Arguments for and against calibration

[ellisdj]

Although we are viewing this through probably uncalibrated PC monitors, you sort of get the idea. Calibrated by me my Panasonic 55"ST60:

I have just thought - colour looks very strong.

After seeing Bumptious calibrate a VT witgh colour set on minus 2 or 48 (2 down from the middle) I found I got better results to the eye. Crisper picture and more natural colouring especiaily on faces. It would mean calibrating again for you - but I think you should give it a try.

Look at faces with colour -2 - when you do it - might help you get better results 😉

 

[tele1962]

Remember again this is a picture of a TV screen so maybe not a good idea to compare colour etc. I chose that particular pic for it's stand out colours.

I have the equipment to perform full calibrations and the setting for colour on my TV is the default setting (as it is for most Panasonics). Did Steve (Bumtious) provide you with charts for your calibration?

 

[ellisdj]

I did the calibration myself - and got the colours right - however as I explained reducing the colour by 2 I feel has improved the overall image - crisper with better skin tones. I was going back and fourth between the 2 and -2 colour was definately better.

It was just a suggestion to try.

 

[bigboss]

There's an interesting comment posted on another thread ellisdj. What are your thoughts on it?

Well as a qualified colour physicist of over 30 years I certainly know what Delta E is, and it is a mathematical fudge. There is as yet no 100% accurate colour difference formula. All these calculations are based on mathematical derivations for so called ideal observers, of which you, I, and anybody else fail to be. What pleases Joe`s colour perception will not satisfy Sam`s ( Note males suffer colour deficiency far more than females- who just carry the faulty gene). Factors as mundane as stress, alcohol levels, general well being, sex and age, and of course ambient lighting, all affect our colour perceptions. So measuring a screen to standarised mathematical settings does not actually mean anything in the real world, except of course they are all standardised. The ultimate customer is your own eye and I am afraid that is unique and not standardised in any way.

 

[tele1962]

To be honest it shows a lack of even a basic understanding of TV calibration. :?

 

[strapped for cash]

That's why a "night" calibration is performed in a completely black room.

Admittedly a "day" mode is subject to greater variables in terms of ambient light.

As you know, the objective is to replicate, as closely as possible, the industry HD mastering and broadcasting standard.

Of course, there's some room for negotiation, but calibration by meter (assuming the calibrator knows what they're doing and their equipment is accurate) notably improves image depth and detail, in a way that can't be achieved by eye.

EDIT: for the sake of clarity, I was responding to BB's post.

 

[bigboss]

To be honest it shows a lack of even a basic understanding of TV calibration. :?

Maybe, but it raises an interesting point, perhaps explaining why a particular calibration which suits you may not suit me at all. :?

 

[ellisdj]

Dont get me wrong I know you adjust the colour in the CMS - and that should set the colour not the overall saturation option of colour.

Thats exactly what I thought as well - It will make no difference - I had adjusted the colour to very low DE's for primary and secondary with colour at default

My cousin has the same set - he was the one suggesting it to be better colour -2

However I tried it back and fourth back and fourth and for whatever reason colour -2 was more natural - with better definition of skin tones the most obvious - normal 50 on the colour even after a cal looked oversaturated. Skin tones were less defined.

A cal with -2 colour has given me the best overall image yet from my display - thats my opinion on it - it turned out to be the best cal for DE all round grayscale and colour

Maybe I am wrong, I am just saying my experience of it. Dont claim to be an expert just a very enthusiastic enthusiast

Edited: were only talking a small difference but enough to warrant me calibrating again I felt.

 

[tele1962]

Me to.😉

 

[Series1boy]

Just had the VT calibrated this evening and first impressions are very very good and very different to my first calibration. Just watching a few sky HD programs and a blueray tomorrow, and will post my views tomorrow.

 

[tele1962]

Who did your calibration?

 

[Series1boy]

It was Vincent from HDTVtest

 

[ellisdj]

Did he do it 1886 ?

 

[tele1962]

It was Vincent from HDTVtest

Excellent, looks like Vincent has taken over the calibration reigns from David in this country. Two of the best in the buisness.

 

[bigboss]

It was Vincent from HDTVtest

Excellent, looks like Vincent has taken over the calibration reigns from David in this country. Two of the best in the buisness.

How do you decide who is the best in the business? How are they better than Steve Withers or Julian or Mark Hodgkinson?

 

[Series1boy]

Yes ellisdj he did it to that setting with gamma at 2.4.

big boss - I can see the difference between the calibrators because I've used 2 of them and Vincent has Deffo done the job for me.. :cheers:

 

[tele1962]

Been meaning to post this link for anyone looking for an ISF calibrator:

http://www.imagingscience.com/dealers.php

 

[tele1962]

It was Vincent from HDTVtest

Excellent, looks like Vincent has taken over the calibration reigns from David in this country. Two of the best in the buisness.

How do you decide who is the best in the business? How are they better than Steve Withers or Julian or Mark Hodgkinson?

I simply said two off the best and i include all of the above, the remark was tongue in cheek. :cheers:

 

[theflyingwasp]

Hi there ellisdj

been reading the last 3 pages or so of this thread.got my Panasonic zt60 calibrated by Steve withers last October .all is good with the tv etc but this 2.4 gamma thing has got me curious .you're obviously a bit more knowledgeable than most of us when it comes to calibration and you have the equipment.

you have the Panasonic VT in the bigger screen size (jealous by the way) and as you know there is very little between our tvs .i watch almost everything in blackout conditions .do you think gamma of 2.4 would improve my picture? Have you calibrated your screen to both? Just to see the difference.

 

[tele1962]

I think Gamma 2.4 is the industry standard for nighttime viewing.

 

[jase fox]

There's an interesting comment posted on another thread ellisdj. What are your thoughts on it?

Well as a qualified colour physicist of over 30 years I certainly know what Delta E is, and it is a mathematical fudge. There is as yet no 100% accurate colour difference formula. All these calculations are based on mathematical derivations for so called ideal observers, of which you, I, and anybody else fail to be. What pleases Joe`s colour perception will not satisfy Sam`s ( Note males suffer colour deficiency far more than females- who just carry the faulty gene). Factors as mundane as stress, alcohol levels, general well being, sex and age, and of course ambient lighting, all affect our colour perceptions. So measuring a screen to standarised mathematical settings does not actually mean anything in the real world, except of course they are all standardised. The ultimate customer is your own eye and I am afraid that is unique and not standardised in any way.

Well I'm with him on this, of course your own eye is the ultimate customer!! Always thought and said this.

I've got a cracking picture, regardless of whether it's accurate or not.

 

[tele1962]

It's your TV and your happy thats all that counts.🙂

 

[ellisdj]

Hi there ellisdj

been reading the last 3 pages or so of this thread.got my Panasonic zt60 calibrated by Steve withers last October .all is good with the tv etc but this 2.4 gamma thing has got me curious .you're obviously a bit more knowledgeable than most of us when it comes to calibration and you have the equipment.

you have the Panasonic VT in the bigger screen size (jealous by the way) and as you know there is very little between our tvs .i watch almost everything in blackout conditions .do you think gamma of 2.4 would improve my picture? Have you calibrated your screen to both? Just to see the difference.

As i have been saying lately - you want 1886 Gammat regardless of lighting conditions - pure blackout is the same.

2.4 is great but it will crush some black / shadow detail because of the tvs capabilities

1886 gamma on.the ZT will be mostly 2.4 gamma raising a bit as it gets darker - lower ires.

I think calibrators chose 2.2 to play safe so people dont moan the image is too dark.

2.4 its darker but richer - 1886 is just a better version of this and it makes sense to use

 

[tele1962]

Does anyone know where i can get my Eye One LT meter profiled?

 

[ellisdj]

Cheaper to.buy an i1 display pro