Calibrated 3D is unbelievable!!

[ellisdj]

I have just calibrated my 65VT65 for 3D and what I am now seeing is unbelievable!!

If more people saw 3D like this it would change a lot of opinions on 3D

WOW WOW WOW WOW

 

[ellisdj]

Now testing titanic 3D I thought it looked cardboard before - I think this is the most amazing thing I have ever seen!!!

 

[strapped for cash]

You managed it then!

I found that 3D calibration made a profound difference, perhaps because the picture was so far off to begin with. I'm guessing you calibrated through the 3D3s. Did you find images initially had a heavy blue tint? (Blue tint to 3D images anyway + glasses blue tint = heavy blue tint overall.)

 

[ellisdj]

Hi Strapped

I use the 3D3 - excellent glasses they really are.

I used the C3 masking taped the glasses to it and gently rested it on the screen - I checked to make sure there would be no damage but the glasses are soft and rubbery in the farmes so it was ok.

In terms of strong blue - only in some of the lower registers 20,30 and 40. I had to take blue out loads in the 2 point, but found myself boosting blue in the 10 point for the higher ires - 50 upwards.

Out of the box the results were horrific! I cant beleieve I was watching it like that - I am disgusted with myself

My Cal is far from perfect, I had a really good cal - but I tried to tweak it at the lasty stage and ruined it - and couldnt be bothered to go back and fix it I was desperate to try it and it was late.

I know I cna improve it, but i think the improvement now would be very minor and I think an i1 would allow a better cal.

I dont get very good readings at 10ire - did your calibrator get good readings there on his i1?

Was he using this? http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-x-rite-i1-display-pro/p1526088?cm_mmc=googlebase-extension-_-colour-management-_-colour-management-_-x-rite-i1-display-pro_1526088&utm_source=googlebase-extension&gclid=cowmqzjq_rccfabltaod5zaa7q

Even with the cal as it is I am amazed at what I was seeing - True 2D calibrated quality image only in 3D - its jaw dropping stuff mate!

The beginning of titanic was blowing my mind - and the detail now I have a good greyscale is ridiculous!.

The greyscal with the excception of 10 and 20 are all very low - 2 and below. 20 is about 3 and 10 is higher about 5.

I had 20 mega low as well but it seems like after altering the cms colout it affected the greyscale quite a lot which I didnt expect.

I should have gone back and sorted it out but another time if I feel the urge to achieve perfection

 

[Anonymous]

I think the calbration raises a number of issues on the matter of reviews.If by all account it improves the TV significantly then I am extremely curious as to whether I could take any performance review done by anyone or site seriously as we are not informed on how the TV was calibrated and if by a trained professional? I doubt many review sites actually employ the services of a calibrator before doing the analysis. We are not told other than that a calibration disk is used by anyone?
Iam therefore to the view that I cannot wholly take for granted the true performance of a TV unless we are told it had been calibrated before assessment. Standards needs to be tighten up as buying decision could be affected.
There are enough inconsistencies in reviews as mentioned by other posters and this calibration issue only raises it further.

I do not believe we should pay for the additional cost in principle. Manufacturers should do more to make the set as perfect as it can be. The sets are expensive enough at Uk prices.

 

[ellisdj]

I think the calbration raises a number of issues on the matter of reviews.If by all account it improves the TV significantly then I am extremely curious as to whether I could take any performance review done by anyone or site seriously as we are not informed on how the TV was calibrated and if by a trained professional? I doubt many review sites actually employ the services of a calibrator before doing the analysis. We are not told other than that a calibration disk is used by anyone? Iam therefore to the view that I cannot wholly take for granted the true performance of a TV unless we are told it had been calibrated before assessment. Standards needs to be tighten up as buying decision could be affected. There are enough inconsistencies in reviews as mentioned by other posters and this calibration issue only raises it further. I do not believe we should pay for the additional cost in principle. Manufacturers should do more to make the set as perfect as it can be. The sets are expensive enough at Uk prices.

There a few overlooked issues here.

The first one is Panasonic cant guess what contrast you will want to set the display at so they cannot pre calibrate. The amount of luminance is down to the indivuduals taste eyes and and veiwing environment

They give THX presets thats gets you about half way there.

The other more important issue is that reviews do say whether they calibrate or not and give their results. AVF do, HD TV Test do Cnet do - WHF dont - they just get the image as good as possible by eye / basic settings. To mimic what the average joe punter will do at home.

I feel the tv can be reviewed without a calibration - but the full extent of the picture quality will not be seen without a calibration so your point does have credibitlity

I do feel the set should be calibrated as part of an indepth review for a top end display - however cheaper displays probably dont really warrant it as its not likely to be done.

In saying that the majority of owners will spend £2k on a tv and not get it calibrated so the WHF does hold a lot of merit to those buyers - I have been going on and on about calibrating for years now on here and hopefully I am finally getting through to some people.

3D especially is worth the money on its own - you cna have you cake and eat it - 2d Calibrated - so better than out of the box Image Quality in 3D - with no loss of anything - no cross talk just amazing images.

Watching yesterday I was no longer looking at a screen I was looking into it - that is what 3D does - gives the image amazing depth

 

[Anonymous]

I think your response above only reinforces my believe on the issues even more and not allieviate it.

For starters, I do not want an expensive TV to be rated based on just the naked eye and not when I am paying a fee to read the review. I never knew.

A few other points - even if the review sites you had mentioned do calibrate the TV been tested, how do we know they are of the same correct standards as different peope are doing it.? Or is the case that there is no correct standard even in the same environment and so if any other person did your set then it wouldn't be on the same setting?

Inconsistency concerns me given the gains can be so big as you put it.

Do I need to switch my attention to sites that only use approved calibrators to be 100% sure of the review content?

 

[ellisdj]

I think your response above only reinforces my believe on the issues even more and not allieviate it.

For starters, I do not want an expensive TV to be rated based on just the naked eye and not when I am paying a fee to read the review. I never knew.

A few other points - even if the review sites you had mentioned do calibrate the TV been tested, how do we know they are of the same correct standards as different peope are doing it.? Or is the case that there is no correct standard even in the same environment and so if any other person did your set then it wouldn't be on the same setting?

Inconsistency concerns me given the gains can be so big as you put it.

Do I need to switch my attention to sites that only use approved calibrators to be 100% sure of the review content?

You dont need to be an approved calibrator to calibrate a TV - thats the first point - I dare say a lot of the reviewers have had some training.

The reviews that do calibrate post the results of the calibration for you to see quite often now with the settings used. if you look at the settings / calibration and dont think its done right then done read the review simple as. They are posted online for free so it costs you nothing.

There is a correct standard - its called REC 709 for high definition - however depending on what contrast you set will alter what other settings you have to change to achieve the REC 709. Thats why it cant be done out of the box.

All reviews are subjective - you have to face that fact - but woth TVs atleast they can produce some results to back up what they say

 

[The_Lhc]

WHF have stated here and elsewhere on the website (and probably in the magazine) that a number of their staff are ISF trained and they calibrate every TV as part of the review process.

Having said that, the vast majority of TV buyers will NOT calibrate their TVs but will just rely on the standard settings, so there's a lot of value in reviewing TVs using those settings as that's what most buyers will be looking at.

There are calibration "standards" but the actual settings required to achieve those standards will be different for each set and each environment that a set is located in, so it's pretty pointless (not to mention totally impractical) worrying about whether every reviewed TV has been calibrated to the same level as every other TV.

I can't help feeling you're simply trying to stir up controversy where there isn't any but then most of your posts have given me that feeling to be honest...

 

[Son_of_SJ]

I can't help feeling you're simply trying to stir up controversy where there isn't any but then most of your posts have given me that feeling to be honest...

Hello The_Lhc, I'm not quite sure to which person you are referring, since two people have mainly written in this thread so far.

 

[The_Lhc]

I can't help feeling you're simply trying to stir up controversy where there isn't any but then most of your posts have given me that feeling to be honest...

Hello The_Lhc, I'm not quite sure to which person you are referring, since two people have mainly written in this thread so far.

Good point, thought I'd quoted the post I was replying to there, don't know where that went. I was talking to Gamemaker, the post after his last one wasn't there when I started...

 

[strapped for cash]

I think the point is that there are different levels of calibration.

WHF calibrate by eye using THX test patterns, while sites such as AV Forums and HDTV Test use a meter to calibrate to the Rec.709 broadcasting standard. The results are very different.

In my view, both approaches are fine. WHF's method reflects the experiences of the majority of television owners, while sites such as AV Forums cater to a specialist videophile market. (Not that these categories are entirely discrete.)

In other words, I don't think there's any controversy at all. If you're unlikely to ever get your TV fully calibrated, or have never heard of ISF calibration, WHF's reviews are highly relevant. If you're a die-hard videophile, you'll likely get your TV fully calibrated. It's then useful to know that the TV can be calibrated to a reference standard.

I'm not going for controversy here; I'm simply observing that there's a place for both kinds of review.

 

[Anonymous]

Not alot of people, including me, know about the varying....but valid...standards used in Television calibration but it is good to know as it helps one to decide whether to spent the xtra money on a personal service and we all want the same thing - best out of our TV.

However, it appears that in getting the set personally calibrated does give you more viewing pleasure or why do it. The original poster's comments on the results of that exercise just sounded too good to ignore. It is also true that it is not critical to have it done and still see quality. I can live with that.

 

[strapped for cash]

There is only one official standard for HD television calibration, namely Rec.709 (also known as BT.709).

Rec.709 is the broadcasting and hard media mastering standard for all high definition content. In other words, ideally, your television should be calibrated to reproduce images to a standard that replicates how high definition content is mastered.

More information can be downloaded after following this link: http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.709-5-200204-I/en

While TV manufacturers try to offer picture modes that hit Rec.709 out of the box (usually "movie" or "cinema"), this isn't possible given manufacturing tolerances and other variables such as environmental factors (ambient lighting conditions).

When What Hi Fi reviewers calibrate a television, they are not working to a different standard. However, What Hi-Fi reviewers don't use a meter to measure how closely the TV approximates Rec.709. Rather they provide an evaluation of how the television performs after using more accessible calibration tools such as the THX Optimiser. This is indeed representative of how most owners will view their televisions. More specialist reviews can be accessed elsewhere.

 

[mr malarky]

I think your response above only reinforces my believe on the issues even more and not allieviate it.

For starters, I do not want an expensive TV to be rated based on just the naked eye and not when I am paying a fee to read the review. I never knew.

A few other points - even if the review sites you had mentioned do calibrate the TV been tested, how do we know they are of the same correct standards as different peope are doing it.? Or is the case that there is no correct standard even in the same environment and so if any other person did your set then it wouldn't be on the same setting?

Inconsistency concerns me given the gains can be so big as you put it.

Do I need to switch my attention to sites that only use approved calibrators to be 100% sure of the review content?

I think there's an interesting point being raised here, partly in terms of consistency between review sites (and, as a result, between the findings of the reviews themselves), and partly in terms of whether review sites/publications should mandate a certain level of calibration beyond standard 'optimiser discs' when reviewing higher-end displays.

One of the issues affecting all TV manufacturers is the commoditisation of the TV market and the downwards pressure this is having on margins - how to persuade customers to pay £2,000+ for a 50" display when they can buy a 50" display for £599 in comet.

Would it not help boost sales if review sites always carried out professional calibration prior to reviewing any set costing more than £2,000 (or £1,500), made this clear at the foot of the review (along with an indicator of the cost of calibration), and then talked about the improved picture quality that can be achieved on such high end sets, relative to cheaper sets, due in part to their more advanced picture settings options?

Alternatively, when describing the picture quality, could they not describe the picture quality 'pre' and 'post' calibration?

Lets face it, for most of us that would be far more useful and informative that describing the sound quality of TVs that are going to sepnd their entire lives with the sound set to 'Zero' because the audio's being pumped through an AV receiver instead...

 

[ellisdj]

For most review sites there is no pre - only post.

They age the set then calibrate it then review it - as thats how really the set is supposed to be set up and how it will perform at its best.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

One of the issues affecting all TV manufacturers is the commoditisation of the TV market and the downwards pressure this is having on margins - how to persuade customers to pay £2,000+ for a 50" display when they can buy a 50" display for £599 in comet.

Not in Comet any more, I think you'll find ....

 

[mr malarky]

One of the issues affecting all TV manufacturers is the commoditisation of the TV market and the downwards pressure this is having on margins - how to persuade customers to pay £2,000+ for a 50" display when they can buy a 50" display for £599 in comet.

Not in Comet any more, I think you'll find ....

D'oh! Keep forgetting about that!

 

[visionary]

We are, of course, assuming that you've already had your eyesight calibrated at your optician to make sure that both eyes are balanced together and able to appreciate the changes that you're making to your TV? Especially important for 3D

 

[Oldboy]

I agree with all the points made about calibration in reviews and some consistancy in the whole review basis with regard to calibration would be very welcome because as I have found this year with my quest to buy a 55 inch tv there are staggering differences of opinion this year in the reviews of tvs, one persons 5 star set can be anothers 3 or 4 star set for example and i'm sure that must be in part down to calibration or lack of in some instances.

What hasn't been said is that despite a manufacturer not being able to judge the levels of contrast etc a consumer prefers there are standards for ISF calibration that could be implemented prior to you buying a tv. OK I accept that on budget or mid range tvs that isn't going to be essential but for those of us buying a top of the range tv surely there is a valid argument that a calibrated screen should be present out of the box??

In my opinion that's the most important part of a tv ie the image it displays and I would be more than willing to pay that little extra to save me the hassle of having to pay £200 - 300 extra after purchase just to get the calibrated to the levels it's actually capable of, it's just common sense and would see an end to inconsistant reviews. Or if that's not feasible then can't the manufacturers come up with some sort of accurate auto calibration process??

It has always seemed bizarre to me that companies sell a tv with the full knowledge that it will take alot of time, money and effort in order to get the best out of it and something needs to be done to rectify this.

Once I settle on a new tv the whole subject of this thread and 3D calibration has really got me thinking about getting my next tv properly calibrated as most of the facts and figures about luminance etc go way over my head, I must admit I have never made the effort to research it all but it does seem overly complicated and I would much prefer to get a professional in to do it for me.

After reading this thread it is certainly something I will look at as the O.P had such good results post calibration in 3D, and again calibration in 3D seems complicated and wasn't something I really thought about as most tvs push contrast, brightness, backlight etc to full as standard to make up for the loss in brightness.....much to think about with my next tv that's for sure and many thanks to the O.P for sharing their experience :clap:

 

[Anonymous]

As alluded to already,what we want to see and hear is a what happens when a THX optimised TV, set by an expert and a ISF calibrated TV been compared set by side on a range of feeds and let the punters decide on which looks the best, and not necessarily whether one or the other produces the Rec708 colour space to 100% accuracy. An LED and Plasma set for both testing conditions in a double blind test set up.Does not get any more objective than that.

Ultimately your eyes must like what it sees and would be less important than what a meters says. And have a third control condition TV set with copied settings.

That's is the only way to demacractically judge the merit of the whole debate, let the popular vote settle it. I hope What Hi Fi can arrange for this. It will be a relevation.A news worthy report.

My money is on the THX optimised set done by a trained experienced eye would win the popular vote.

Would you use a meter to judge Hi fi sound or the an ocilloscope to judge a HDMI cable, No!

 

[visionary]

As alluded to already,what we want to see and hear is a what happens when a THX optimised TV, set by an expert and a ISF calibrated TV been compared set by side on a range of feeds and let the punters decide on which looks the best, and not necessarily whether one or the other produces the Rec708 colour space to 100% accuracy. An LED and Plasma set for both testing conditions in a double blind test set up.Does not get any more objective than that.

Ultimately your eyes must like what it sees and would be less important than what a meters says. And have a third control condition TV set with copied settings.

That's is the only way to demacractically judge the merit of the whole debate, let the popular vote settle it. I hope What Hi Fi can arrange for this. It will be a relevation.A news worthy report.

My money is on the THX optimised set done by a trained experienced eye would win the popular vote.

Would you use a meter to judge Hi fi sound or the an ocilloscope to judge a HDMI cable, No!

Sorry, can't agree with that. The problem is that how you think a picture should look isn't necessarily how I think it should look (or any other forumite).

So, it might be technically correct but it might not be "easy on the eye" and we all have different preferences. Don't think your popular vote concept would work.

 

[strapped for cash]

As alluded to already,what we want to see and hear is a what happens when a THX optimised TV, set by an expert and a ISF calibrated TV been compared set by side on a range of feeds and let the punters decide on which looks the best, and not necessarily whether one or the other produces the Rec708 colour space to 100% accuracy. An LED and Plasma set for both testing conditions in a double blind test set up.Does not get any more objective than that.

With respect, I disagree with every single word above.

The whole point of calibration by meter is that it isn't a subjective process. Using a meter to calibrate to the Rec.709 broadcasting standard means your display and home video chain are set up to reproduce source material as accurately as possible.

Nevertheless, I'm confident that anyone viewing an ISF calibrated TV side-by-side with the same model calibrated using test patterns will prefer the ISF calibrated set. Images have noticeably greater depth and detail, while colour isn't unbalanced. Of course not calibrating is cheaper, and I understand why some prefer not to shell out.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

With respect,

It's always a bad sign when someone begins a response or reply with "With respect" or some such variant!

 

[strapped for cash]

It's always a bad sign when someone begins a response or reply with "With respect" or some such variant!

With respect...