Can't figure out how to copy and paste the full PDF report on the iPhone (any ideas anyone?), but the below (if they post ok) are the colour results that were included as an image in steve's follow up email.
You can see what I mean about blue being pushed massively out the box at the expense of red (I'd played around with some of the settings, but hasn't gone into the advanced colour settings so none of the first graph was due to excessive tweaking on my part I don't think).
Cant answer the 2.2 vs 2.4 question, wont pretend to debate stuff I'm not qualified to comment on, but steve's on Av forum and seems pretty open to sharing his thoughts so drop him a line?
Be interested in your feedback when I get chance to post the full reports.
Gel (if your reading this), the above is what I was referring to when I talked about 10 point adjustment to get both primary and secondary colour space correct.
You can see what I mean about blue being pushed massively out the box at the expense of red (I'd played around with some of the settings, but hasn't gone into the advanced colour settings so none of the first graph was due to excessive tweaking on my part I don't think).
Cant answer the 2.2 vs 2.4 question, wont pretend to debate stuff I'm not qualified to comment on, but steve's on Av forum and seems pretty open to sharing his thoughts so drop him a line?
Be interested in your feedback when I get chance to post the full reports.
Gel (if your reading this), the above is what I was referring to when I talked about 10 point adjustment to get both primary and secondary colour space correct.
mr malarky said:Can't figure out how to copy and paste the full PDF report on the iPhone (any ideas anyone?), but the below (if they post ok) are the colour results that were included as an image in steve's follow up email.
You can see what I mean about blue being pushed massively out the box at the expense of red (I'd played around with some of the settings, but hasn't gone into the advanced colour settings so none of the first graph was due to excessive tweaking on my part I don't think).
Cant answer the 2.2 vs 2.4 question, wont pretend to debate stuff I'm not qualified to comment on, but steve's on Av forum and seems pretty open to sharing his thoughts so drop him a line?
Be interested in your feedback when I get chance to post the full reports.
Gel (if your reading this), the above is what I was referring to when I talked about 10 point adjustment to get both primary and secondary colour space correct.
I don't know how you can do it on a iPhone too. If you do manage it I will check it out though.
bigboss
Moderator
bigboss said:
A professionally calibrated TV typically has a 2.2 day mode and a 2.4 night mode.
The 2.2 setting affords a brighter picture, less likely to wash out in a bright room, while the 2.4 night mode is best suited to a blacked out room. Each is designed to optimise black level, contrast, and shadow detail under specific lighting conditions.
It isn't really a question of better or worse, but about accounting for changeable environmental factors.
Found a big diffrence with increasing the colour and brightness ,IFC is still off ,colour temp is at normal people looked a bit sunburned at warm.my gamma is at 2.2.
why are they not given a standard calibration at the factory's and display models for currys etc just sent out in store mode
why are they not given a standard calibration at the factory's and display models for currys etc just sent out in store mode
theflyingwasp said:
TVs are manufactured (at least in principle) within certain tolerances in this regard. Perfectly calibrating individual TVs during the manufacturing process is impossible for two reasons, however:
1. This would be impractical without significantly increasing the cost of each TV. Checking processes would be time consuming. Resulting slower production rates would create shortages and, according to classical models of supply and demand, lead to higher retail prices.
2. More importantly, it wouldn't be possible to perfectly calibrate each individual television. Viewing environments affect image properties, meaning a TV perfectly calibrated in a factory setting would not be perfectly calibrated once situated in an owner's living room (or kitchen or second bedroom, if you're Son_of_SJ
).This is why (again in principle) THX and ISF certification are desirable, since a certified television should be manufactured with narrower tolerances in terms of image accuracy. This is also why it's advisable to use THX and ISF picture presets out of the box, with a view to improving accuracy further through advanced calibration by meter.
Stores also typically set televisions to dynamic mode on the shop floor. It is thought that televisions are more eye catching when set up this way. Retailers also often display models under bright strip lighting, and the greater brightness dynamic presets afford helps to counteract unsuitable viewing conditions. This isn't true of all retailers. Some independent stores try to replicate an ideal viewing environment; though most major retailers sell a wide range of items, and want customers to clearly see all products on display.
Most production is mastered at 2.4 gamma so I have read - you couldnt watch 2.4 in a mega bright room, but from normal light through to dark its perfect.
Once you see 2.4 and appreciate it 2.2 looks washed out trust me on that - I was adamanant on 2.2, but now I have a 2.4 calibration I have it on that all the time
Once you see 2.4 and appreciate it 2.2 looks washed out trust me on that - I was adamanant on 2.2, but now I have a 2.4 calibration I have it on that all the time
bigboss
Moderator
I'm getting really confused here. Mr malarky's TV has been professionally calibrated by one of the best calibrators in the country. His TV has been set at gamma 2.2 by the calibrator. So am I right in understanding that his TV has been calibrated wrongly? Which means you can still get wrong calibration from a reputed person after spending hundreds of pounds?
bigboss said:
I'd assume Mr Malarky's TV has at least two (and perhaps three) calibrated modes: one day calibration (2.2); one night calibration (2.4); and possibly one 3D calibration (I'm guessing 2.2. to coax maximum brightness from the TV).
I could be wrong, and Mr Malarky's TV only has one calibrated mode, but that would be contrary to what most professional calibrators offer.
Watching my VT65, the night calibration settings (2.4) crush black detail under bright lighting. Watching in the dark, however, the 2.4 gamma settings have greater punch and previously absent shadow detail becomes visible. As noted, it's really a question of using the appropriate settings for different lighting conditions.
Perhaps Mr Malarky will confirm that he now has several calibrated picture modes.
bigboss
Moderator
bigboss
Moderator
strapped for cash said:
That's exactly what I thought as well. That's why I was quite surprised at ellisdj's comments without knowing mr malarky's home viewing / lighting conditions.
bigboss
Moderator
Considering mr malarky posted the gamma settings at 2:50pm, I'm assuming they're his daytime viewing settings. Who knows, his living room may be as bright as a conservatory!
Son_of_SJ
Well-known member
Oh dear. We seem to have drifted away from 24p smooth film yes or no (to which I had almost prepared a contribution, but that will have to wait until tomorrow or Thursday now) to a discussion of the correct value of gamma. Mr Steve Withers did explain to me what gamma meant, but that was three and a half weeks ago ...... I'm more than happy to accept the values he determined, I'm not sure if there is one correct value to suit all environments. I don't watch in either pitch black or bright daylight, I nearly always draw the curtains if I am watching in the daytime.And when I watch at nighttime there is nearly always a little light present. Hence all the calibrations were done for subdued daylight, without separate Day or Night modes. (Just as well, since he was with me from 10am to 7pm as it was, doing only one mode per telly!) Since I seem to have more modern (don't forget my two decorative but functional 5.5 inch monochrome CRT portable devices, one in the parlour and one in the kitchen) televsions than most folk on here, it might help if I gave the pre- and post-calibrated values of gamma for all my modern televisions. Oh, while I'm at it, to save returning to the data, I'll also give the pre- and post- calibration values of average colour temperature, which should be 6500K
Gamma, Gamma, Temperature, Temperature,
Pre-cal Post-cal before after
Pioneer PDP 428XD, in my bedroom 1.8572 2.2476 7779 6473
Pioneer PDP LX5090, second bedroom 2.1509 2.1338 5740 6551
Much-maligned LG 60PZ950T, kitchen 2.3099 2.4224 5860 6485
Samsung PS64D8000, in the parlour 2.1805 2.2681 8962 6498
Just as long as nobody asks me any deep questions about what all these figures mean .....!
Gamma, Gamma, Temperature, Temperature,
Pre-cal Post-cal before after
Pioneer PDP 428XD, in my bedroom 1.8572 2.2476 7779 6473
Pioneer PDP LX5090, second bedroom 2.1509 2.1338 5740 6551
Much-maligned LG 60PZ950T, kitchen 2.3099 2.4224 5860 6485
Samsung PS64D8000, in the parlour 2.1805 2.2681 8962 6498
Just as long as nobody asks me any deep questions about what all these figures mean .....!
bigboss said:
EllisDJ is right that most content is now mastered on displays using 2.4 as a reference. There's consequently some logic in seeking to replicate this on home displays. I have no idea whether he calibrated for day and night viewing, yet decided 2.4 was best irrespective of lighting conditions. I know he performed 3D calibration on his VT65.
While a 2.4 gamma setting in a pitch black room is the ideal, this isn't representative of how most of us watch TV. I don't have blackout blinds, so much of my viewing is done with sunlight entering the room. I also watch some TV at night with the light on. Under these conditions, 2.2 works best in my view. If I'm settling in and watching a late night movie, I'll turn the lights off and go with the 2.4 night settings.
bigboss said:Considering mr malarky posted the gamma settings at 2:50pm, I'm assuming they're his daytime viewing settings. Who knows, his living room may be as bright as a conservatory!
Three settings (daytime, night, and 3D.
Daytime gamma is 2.0.
Night gamma is 2.2.
3D gamma is 2.2.
And yep, it is a very bright room during daytime (westerly facing French doors, so from 3pm onwards the sun comes right through into the lounge).
Recall Steve explaining on the day that 2.2 was the benchmark for broadcast TV, for legacy reasons dating back to CRT technology.
Just found the articles below which seems to correspond with this:
http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/World-TV-Standards/#Gamma
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/what-is-gamma-20080511108.htm
Also found the following which suggests ISF/THX calibrators are trained to target gamma at between 2.2 and 2.35 (with the author having a preference for targeting 2.25):
http://www.displaycalibrationonline.com/colorscience_gamma.asp
None if which is intended to mean that calibrating at 2.4 is wrong; I am in no way qualified to even try and have that debate, and if you have the appropriate lighting/viewing conditions and the results look good then why not go with 2.4 (judging by the AVSforums thread that BB posted its a choice lots of people make, and judging by the pictures Ellisdj previously posted his TV is putting out some cracking pictures) - just posted to show there are reasons why 2.2 is targeted by some calibrators.
Just found the articles below which seems to correspond with this:
http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/World-TV-Standards/#Gamma
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/what-is-gamma-20080511108.htm
Also found the following which suggests ISF/THX calibrators are trained to target gamma at between 2.2 and 2.35 (with the author having a preference for targeting 2.25):
http://www.displaycalibrationonline.com/colorscience_gamma.asp
None if which is intended to mean that calibrating at 2.4 is wrong; I am in no way qualified to even try and have that debate, and if you have the appropriate lighting/viewing conditions and the results look good then why not go with 2.4 (judging by the AVSforums thread that BB posted its a choice lots of people make, and judging by the pictures Ellisdj previously posted his TV is putting out some cracking pictures) - just posted to show there are reasons why 2.2 is targeted by some calibrators.
theflyingwasp said:
Apologies wasp, the gamma question has hijacked the thread somewhat.
Are you happier with picture overall now, as a result of having changed those contrast and brightness settings?
I assume you must have a mega bright room with light shinning directly on the screen for a 2.0 calibration for daytime. 2.2 for 3D and I thought you would have 2.4 for movies I am quite surprised. I wouldnt panic unless you see side by side or have the option to select the 2 you'll never know the difference.
I have vertical blinds up at the window nearest the tv - I wont allow direct sunlight to shine onto my speakers in case of sun bleaching, as the room is south facing we get a lot of sunlight without the blinds it would be horrible and the tv unwatchable I feel
In saying that I have seriously never once found myself looking to change from 2.4 gamma since I have calibrated to it.
That was not my initial intention - I initially was going to use it for dark room movie viewing only but after seeing it, its a deep lush image and I havent found it to crush any detail at all - maybe its because of the size of the screen / where I sit I dont know
I tried 2.2 this morning - its appears to have a bit more pop / brightness as you would expect but I still much prefer the deeper and richer 2.4. 2.2 looks washed out by comparison
That was one of the selling points for me to buy the Panny over the My Lx5090 - on that I could only really cal movie mode to 2.2 gamma. Someone told me to cla the normal mode to 2.4 and that I would love it but never did - that was silly of my, well lazy.
Getting a good 2.4 calibration took me ages
The first 2.4 gamma cal I did was too dark - then I realised that you have to cal all the way through to 90% whote balance and gamma - then and only after your there changing the 100% white balance and gamma aligns the rest of the calibration -- you have then have to go back and tweak all of them again. Very hard to explain that is and it took me a while to figure that out. I am sure its the same with all 10 point systems
Maybe your are supposed to do 100% first - not sure but I always start with 10%
Apologies if offended anyone with earlier comments - I was really shocked that is all.
This guy is the man when it comes to tv reviews I find - he targeted 2.4 so to me thats what I did, think he explains why
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-txp60zt65b-201305062961.htm
Back to the point on IFC - and the OP, you honestly can mess around with the settigns until you are blue in the face, you will never get it to sit right.
Think your having the calibrator in so just wait until you do mate and then make a judgement from there on the other settings such as IFC / 24fps smooth etc.
I have vertical blinds up at the window nearest the tv - I wont allow direct sunlight to shine onto my speakers in case of sun bleaching, as the room is south facing we get a lot of sunlight without the blinds it would be horrible and the tv unwatchable I feel
In saying that I have seriously never once found myself looking to change from 2.4 gamma since I have calibrated to it.
That was not my initial intention - I initially was going to use it for dark room movie viewing only but after seeing it, its a deep lush image and I havent found it to crush any detail at all - maybe its because of the size of the screen / where I sit I dont know
I tried 2.2 this morning - its appears to have a bit more pop / brightness as you would expect but I still much prefer the deeper and richer 2.4. 2.2 looks washed out by comparison
That was one of the selling points for me to buy the Panny over the My Lx5090 - on that I could only really cal movie mode to 2.2 gamma. Someone told me to cla the normal mode to 2.4 and that I would love it but never did - that was silly of my, well lazy.
Getting a good 2.4 calibration took me ages
The first 2.4 gamma cal I did was too dark - then I realised that you have to cal all the way through to 90% whote balance and gamma - then and only after your there changing the 100% white balance and gamma aligns the rest of the calibration -- you have then have to go back and tweak all of them again. Very hard to explain that is and it took me a while to figure that out. I am sure its the same with all 10 point systems
Maybe your are supposed to do 100% first - not sure but I always start with 10%
Apologies if offended anyone with earlier comments - I was really shocked that is all.
This guy is the man when it comes to tv reviews I find - he targeted 2.4 so to me thats what I did, think he explains why
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-txp60zt65b-201305062961.htm
Back to the point on IFC - and the OP, you honestly can mess around with the settigns until you are blue in the face, you will never get it to sit right.
Think your having the calibrator in so just wait until you do mate and then make a judgement from there on the other settings such as IFC / 24fps smooth etc.
ellisdj said:
Hi Ellis, no offence taken here so no worries. It's actually a really interesting subject we've stumbled onto here, have been doing further reading since my earlier posts and this is a subject around which there is very little consensus, indeed "2.2 vs 2.4" is a debate that seems to have been waging with occasional furiousity on some formed for many years now!
Key points to highlight based on what I've read so far are:
A) there is no current official industry standard for what gamma level should be targeted by studios when mastering content, or by manufacturers when building hardware.
B) 2.2 is the 'unofficial' benchmark, but this is purely a result of the legacy of how gamma came about, ie the inherent flaw in CRT technology that produced a non-linear brightness curve (which TV studios had to compensate for by artificially introducing an equal, but opposite gamma curve into their content).
C) as a result, and due to the relatively large numbers of CRT sets still in circulation, 2.2 is still the level that studios assume people will be watching on their home TV's.
D) US TV studios apparently use 2.22 on their mastering monitors, where-as in the UK 2.35 is used (another unhelpful example of inconsistent standards, as per 50hz vs 60hz).
E) most film studios seem reluctant to confirm what gamma level they target when mastering BluRay content (which will be different to cinema, which again has no universal standard but is generally higher, circa 2.8. ).
F) the EBU are advocating the adoption of 2.35 as a universal standard, to address the consistency issues.
G) the Japanese are apparently advocating 2.4, and for the first time this year some Sony TV's (eg the w905) target gamma at 2.4 in their out-the-box settings.
H. ) opponents point out that due to the legacy of CRT driven 2.2, adopting a higher level as standard will mean new content will not be mastered at the optimum level for viewing on legacy hardware, and visa-versa, during what would be a 5 year transition period as people go through the upgrade cycle.
I) 2.2 seems generally accepted as the ideal 'compromise' setting for mixed viewing conditions, where-as 2.35-2.4 is the purist setting for "black-out" viewing conditions. Some therefore argue for targeting 2.3, which our sets don't offer as an option... :wall:
J. ) ironically the while debate is arguably pointless as gamma is an anachronism leftover from CRT days; its an artificially introduced factor designed to compensate for an inherent flaw in a panel technology most people no longer use; modern displays have a linear brightness response so in an all-digital media chain there is technically no need for 'gamma'; the studios are introducing it to compensate for a flaw in CRT sets that most of us aren't using, and then our plasma/LED sets are then trying to recreate that flaw to compensate for what the studios have introduced into the image - madness when you stop to think about it!?!
I agree re 2.0 on the daytime setting, it lacks punch so for the limited viewing time I've had since having it done I've had it set to "nighttime" all the time.
Sorry for banging on, find the whole subject fascinating but appreciate I'm probably boring the pants of everyone else by now! :silenced:
These sets allow for any target gamma mate - the 2.6 2.4 and 2..2 settings are just overall shifts, its the rest of the options that allow you to set the gamma you want so 2.3 is easily doable and somone of av forums suggested it for the vt65 as they felt 2.2 was too light and 2.4 was too dark.
Getting a good cal @ 2.4 is not easy, it took me a couple of goes and a good 3-4 hours - many older sets wont be able to do it accurately, especially if you only have 2 point white balance - i.e. legacy compatibility, but the newer ones can do it very nearly spot on .... bonus!!
Getting a good cal @ 2.4 is not easy, it took me a couple of goes and a good 3-4 hours - many older sets wont be able to do it accurately, especially if you only have 2 point white balance - i.e. legacy compatibility, but the newer ones can do it very nearly spot on .... bonus!!
The last point I stumbled across (and then I promise I'll shut up!) is that. 2.4 cal can be problematic for people whose eyes have above average sensitivity to light, especially if their TV has a high peak luminance. The human eye's level of dilation is driven by the brightest part of the image they're looking at, so if a TV is outputting high luminescence in part of the image the viewers eyes will respond to that, and if the persons eyes are sensitive they'll contract to a point where shadow detail is lost on a 2.4 cal.
Completely subjective point, as how the hell do any of us know how sensitive our eyes are? But worth throwing in for good measure.
Completely subjective point, as how the hell do any of us know how sensitive our eyes are? But worth throwing in for good measure.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram