Doubt it’s a waste of money, them settings that come pre installed with the c9 are just awful. It’s night and day better, obviously you’ve never had it done before have you !
His it worth it ?
- Thread starter baz178
- Start date
Doubt it’s a waste of money, them settings that come pre installed with the c9 are just awful. It’s night and day better, obviously you’ve never had it done before have you !
Caporegime
The C9s are apparently okay out of the box in certain picture modes, the B9s however are awful but benefit massively from a calibration.
As has been said, it's peace of mind more than anything to know that you're getting an image displayed the way it's meant to look. If you have dodgy eyesight or don't always use the best source to watch stuff then I wouldn't bother.
As has been said, it's peace of mind more than anything to know that you're getting an image displayed the way it's meant to look. If you have dodgy eyesight or don't always use the best source to watch stuff then I wouldn't bother.
The person who did mine said they were better than the b9s but still awful. Yes I watch a lot of 4K stuff on Netflix and movies through lg app. Also 4K football football at weekend and through the week when it’s on.
Soldato
I thought the LG OLEDS had pretty accurate picture settings out of the box?
That is only based on one sample, other reviews have it much better. I suspect all panels vary. Generally for most users these OLEDs are fine out of the box.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
I calibrate all my displays using test patterns and my own eyes.
yes but you can’t get it has accurate has some of the software they use.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Just lol.
Why don't you go tell all the people in the photography session they are wasting money buying pre-calibrated screens and spending money getting non calibrated ones calibrated. You will be laughed out of there as quick as you entered.
As for ocular perception. Well the point of calibration is the sensor calibrates your screen to be how it would be viewed in real life in daylight. Therefore what you see with your crap eyes in real life is what you also see on a calibrated screen.
So if your eyes cannot see green you also cannot see green on the screen. However if the screen wasn't calibrated you could be seeing something that isn't there and nor would you be able to have seen it in real life but you can see it on the screen because it wasn't calibrated.
I have calibrated 4 screens within my home so far and all of them showed remarkable improvement over stock settings. Especially TN and VA panels.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Usually all high end tv's do. However they are generic settings to be used across all screens.
So those settings are ones they found to be decent across all their panels.
This is why people like rubberduck think you can go onto the internet and just copy settings from someone elses properly calibrated screen. But those calibrated settings are unique to his tv and his viewing environment.
You can't do that and that is why they have generic settings for the range.
However an OLED can get much closer to 100% accurate than say a £300 hisense. So it's pointless getting a crap TV calibrated because arguably that money would have been better spent on a better tv. However if you already have the better tv to get it to 100% it needs proper calibration.
Value of that is up to the end user. However it isn't a waste of money unless it's a crap tv you are getting calibrated IMO.
Soldato
Eyes lie.
Soldato
I agree with that, copying settings is just pointless and could make your TV look worse, I don't see anything wrong with copying generic settings like processing rubbish and maybe brightness/contrast to a degree, but again it all comes down to your eyes and viewing environment as you said.
I have a non calibrated B6 and have pretty much kept the settings to default apart from the stuff I mentioned above, I'm more than happy with the PQ, though I'm sure calibration would improve some aspects, such as colour accuracy, shadow detail and so on.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Your eyes don't have anything to do with it. When it comes to displaying colours. The device sends a specific colour to the screen. It then uses a colorimeter to measure the signal being displayed by the screen.
Both should match if it doesn't it needs adjusting to match.
What your eyes see is nothing to do with a proper calibration. And that is why doing a calibration by eye is wrong unless that TV is for your sole use only or you don't care how it looks to others but then you aren't really calibrating it properly you are just equalising it to your preference much like people do with sound. Up the bass a notch, etc which isn't what the producer intended.
Proper calibration is making the screen 100% accurate across all colours, brightness and contrast for the viewing environment its placed within.
Copying generic settings is fine so long as they aren't related to the colours or manipulate them beyond set presets.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 9,525
My eyes arent calibrated what if I see more green than others, I would want the screen calibrated so I see accurate colours not the screen is outputting accurate colours.
Also I've found I have to adjust brightness between some movies, so that shows the disc varies, and kinda defeats the point of calibration. If your screen is brightness calibrated and you cannot adjust it when you watch a buggered brightness movie whats the point?
It's fine cooying basic controls and post processing, and colour temp from others. But not CMYK colour decoder, 9/21 point grey scale.
Also I've found I have to adjust brightness between some movies, so that shows the disc varies, and kinda defeats the point of calibration. If your screen is brightness calibrated and you cannot adjust it when you watch a buggered brightness movie whats the point?
It's fine cooying basic controls and post processing, and colour temp from others. But not CMYK colour decoder, 9/21 point grey scale.
How you perceive colours may well be different from the next person, but it's consistent for you and the way you see the world. All we're asking from TV calibration is for the display to reflect what we would see in real life, or as close to it as we can get with the current level of technology.
Put it another way, you don't ask plants or signs or the sky to change their colour to accommodate your particular sensitivity to the various frequencies of light waves, do you? No, you accept the world as it is. The screen should do that too.
The colour of light is a measurable quantity, just as an audio tone is measurable or a distance is measurable or a weight. A colour sensor for TV calibration can measure those wavelengths and, in an objective way, show us how close the screen gets to accurately displaying the same wavelengths of colours that occur in real life.
The difficulty for all of us is that our brains interpret and adjust our perception of colour for a wide variety of lighting conditions based partly on our expectation of certain reference points. Remember, colour is the reflection of certain frequencies of light the light bouncing off an observed object. A plant isn't green because 'plants are green'. It's a particular shade of green because when hit with white light, all the rest of the colour spectrum is absorbed. Only the green spectrum of light is reflected. Take that same green-looking plant in to a darkroom where the developing light is red, and the plant will look black and not green. That's because there's no green light available for it to reflect.
Part of the reason why so many people put up with bad colour on TV is because there's a disconnect - a cognitive dissonance, if you will - between real life and what they'll accept once people and objects move about in the magic light-box in the corner of the room (or over the fireplace
). To give a real life example of that, think about photography. Say you went on a skiing holiday, and took a nice shot of your girlfriend (lots of assumptions there, I realise; but just go with it). What you saw on the day was this...
But when you check the image on the phone screen later that night, what you see is this...
By this time you've already posted the picture on social media and got lots of likes. No one has come back saying that the colour looks odd. They weren't there, so they all accept the bluer picture with boosted red as what you saw when taking the shot.
They haven't got a reference to what the shot really looked like, and they don't look at the skin tone and think "she looks a bit magenta; that's not right, surely?" Yet they do exactly the same with their TVs when setting the colour tone to Cool to make whites appear brighter, and then try to fix the lack of a proper flesh tone by increasing the colour setting.
Part of the reason why we'll accept inaccurate colour is because our brains are very good at adapting to the colour of light under which we are seeing things. We have reference points, and then adjust our perception to match. White is a good example. The colour of light changes during the day. In the morning there's more blue in it due to Doppler shift, so the light hitting and reflecting off a white object gives it a bluer tint, but our brains adjust out that colour cast so we see bluey-white as our normal white. By midday, or when the sun is overhead, the colour tone of the light is what we perceive as more neutral. In fact, before colourimeters and spectroradiometers, the reference for daylight colour filming was midday sun directly overhead in Hollywood. That gave us 6500 Kelvin.
Towards the end of the day the colour of light is going towards red. I don't know about you, but when I think of evening sun I'm reminded of those summer holiday sunsets where everything takes on a warmer glow. Again though, I still perceive white as white. It doesn't look overly red, even though there's far more red in the colour of light bouncing off any white object.
Put the cognitive dissonance and our adaptability together, and you've got a reasonable summary of why the colour on most people's TV s is screwed up. There are lots of other contributing factors of course, but this will do for a quick-and-dirty explanation.
When someone has their TV professionally calibrated, much of the fake colour balance issues go away. Colours are rendered far more precisely, and each subtle colour variation has its own space which helps make it distinct from its neighbours. This results in a feeling that there's more detail in the picture because suddenly everything in the image becomes distinct.
The reason you're having to adjust the brightness between discs could be that your lighting level has changed; but if its consistent, then the other reason is that your screen isn't set up properly.
Yes, there may well be a bit more detail to see in the shadow areas of the picture if you tweak the brightness up, but that doesn't mean to say that you were meant to see it. Once you've tweaked up, maybe the next disc or even the next shot looks slightly washed out. You're forever riding the brightness control instead of setting the image to the reference level for black under daylight or night-time viewing conditions and then leaving it there.
You have the test discs. Why not make use of them?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 9,525
I have, and set it to Avia/dvd/spears. With colour apparently it should be set to 75 but that is way too high, likely colour decoder is off. Set it to 55 manually just by watching movies.
Generally it's fine but every now and then get a unusual disc (brightness) I think one of the godfather movies. As you say increase too high and it's grey, I don't do that, but a couple of notches because an indoor scene where there is decent amount of lighting looks more like a few candles.
As for snow photo, I would adjust colour temp so it looks natural, for that time of day.
It's obvious the bottom pic is too blue, I didn't need to be there or see the first photo to determine colour temp is too cool.
Another test is to bring up white. I set colour temp not to be blue or red, but white or very very slightly warm. IE BBC news, the white box on the bottom.
I'm happy with settings, done similar on pioneer plasma and looks fine. I'm sure it may be 5% out but unless full calibration that's the best I can do.
Generally it's fine but every now and then get a unusual disc (brightness) I think one of the godfather movies. As you say increase too high and it's grey, I don't do that, but a couple of notches because an indoor scene where there is decent amount of lighting looks more like a few candles.
As for snow photo, I would adjust colour temp so it looks natural, for that time of day.
It's obvious the bottom pic is too blue, I didn't need to be there or see the first photo to determine colour temp is too cool.
Another test is to bring up white. I set colour temp not to be blue or red, but white or very very slightly warm. IE BBC news, the white box on the bottom.
I'm happy with settings, done similar on pioneer plasma and looks fine. I'm sure it may be 5% out but unless full calibration that's the best I can do.
Soldato
I just fiddle with the settings until I like the look of the picture. Job done.
Maybe worth it if you always watch bluray. But streamed video from the likes of Netflix, etc, is compressed which will negate most of the benefits of caibrating imho. But I long ago stopped little things like perfection bother me.
Soldato
Heh, me too!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
I'd say this is complete rubbish.
4K streams these days are comparable to 1080p bluray. In fact they have HDR, Dolby VISION and Atmos capable streams now too.
I don't know about you but I can certainly tell the difference between a 4k stream and an SD tv channel immediately. 4k stream and a 1080p stream not so quickly. Which goes to show you 4K blu ray isn't really needed unless you have a 75 inch screen and watch it from a very close distance.
I use a 1440p screen at home and a 1080p screen at work. I can't tell the difference is another good example of this. I have better than 20/20 vision. I don't wear glasses. And I can read signs from miles away where to other people they are a blur.
People need to use their own eyes and stop spreading myths.
The source shouldn't really matter and 4K streams are of a higher than what is acceptable quality.
Calibrating is to do with colours. Not resolution. Therefore has no valid place in an argument for not calibrating. Again it's just a cop out from people who don't really understand what a proper calibration is.
I have had 1080p screens at home and 1440p screens. Are you telling me I shouldn't be calibrating them using my colormunki? Because I can assure you I can tell the difference straight away once it's been done. I could tell it on a 720p screen too and less.