The ultimate shoot out?

[ellisdj]

Hi Vincent

Thanks for including youself in the discussion - and you are actually right there I have cross referenced. Power 2.4 gamma is a bit higher in Calman

I was using power gamma 2.4 before and I had that on 1 pro setting and BT1886 on the other pro setting. As mentioned I actually decided to use a slightly higher black level setting to give the BT1886 more of a curve after originally using a lower / the correct black level of 0.001 fl.

For me going between the 2 the BT1886 had better dark area detail but apart from that there nothing in it for me with the rest - i.e I didnt feel I lost any richness to the image you get at 2.4

I dont have my cal results on this computer but I am pretty sure my results gave me an average Gamma of 2.4 and there was no skews or kinks in it read perfect against the target and that is with no menus on the screen as I am sure you will be aware that having menus on the screens affects the readings which is crazy.

Now I know this means a .5% could be off and its something to consider however if Calman is only measuring 10 points surely it can only give you a 10 point reading?? I am going to look into this though.

 

[theflyingwasp]

Hey ellisdj

do you find yourself calibrating your tv a lot and tinkering with it since you have the knowledge and calibration equipment? Is there such a thing as a perfect calibration?

 

[Deleted member 2457]

Hey guys

Interesting discussion. I probably best chime in since it's my quote being discussed.

ellisdj, your CalMAN screenshot just proved my point... you're actually not getting 2.4 gamma at the top end. Because there wasn't any finer marker, I opened it in Photoshop, and measured the distance from gamma 2 to 2.5, and also the distance from 2 to your gamma curve at 90% video signal. Here are the results:

Proportion of your gamma curve within the 2 to 2.5 region = 2.17 divided by 3.02 = 72%

Gamma value within the 2 to 2.5 region = 72% * 0.5 = 0.36

Therefore, your top-end gamma is 2 + 0.36 = 2.36, instead of 2.4

To make things easier, here's a BT.1886 calculator in Excel format. I didn't write it, I'm just hosting it:

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/tools/BT1886-Calculator.xls

(Mods, if where it's hosted is not acceptable, please delete the 1ink and let me know, I'll upload it to a third-party file depository)

Plug in whatever number you want, and you'll find that if your black level is 0.003 cd/m2 (VT/ZT level) or above, the top-end gamma will never be 2.4. This is why I use my method, because I'm so used to that rich 2.4 look.

Warmest regards

Vincent

Good to see you on here! :cheers:

 

[tele1962]

Hey ellisdj

do you find yourself calibrating your tv a lot and tinkering with it since you have the knowledge and calibration equipment? Is there such a thing as a perfect calibration?

If i can be so bold as to butt in, i really don't think there is as we have never achieved the perfect TV, we have came close but not close enough.

 

[theflyingwasp]

Yes true sir.

 

[ellisdj]

Hey ellisdj

do you find yourself calibrating your tv a lot and tinkering with it since you have the knowledge and calibration equipment? Is there such a thing as a perfect calibration?

Hi Wasp.

I have tinkered a lot - trying different options to see what I felt was the best and to see how good calibration results I could get.

I did this with my LX5090 before - but there was more limitations with that set - However I found a sweetsspot which gave the flattest gamma and lowest DE for Grayscale and thats where it stayed.

With the panny I have tried various calibrations - 2.2. gamma - then 2.4 gamma.

a brighter 2.4 gamma to try and reduce black detail crush. I attempted a calibration as advised on HD TV test but that didnt work out very well.

They were having issues with 5 ire - when I measured 5 on mine it was fine.

Then I moved onto BT 1886 and since doing the last cal I have left it - I have a brand new metre still in the wrapper and I have not felt the need to get it out. I have done multiple 3D cal's as well and am very happy with how that is - its very near 2D quality very happy with myself on that one.

After the last cal I felt I hit a sweetspot again - no serious kinks in the gamma very nearly perfect. Not saying its a perfect calibration - but its the best one I have done on the set.

I didnt save it but I think this is a picture I took to send to my cousin

You can see what I mean about the Average Gamma - hence why I thought I was on 2.4.

Thats the best DE Greyscale I have managed - other have been less than 1 average but its the most even across the whole range.

I remembered the gamma being perfect, its not quite perfect in that picture, I mayu have improved it but deleted the photo and there is small variance but I was happy the result - no major kinks at 80 / 90 ire

Not felt the need to change anyhting since - more interested in feeding the set the cleanest possible signal but thats another topic not many would go with me on so pointless on here

 

[theflyingwasp]

Thanks for that,the whole 2.2 ,2.4 thing is a biggie!

does your current equipment limit what you can do? If you threw a LOT of cash into equipment could you go deeper if that makes sense.

your father has the ZT? What gamma did you give him?

 

[ellisdj]

Thanks for that,the whole 2.2 ,2.4 thing is a biggie!

does your current equipment limit what you can do? If you threw a LOT of cash into equipment could you go deeper if that makes sense.

your father has the ZT? What gamma did you give him?

I dont think so - maybe the options used would be slightly different with a better metre, however i can live with that. More about the process and getting to know the panel

I calibrated my.Dads ZT exactly the.same bt1886 - however it needs doing again my metre wasnt 100% i have had it replaced why i have a brand new one.

 

[FZ26000]

... looks like we might someday get a Panasonic 4 K OLED TV fitted with LG's next generation >55' OLED panel ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/lg-display-said-in-talks-to-supply-tv-panels-to-panasonic.html