

Since my last thread got locked and I cant post this in there, i will start a new one. I am getting a little worried about having my TV calibrated. Not the actuall process, but for those of you that have had it done, will I notice a $400 difference in picture quality? I know that is a though question, and maybe I did not ask it right, but I will notice a BIG differnece right?

[DavePS3]

I suppose it depends how bad it is to begin with but having it calibrated does several things... it starts with the 'temperature' of the picture. The easiest way to describe temp' is with the whites. Back in Black & White movie days, the old carbon arc lamp projectors, had a redness to the picture. That redness, translated to about 5400 kelvin if memory serves. At the theater, the lamps give a slightly more greenish tint and a Sony TV for example, places a lot of blue into the whites to make the whites look cleaner. When you calibrate a set, it takes that overall temperature and sets it where the industry says is the best - usually between the red and greenish from what I've seen, rather than bluish. Then they work the contrast, making sure your whites don't bloom or bleed out from the edges, the sharpness is usually pulled way back as well, giving you a more 'film-like' image.

Basically, all displays will benefit from this process. Projectors, CRT's Plasmas and LCD panels and the real reason manufacturers don't do this right from the factory, seems to be money. It's a laborous process and honestly, the dealers or those certifed, preder to make some cash doing it for you. It cost them a bundle to take the course.

[LIONSFAN20]

thank you very much.

[DavePS3]

By the way... I've never heard or seen anyone NOT love their display after the process has been done. Afterwards, make notes on where all the settings are at so if someone comes in and mucks with the picture settings... you'll have some idea of where to take them back to. Contrast, tint, sharpness, color saturation... all those will have new settings after the guy is done. Is it worth doing. Yes. It's like having a new panel - one that looks great as opposed to the crappy image the display comes with out of the box.

[Blu3]

Getting mine next month

[LIONSFAN20]

well I got my calibration done. I must say I see a VERY nice improvement of overall picture quality. It is amazing to flip back to the "Dynamic" setting and to the calibrated setting and see how bad Samsung had it out of the box. That being said, knowing the difference I would say $400 was a bit to much. $300 would have been just right. I guess I would pay $100 for the things that I learned though. So there you go $400. I would recommend doing it to anyone out there that can afford it. My wife sees a difference but can not justify the $400, oh well its not her TV. haha

[Cordre69]

My TV will be calibrated in a week
I am excited!

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by LIONSFAN20

well I got my calibration done. I must say I see a VERY nice improvement of overall picture quality. It is amazing to flip back to the "Dynamic" setting and to the calibrated setting and see how bad Samsung had it out of the box. That being said, knowing the difference I would say $400 was a bit to much. $300 would have been just right. I guess I would pay $100 for the things that I learned though. So there you go $400. I would recommend doing it to anyone out there that can afford it. My wife sees a difference but can not justify the $400, oh well its not her TV. haha

Did you try a calibration by eye with DVE or AVIA, before having the calibrator come? I would really be interested in what you thought of that difference. Or the difference between an amateur calibration with HCFR and a consumer colorimeter.

I will find out. I am also concerned about the value. But I have to know. I have spent the better part of three or four afternoons tweaking the grayscale setting in my display and my Blu-ray player. I think the grayscale is pretty darn close to spot on. Color is a different matter, and I don't think I have a full CMS, so I don't know how much better it can get.

One think I wonder is whether a pro can really do in a couple 2-3 hours what took me upwards of ten hours. I have to assume a pro has a better feel of what needs to be changed and by how much from the initial set of measurements, and can achieve a lot with fewer iterations, because less trial and error is involved.

But part of the motivation of paying someone is to observe and see how they approach things. And maybe they can squeeze out of the display what I was only able to squeeze out of a combination of the display and player settings.

[LIONSFAN20]

I did try 2 different Calibration DVD's, the isf/Monster DVD and the Blu-ray DVE. I told the guy that and he did say that it is a good start, but he did make it better. It really is a cool process to watch. When he took the initial color setting, my TV was WAY off.

So the human eye can only see 6 base colors; blue, green, red, cyan, magenta(sp?) and yellow. Now these colors all have a numerical value to be true. The screen he showed me was a triangle base of where green should be here, blue here, red here and on with the other three colors. With my particular Samsung he would have to shut down and start up again after each adjustment(good thing my is LED DLP) once you are in the service menu the only way back out is to shut down and start again. This makes it rather difficult, he would basically have to make an educated guess on the adjustments back out and remeasure. I feel this is where he showed me he had the experience to do this as his first adjustment brought the colors pretty close to where they should be. He spent most of the time adjusting the magenta, making sure he got it right. The other 5 colors he got rather quickly. The only problem he had with my TV was that the blue was to..intense, I guess thats how you would describe it. No mater what he did, even try to make it more intense it would not change in numerical value. He said it wasn't to bad and that at least it was blue, not red or green.(I guess those colors really mess with the calibration)

[Blu_balls]

Just remember that just because I see a tv picture doesn't mean that someone else will see it the same way. True, there is only one way the picture was meant to be seen in the editing room, however...there are many different setting parameters that could be changed so that two totally different people essentially see the same thing. What I mean is unfortunately many, many people are (for lack of a "pollitically correct" term) color blind, or have other optical differences. So because I see a picture one way doesn't mean that my dad, wife, brother, his friend, or my worst enemy will see it the same way. All eyes are different and see things slightly different. So I agree that a calibration is deffinately worth it, but if it doesn't look "right" to you then you may need to make a few adjustments.

[Cordre69]

OK, so I had my TV ISF calibrated. I am...torn.

As a writer, I know it is important to me that the readers have the same vision of the characters and scenery that I do when I write it. So on that note, I can understand that a calibration ensures that everyone sees the image that the director had in mind.

HOWEVER!

I toggle between the calibrated setting and my own and it is black and white better with my own. The calibration makes things so muted and warm that it looks SD. Usually, if the screen goes white it is like looking at a lightbulb. With my calibration, it is like a brown tint, sort of like an old photograph. Game text is now blurry and signs and small print is no longer readable. Like it's out of focus or a lower resolution. I viewed the opening scene to The Mist (color) because it has one of the best, most crisp outdoor scenes I could think of. The small details of the grass, the textures on the clothing and wreckage...totally not visible anymore.

So I am confused now. Is the sharpness and ability to pick out the finest details in Blu Ray...NOT what the directors want? Do they want the brightness lower?

[crackinhedz]

who did your calibration??

...and why did you not ask the guy these questions before he left?

[crackinhedz]

please do not post picture settings in this area.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by LIONSFAN20

Since my last thread got locked and I cant post this in there, i will start a new one. I am getting a little worried about having my TV calibrated. Not the actuall process, but for those of you that have had it done, will I notice a $400 difference in picture quality? I know that is a though question, and maybe I did not ask it right, but I will notice a BIG differnece right?

I doubt it's worth $400 on top of your TV's price.

I can't help it...this whole calibration thing sounds like a complete hustle to me.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by DavePS3

By the way... I've never heard or seen anyone NOT love their display after the process has been done. Afterwards, make notes on where all the settings are at so if someone comes in and mucks with the picture settings... you'll have some idea of where to take them back to. Contrast, tint, sharpness, color saturation... all those will have new settings after the guy is done. Is it worth doing. Yes. It's like having a new panel - one that looks great as opposed to the crappy image the display comes with out of the box.

Are you seriously saying that anyone buying a $5,000 television is going to be looking at a "crappy image"?

Statements like these are why I think this whole calibration thing is a hoax.