Is HDTV Calibration worth it?

[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 . . . . . .