Oled out of the box now what.........

[woppy101]

Yeah that's what I thought but over on avforums everyone bangs on about Sony having much better motion processing, I've always had that switched off on any TV I've owned though.

The only motion processing I would use is BFI

 

[darreny]

sound is subjective. picture isn't IMO.

you want the picture to look natural therefore reference standard. it's a set standard has never changed. this shade of red should look exactly like it was intended to be displayed. not any birghter, darker , etc.

sound is subjective because of how it works. some people like more bass. sure people may like a brighter tv but it will wash out the colours then they have to up contrast and now colours are too strong. also it has been suggested reference sound isn't very pleasant to some peoples ears and gives them fatigue. they prefer a slightly warmer sound with high frequencies slightly dulled down.

it's why both tv's and amps come with presets. when it comes to sound i don't think there is a wrong way to do it. so long as you like it. with tv however i believe it should be reference just because that is what it should look like in the real world. i also leave my sound settings on auto calibration to adjust for room correction, etc. so it sounds like it should in the real world. however i do like upping the bass a notch sometimes.

This is such a contradiction to say picture should be set to reference and not sound. surely upping the bass is going to drown out the mids and highs to a degree so whats the difference if someone ups the contrast or brightness a little, throws in a little extra colour because the picture appears a little flat?

 

[woppy101]

This is such a contradiction to say picture should be set to reference and not sound. surely upping the bass is going to drown out the mids and highs to a degree so whats the difference if someone ups the contrast or brightness a little, throws in a little extra colour because the picture appears a little flat?

Yeah I don't agree with that statement either, cinemas pay a lot of money to also have there speakers calibrated, the director wants you to see and hear how the film should be.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

it's probably because i use headphones a lot.

headphones - suite your personal preference. when there are more than 1 user involved then everything should be reference so everyone experiences it as they should in real life.

 

[jpaul]

Surprised with that review

I originally talked about the review because of the comedy sketch at the start - not the review contents yes ? but replying on some of review comments -

Motion on all oleds are the same due to the instant refresh of the pixels

I had hough there maybe some variability with how long you have the oled pixels turned on though, you want them on for a long time for high brightness, but also off to create, effectively, a black frame, and reduce perceived motion blur, it seems LG may have some new 120Hz oled panels too that will improve on 60hz, thought this how it works oled refresh was interesting

The only motion processing I would use is BFI

slightly different, But I recently starting using panasonic mpeg noise reduction and think that does help for low bitrate freeview (used to have most settings off)
some of the current athletics bitrates seem poor (and the BBC seems to have no high speed/slow-mo cameras)

This is such a contradiction to say picture should be set to reference and not sound

my earlier comment about reference sound, was to say (unlike night picture calb'n) achieving a reference sound in the home environment is difficult/impossible ?
you do not know what compromises the a/v system has made for room correction and do not get a detailed report like a picture calibration
(maybe vincent would visit) so making addtional tweaks yourself to say boost the voice channel because the a/v calibration was unable to balance for complex film sound stage maybe legitimate

 

[darreny]

my point ( which I probably didn't make very well) is that surely everything is in the eye of the beholder, with every new TV now being able to produce so many colours then isn't it fair to say every tv can be calibrated to reference level, where do we stand on reference level black now oled is here? How does the constant changing of light through the day and seasons affect the calibration.
I'm not saying it's a pointless exercise but for me I play till I get a picture I like and the same with sound.

 

[woppy101]

my point ( which I probably didn't make very well) is that surely everything is in the eye of the beholder, with every new TV now being able to produce so many colours then isn't it fair to say every tv can be calibrated to reference level, where do we stand on reference level black now oled is here? How does the constant changing of light through the day and seasons affect the calibration.
I'm not saying it's a pointless exercise but for me I play till I get a picture I like and the same with sound.

That's the whole point, you say you play until you get the picture you like? when you get your tv calibrated to the Reference level and industry standard you then don't have to play to get a picture you like! you know what your watching is exactly how the director wanted you to see his production down to every last colour shade.

 

[hornetstinger]

That's the whole point, you say you play until you get the picture you like? when you get your tv calibrated to the Reference level and industry standard you then don't have to play to get a picture you like! you know what your watching is exactly how the director wanted you to see his production down to every last colour shade.

Not really, not unless your room is always the same ambiant light level and colour temperature.

 

[hornetstinger]

Also unless your eyes are calibrated, then no you don't see what the director sees either. You could have partial colour blindness.

 

[woppy101]

Not really, not unless your room is always the same ambiant light level and colour temperature.

That's why calibraters do 2 settings one for day and one for night, also it's not all about colour it's about brightness and contrast, most people have the contrast set too high which clips whites and the brightest set too low which then loses shadow detail and overall details.

 

[woppy101]

Also unless your eyes are calibrated, then no you don't see what the director sees either. You could have partial colour blindness.

Not really, not unless your room is always the same ambiant light level and colour temperature.

If that's the case why would cinemas spend £1000s every year getting their projectors calibrated if it all looks the same? They have to get it done as the bulb light output changes so does the colours projected

 

[hornetstinger]

I didn't say it looks the same. No two eyes are the same, so the calibrated image is only as good as your eyes.

"ost people have the contrast set too high which clips whites and the brightest set too low which then loses shadow detail and overall details."

You can get those two spot on with avia and the like. Calibration is also gamma, colour decoder, and deeper cmyk levels etc.

 

[jpaul]

another catch - even if you have "calibrated eyes" and a "calibration matching your ambient&temp", the director was mastering the HDR footage on a 4000Nit 40K$ screen, eg
and that is tone-mapped/compacted by each manufacturer within the limited Nit level that our 4K HDR premium (oled/lcd) sets support. ... so you will need deep pockets to see what he saw
- maybe the director is wearing sunglasses too.
[should probably consider Beethoven here, who was composing music as he was becoming deaf can we experience as he did ]

 

[Ayahuasca]

Let's be honest the director doesn't give a **** what it looks like on most viewers bog standard TV's.

Most films are made for cinema and even their screens don't show reference colours and what not.

 

[woppy101]

another catch - even if you have "calibrated eyes" and a "calibration matching your ambient&temp", the director was mastering the HDR footage on a 4000Nit 40K$ screen, eg
and that is tone-mapped/compacted by each manufacturer within the limited Nit level that our 4K HDR premium (oled/lcd) sets support. ... so you will need deep pockets to see what he saw
- maybe the director is wearing sunglasses too.
[should probably consider Beethoven here, who was composing music as he was becoming deaf can we experience as he did ]

Actually HDR movies are mostly graded on the Sony XBVM 1000 nit monitor or the 4000 nit Dolby PRM monitor, Just because it was graded on a 4000 or 1000 nit screen doesn't mean the peak highlights are anywhere close to that the majority of movies barely break 800nits of peak highlights, I think PAN is one of the exemptions up to 1800 nits I think

 

[hornetstinger]

Let's be honest the director doesn't give a **** what it looks like on most viewers bog standard TV's.

Most films are made for cinema and even their screens don't show reference colours and what not.

Audio is 50% of the movie experience as well. Does everyone have the exact same speakers, processor, amp, room and room EQ profile and ears as the movie audio editor/mixer? Nope.

 

[woppy101]

Whether a calibration is worthwhile is a matter of opinion, some people think it's a total waste of money and some think other wise, what I would say is if you can have a look at a calibrated screen and then have a look at the same screen in say movie mode you will see the extra detail a calibration brings out, then only you can decide if it's worth the money or not.

 

[jpaul]

I was surprised that 4k hdr disc reviews do not reveal the peak nits/highlights for them so that you could understand how well they might match your tv;
I assume it is because metadata is inside the (unbroken) drm, on the other hand some of the folks have dumped it from youtube vp9/webm 4k hdr trailers though.

Vincents' discussion on tone-mapping implied Superman 4k hdr was >1K nits

 

[darreny]

Whether a calibration is worthwhile is a matter of opinion, some people think it's a total waste of money and some think other wise, what I would say is if you can have a look at a calibrated screen and then have a look at the same screen in say movie mode you will see the extra detail a calibration brings out, then only you can decide if it's worth the money or not.

That's fine that some people think it's worthwhile I don't dispute that. I was merely stating the contradiction that you should have reference level picture but it doesn't matter if sonny cranks up the bass a bit as that's what he likes.
I'd rather watch a movie on my projector at 92" than on my 42" plasma and probably even a 55" oled if I ever get one. Sure the picture isn't as good but the scale of image and sound together make a film.

 

[woppy101]

That's fine that some people think it's worthwhile I don't dispute that. I was merely stating the contradiction that you should have reference level picture but it doesn't matter if sonny cranks up the bass a bit as that's what he likes.
I'd rather watch a movie on my projector at 92" than on my 42" plasma and probably even a 55" oled if I ever get one. Sure the picture isn't as good but the scale of image and sound together make a film.

I never said that mate, having the correct settings on your sound system is just as important