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
Meridian G61R, HD621, Bryston 9BSST
Optimised Audio PC - J River / JPlay / Custom Full Linear Power Supply
Panasonic 65VT65, Marantz UD7007, HIFi Racks Podium Reference
Monitor Audio GX100, GXC150, Apex A10, BK XLS400 (set with hard knee house curve)
JCAT USB and Sata, Graham Slee Spatia (SC) Graham Slee Lautus Digital / Analogue IC x 9
Now testing titanic 3D I thought it looked cardboard before - I think this is the most amazing thing I have ever seen!!!
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.)
Hardware: Panasonic TX-P50VT65B (calibrated); Cambridge Audio Azur 651BD; Yamaha RX-A810; Teac PD-H600; PS3; B&W 601 & 600LCR (series 3); Q Acoustics QAV (rear)
Furniture and Accessories: BLOK Classix 3000 Oak AV Cabinet; Atacama Nexus 6 (atabite metal filled); 3D3 A1112
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...
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
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
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
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...
No signature worth mentioning...
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.
Click here to read about my system
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
Lounge: Panasonic TX-P60ZT65B (calibrated), Pioneer SC-LX75, Denon DPB-2012, Sky-HD1TB, PS4, Xbox 360, Apple-TV, Atacama Equinox AV stand, Monitor Audio Silver RX8, RXC, RX-FX, RXW-12. Kitchen: Pioneer XC-HM81, Monitor Audio Bronze BX2. Bedroom: Samsung UE37D6510, Samsung BD-C5900, Sky-HD, Pioneer N-50, Rotel RC-03 (pre-amp), Rotel RB-9708X (power-amp), Mordaunt-Short MS914
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.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing