Arguments for and against calibration

[Series1boy]

What colour temp are you running ellisdj? Mine is set to warm. I've also changed my gamma to 2.4 and it's made a right difference with more detail and the colours are more rich

 

[vonchief]

I have the GT plasma and also have a slight green tint to skin tones.

Also any panning shots with faces in I get a double image and green-pink skin tones.

Not that happy with the TV in general and I doubt any calibration will help with this sort of thing.

I certainly won't be wasting any more money on this TV by having a calibration done.

 

[ellisdj]

I would Read Post 2318 Vonchief before ruling calibration out

http://www.avforums.com/threads/panasonic-vt65-owners-thread-part-5.1784613/page-78

I calibrated using the Normal colour temperature setting as I found when measured it started closer to 6500k. Not by much tbh and it seems like the everyone else calibrated to warm so I will probably do that this time around and see what the difference is if any.

I have just ordered my new meter so again I will see if I get much difference to my old meter that apparently doesnt do dark enough with accuracy. We shall see.

I prefered my 2.4 Gamma calibration last time for everything - year it was a bit dark for some things sometimes, but the majority of tv content is over bright to start with so it wasnt an issue.

I also dont think my 2.2 gamma calibration was that great even though going from one to the other the image just got darker - it didnt really change showing that they were both very similar

Series 1 boy if you change your settings you are throwing out the calibration that has been done for you.

I think the set needs to be on 2.4 gamma in the settings for a 2.2 gamma cal and 2.6 in settings for a 2.4 gamma calibration

 

[Series1boy]

I've only changed the gamma from 2.2 to 2.4 and that's it and have locked it down. There is a vast improvement on my sky HD. I'll report back when I've viewed a few more programs including Blurays .

again thanks all for your advice.

 

[ellisdj]

Thats still going the throw the calibration out mate.

I feel maybe its been calibrated to too high gamma and you dont like it - sounds like it to me, do you have a night and day calibration?

 

[Series1boy]

Yes day and night mate.

 

[ellisdj]

Then use the night settings as they will be at a lower gamma 2.2 at least. Maybe lower still sounds like you will prefer that

 

[bigboss]

I thought you preferred gamma 2.4 ellisdj? :?

 

[Series1boy]

My tv graphs

 

[Series1boy]

Looking around various forums some say 2.2 and some say 2.4 for gamma. I just want my tv setting up properly.

i really regret getting my tv calibrated and feal I've just wasted £250!

the graphs I have revived say the tv Is setup correctly, whether that's for my room I'm not too sure on that 1.....

My advice to any one thinking of doing this would to request the isf guy to provide a detailed list of pros and cons, and also ask for reassurance if you are not happy, then they will come back and fix it.

There are no quality assurance bodies to go to if you are not happy so there is no come back for you.

 

[strapped for cash]

Looking around various forums some say 2.2 and some say 2.4 for gamma. I just want my tv setting up properly.

i really regret getting my tv calibrated and feal I've just wasted £250!

the graphs I have revived say the tv Is setup correctly, whether that's for my room I'm not too sure on that 1.....

My advice to any one thinking of doing this would to request the isf guy to provide a detailed list of pros and cons, and also ask for reassurance if you are not happy, then they will come back and fix it.

There are no quality assurance bodies to go to if you are not happy so there is no come back for you.

Ideally you should have two calibrations, one for day viewing and another for night viewing.

Usually, a day calibration uses a 2.2 gamma setting, since this allows for a brighter image to counteract greater levels of ambient light. A night calibration is typically set at 2.4, to produce a darker image best suited to viewing with no or minimal ambient light.

I'm a little confused as to what's happened with your TV. I assume the graphs are on target following the calibration, so there should be nothing for the calibrator to "come back and fix." (If you can post the link or image again, we can look over the charts to confirm that all is OK. In any case, the TV should be set up correctly for your room, since it was calibrated under your normal viewing conditions.)

Out of interest, which picture mode and settings did you use before the calibration was carried out?

 

[strapped for cash]

Just to add to the above, you shouldn't change any of the calibrated settings.

For example, if the calibrator targeted gamma at 2.2, changing this to 2.4 will throw off every other setting and completely negate the calibration.

Everything from greyscale and gamma tracking, to colour saturation and hue will be rendered wildly off target by such an adjustment.

You may not have altered any of the calibrated settings, though I'm not entirely sure based on your previous posts.

 

[Series1boy]

Hi strapped, I have day and night settings and they are both set to 2.2 gamma and I've not changed anything. I appreciate that day time viewing is hit and miss. The night viewing should be spot on but it isn't and it's washed out with green tints on the skin tones.

i used normal setting prior and looking back at this mode the colour was very blue but it was sharper and not as washed out.

msy be my expectations were too high, but I did expect a better picture.

 

[strapped for cash]

Hi Series1boy,

It sounds like a combination of factors has contributed to your disappointment.

I'm a little surprised that your night calibration was set to 2.2. Perhaps Steve can advise why he went for 2.2 rather than 2.4 here.

Beyond that, I think you're used to watching a brighter, artificially sharpened image. Such a picture differs quite a lot from a professionally calibrated image.

Calibrators typically set sharpness to 0, to avoid artifacts such as ringing and haloing. These artifacts can seem to enhance detail and depth, but in reality they're effects added by your television. In videophiles' eyes, these added effects should be eliminated. (All TVs use quite a lot of processing to compensate for technology specific limitations; though the idea with calibration is to keep such processing to a minimum.)

In short, I think part of the difficulty stems from gamma tracking at 2.2 in a darker room, which may causes images to look a little washed out. Beyond that, you're adjusting to a more accurate image.

The only other thing I'd mention is that some programmes feature unnaturally boosted colours (presumably to grab viewers' attention), while others look intentionally washed out.

In any case, it might be worth asking Steve why he opted for 2.2 for the night calibration. I'm not ISF trained and Steve is a highly experienced calibrator, so I wouldn't automatically question his judgement here.

 

[bigboss]

I think it was Mark Hodgkinson, not Steve Withers.

 

[Series1boy]

Yes it was Mark and he says this years pannys is not recomended for 2.4. This is his response in an email to me:

Re gamma – you can use either preset to get to target but after consultation with THX instructor Gregg Loewen – probably the most experienced in the World – 2.2 is what he recommends for this years Panny’s and I agree having compared to 2.4 a few times. He has the luxury of a 30 grand broadcast monitor so I am also inclined to trust him. Gamma is one of those subjects open to debate amongst calibrators and you’ll get a different answer from any you ask. There is no in-home standard, as such, just that which is used in production houses which are typically pitch-black environments. Your living room isn’t.

 

[strapped for cash]

I think it was Mark Hodgkinson, not Steve Withers.

Apologies, for some reason I'd got the idea that Steve had performed the calibration.

 

[strapped for cash]

Yes it was Mark and he says this years pannys is not recomended for 2.4. This is his response in an email to me:

Re gamma – you can use either preset to get to target but after consultation with THX instructor Gregg Loewen – probably the most experienced in the World – 2.2 is what he recommends for this years Panny’s and I agree having compared to 2.4 a few times. He has the luxury of a 30 grand broadcast monitor so I am also inclined to trust him. Gamma is one of those subjects open to debate amongst calibrators and you’ll get a different answer from any you ask. There is no in-home standard, as such, just that which is used in production houses which are typically pitch-black environments. Your living room isn’t.

Mark's of course another highly experienced calibrator; and he's stated a rationale for calibrating at 2.2. Mark's also right that there's no in-home gamma target standard.

Can you post the calibration reports again? (The link didn't work last time.) I'm assuming everything is bang on, in which case Mark has done what he was paid to do.

Just to double check, and I feel silly asking, but the settings were copied across to all inputs? Obviously your BDP is connected to a different HDMI port from your Sky tuner. (Apologies for asking such an obvious question, but it's best to rule out all possibilities.)

 

[Series1boy]

All devices including BDP, Sky etc go through my av receiver which is set to pass through and then goes to hdmi1 on the VT. So to confirm everything goes to 1 Hdmi on the tv.

I have a funny feeling that the sky should go to a separate Hdmi on the tv and not the av receiver and should be calibrated separately to the bdp? Any thought strap for cash?

I'm struggling to get the graphs posted as they are in PDF. ....

 

[mr malarky]

All devices including BDP, Sky etc go through my av receiver which is set to pass through and then goes to hdmi1 on the VT. So to confirm everything goes to 1 Hdmi on the tv.

I have a funny feeling that the sky should go to a separate Hdmi on the tv and not the av receiver and should be calibrated separately to the bdp? Any thought strap for cash?

I'm struggling to get the graphs posted as they are in PDF. ....

if you save your graphs as a 'picture' on your PC you should then be able to upload them to flickr, and from there you can copy & paste them into a post on the forum (yep, that's all a major pain in the backside but the only way I could figure out how to do it).

There's no particular reason why you should have to run the sky box into its own HDMI input on the TV, it should work fine with everything running through the amp. If your amp is set to 'pass through' with all video processing switched off then there's no reason why running through the amp would cause a problem. If you've tried swapping sky boxes and tried swapping cables then maybe try running the sky box into a different HDMI input on the amp? (In case that HDMI input is faulty?).

 

[strapped for cash]

I thought it was a long shot. You don't need a separate calibration for different devices.

I assume your AVR is passing through data from your Sky tuner and isn't set to upscale in any way? You can try connecting the Sky box to a different input, bypassing your AVR completely; though this should make no difference whatsoever.

 

[ellisdj]

I would have thought you should have your AV Receiver to to upscale to 1080p for your Sky HD Source for a starters.

Secondly I calibrated my new 65VT65 on Sat and yesterday nights. I found a thread on AVF where it recommended using different patterns to calibrate.

I did so using these patterns and the difference is quite dramatic - firstly using 2.2 gamma setting on the tv actually goes close to 2.2 gamma using these test patterns, rather than needing to use 2.4. As its closer to what your targetting less manipulation is required which is obviously a good thing.

I did the second calibration to 2.4 gamma again - I only needed to use 2.4 gamma on the tv to get close to the desired curve so minimal amount of manipulation needed again.

The results for both are close to perfect 0.5 Average DE on the grayscale and sub 1 DE for all primary and secondary colours - in essence thats perfect. Now I got very similar results graphically using the test patterns I would normally use - however the actual calibration is different. (I tested using the old patterns and the results are widlly different to using the new patterns)

So Basically this is a different calibrated image to what I am used to seeing and definately different to what I did last time with my old 65VT65

Now the calibration using the 2.2 gamma setting is very light intended for daytime - (I didnt use enough contrast for it in hind sight as it was only a test) but the resultant image at first was a mixed one. Blu Ray looked incredible, some stuff on tv looked good - some stuff on tv was looking horrifically bad.

After the 2.4 gamma calibration the room was very dark and the image was Incredible - I had on Battle for LA on film 4 - usually channel with naff picture but that was looking extremely good for TV! I tested this morning Avatar was looking cleaner and crisper than I have ever seen it before and as I tested Tranformers 3 - the light started getting up and I think the image quality was suffering a bit.

Moral of this story - the 2.2 calibrated image (which might be what you have - your calibrator might be using these test patterns) is slightly unusual even for me and takes a bit of getting used to. I was just getting used to it when I calibrated to 2.4. That is till my preference, I am happy to sacrifice a bit of low level detail for a rich sumptious image. You may need to give it a bit more time - if its looking good for blu rays and not for Sky - then its most likely showing up how bad Sky is on certrain channels.

The second Moral - I think I have pushed the boundary even higher when it comes to what this display is capable of producing.

I am still testing it out - I have not made my final decision if what I am seeign is correct - but what I have noticed is how much better the panel has got hold of the image - I have not seen any movement flaws so far (limited testing) since calibrating this way. If that remaisn the case then I will know that this method is bang on correct.

 

[lxd55]

Hi Ellis,

I've been dipping in-out of this thread, so apologises if what I'm asking has already been answered. Can you feed back on what kit you use to calibrate : hardware & software. Any recommendations for beginners to read up on the basics etc?

many thanks

lxd

 

[ellisdj]

Hi LXD.

I am no expert and dont claim to be - I have taught myself using online literature and other peoples help same as everyone who learns a new skill.

I started off with this guide http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10457

In there there is software recommended and he explains what to do using HCFR software which is free. In terms of hardware you need a metre to measure and a computer - thats it really.

I do have a metre for sale cheap and perfect for a starter but I dont know if it will work with HCFR.

Personally I would read that guide and try and get your heard around it - there is a lot there to learn and its over complex in the guide - but good to understand what your actually doing

 

[ellisdj]

This software has made all that complex stuff graphical and easier to understand whats going on - Calmanhttp://store.spectracal.com/consumer/shop/calman5-basic.html

You dont need the expensive version of the software you just need the basic level its about $150. The Metre will be about £160 for a new one or less for my used one

This is what I use - I bought the metre for sale direct from them paid for it to be shipped over from the states, I was using it but just bought a new metre this week as its faster and easier to calibrate 3D with I think - not tried yet.

I had done several calibrations using HCFR before getting Calman so I already knew roughly what I was doing but its def made easier using Calman to HCFR