Die Hard 4K UHD (1988)

[kingdoxie]

Originally Posted by Owenjohnston

Ahh my mistake, I've owned plenty of electrical equipment in the past that says "please calibrate your settings" so for me what your definition of adjust and calibrate is, mine has been calibrate and professionally calibrate, so I've been misunderstanding.

I read plenty of posts on the LG OLED owners forum where people paid a professional to calibrate and then didn't like their tv and it had more noticeable banding etc so that put me off.

Anyway, as long as everyone's happy with what they're paying for, which in this case with die hard 4k, I wasn't. Plenty of other catalogue releases have blown me away like 2001. Others, not so much. Like Halloween and die hard.

Some people can really get hung-up on semantics, I wouldn't worry about it.

It's like someone who doesn't play golf referring to sand traps as sand pits. A golfer would be like "huh, what are you talking about?"

[koberulz]

Well, no, because "calibrating" has a definition that's actually important, it's not just the wrong word.

To calibrate the set is to set it up so it matches objective standards. The exact opposite of what Owen is doing.

[Hellraiserfan]

So am I alone in that my digital code isn't working?

[imsounoriginal]

Mine worked back on release day. Dunno if there's some new issue that cropped up.

[Owenjohnston]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Well, no, because "calibrating" has a definition that's actually important, it's not just the wrong word.

To calibrate the set is to set it up so it matches objective standards. The exact opposite of what Owen is doing.

To me it's like an optician saying "1 or 2?" and you say "2 looks best" and they reply "Well you're WRONG, it should be 1. 1 is how you should be viewing the world, so pick 1 and get used to it".

[aetherhole]

cal·i·brate
/ˈkaləˌbrāt/
verb
gerund or present participle: calibrating
mark (a gauge or instrument) with a standard scale of readings.
correlate the readings of (an instrument) with those of a standard in order to check the instrument's accuracy.

Calibrating a TV is no different than the definition quoted above, which is to accurately adjust "the instrument" (the TV) to a standard. That standard is an industry standard.

So, what you are doing is setting it to a personal preference, which is just fine if that's what you want to do, but just be aware that it is not necessarily right and not accurate.

[kingdoxie]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Well, no, because "calibrating" has a definition that's actually important, it's not just the wrong word.

To calibrate the set is to set it up so it matches objective standards. The exact opposite of what Owen is doing.

Thank you for proving my point

And by the way, all words have definitions that are "actually important."

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Owenjohnston

To me it's like an optician saying "1 or 2?" and you say "2 looks best" and they reply "Well you're WRONG, it should be 1. 1 is how you should be viewing the world, so pick 1 and get used to it".

...no.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Owenjohnston

To me it's like an optician saying "1 or 2?" and you say "2 looks best" and they reply "Well you're WRONG, it should be 1. 1 is how you should be viewing the world, so pick 1 and get used to it".

That's not the same though. You're not calibrating your eye; if anything you're calibrating the tool (the glasses or contacts) so you can see at the "standard", which is generally accepted at 20/20.

Either something looks sharper or it looks blurrier in the case of the different lenses they are asking you to look through. It's generally assumed that people want to see "better" or "clearly" so they answer accordingly.

The point is you are wanting to see as close to the standard, 20/20 (or better), as possible and you are calibrating a tool (glasses) to allow you to do exactly that. Similarly, a TV (a visual tool) should be calibrated to see as close to the standard, ISF standards, as possible to allow you to see the director's intent as close as possible.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Owenjohnston

To me it's like an optician saying "1 or 2?" and you say "2 looks best" and they reply "Well you're WRONG, it should be 1. 1 is how you should be viewing the world, so pick 1 and get used to it".

Basically films are all mastered to look X, and calibrating makes sure you see X. Using settings that get as close to pro-calibration as possible is good as a substitute. Most enthusiasts want things to look how they're supposed to look. Others, like yourself, don't care.

I just find it amusing that people spent tons of money on great equipment when they don't care about seeing things how they're supposed to look. It's like ordering Prime Rib and eating it with ketchup.

[koberulz]

Essentially, Owen, what you're doing is roughly equivalent to ripping your movies, loading them into video-editing software, and altering them before you watch them.

If you want to, go ahead. But don't claim you're "calibrating" anything.

[Owenjohnston]

So everyone's tv displays look identical on here? Actually I am very interested in viewing things how they're supposed to be viewed, but every time I searched for best settings for LG b7 every single result was different. Every single person had a different opinion.

Also a lot of remastered movies have a yellow push or bad colour timing that rightly pisses off purists, so rather than pay for something in those cases and watch it and be pissed off too, I'd rather adjust settings accordingly.

[koberulz]

Of course it was. Because a) you were looking at opinion and b) every individual set is slightly different. Even over time, a set's characteristics will change and it will need to be recalibrated.

Get a colorimeter and/or spectro, get HCFR, and calibrate properly. Or stop saying you've calibrated your set.

[Owenjohnston]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Of course it was. Because a) you were looking at opinion and b) every individual set is slightly different. Even over time, a set's characteristics will change and it will need to be recalibrated.

Get a colorimeter and/or spectro, get HCFR, and calibrate properly. Or stop saying you've calibrated your set.

Thanks for the advice. So what's the best colorimeter? As I'm assuming they are all different as well and will give different results depending on the brand/model etc. And also how do I download/install HCFR on a tv?

[Owenjohnston]

Actually rather than buy equipment and try to do it myself, it's probably best I pay ISF (which is what I should've done from day 1 but got put off by people on forums saying they paid a professional and hated how their set looked afterwards and changed it back).

Is ISF the recommended calibration service for the UK area?

[koberulz]

HCFR is computer software, it doesn't run on the TV. The colorimeter connects via USB to your PC, then you get readings on your TV as to the colour values, then adjust from there.

I have an i1 Display Pro.

[Owenjohnston]

Originally Posted by koberulz

HCFR is computer software, it doesn't run on the TV. The colorimeter connects via USB to your PC, then you get readings on your TV as to the colour values, then adjust from there.

I have an i1 Display Pro.

Thanks for the info. How long is best to re-calibrate the tv? Thinking of just booking an ISF calibration which costs £100 more than the Display Pro, but then if it needs to be redone every year or so then obviously that's a lot pricier.

[stigdu]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Most enthusiasts want things to look how they're supposed to look. Others, like yourself, don't care.

I just find it amusing that people spent tons of money on great equipment when they don't care about seeing things how they're supposed to look. It's like ordering Prime Rib and eating it with ketchup.

I think those of us in the latter camp (which I count myself in, to a large degree) assume that because we've spent more than, say, £300 on a telly or £200 on an AV receiver, then we shouldn't have to tinker to make the film look how it's supposed to look.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by stigdu

I think those of us in the latter camp (which I count myself in, to a large degree) assume that because we've spent more than, say, £300 on a telly or £200 on an AV receiver, then we shouldn't have to tinker to make the film look how it's supposed to look.

Right, and that's a fine point in theory, but in reality, TVs are tuned to look good on the show floor under bright white lights. Beyond that, they have terrible processing features enabled that range from efforts to hide macroblocking in compressed sources to noise reduction for removing grain. For enthusiasts with high quality sources, these features are only a hindrance. Tinkering is the nature of the game for someone who loves quality, like many here do. The good news is that for the most part, it's "set it and forget it."

[StingingVelvet]

The real good news is that if you're not that picky you can probably pick movie mode (or the equivalent) and put the remote down. Typically those are the most accurate. While not a pro-calibration it will get you "close enough" to basically be seeing movies mostly as they are meant to be seen. You can also check sites like Rtings for reliable tweaks to movie mode, if required. Or ask on here in the hardware section.

In other words there are free, quick and easy ways to see a relatively accurate picture now-a-days. It's not the hellscape of 10 years ago where a TV might be widly inaccurate and unfixable without a pro.

*This all counts for relatively decent sets anyway, god knows what those $300 budget sets at Walmart offer.