# Reference Versus Preference.



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

What is your take on this, does ISF calibration mean the best we can get out of our tv's or should we tweak to where we think it should be? onder:


----------



## 86eldel68-deactivated (Nov 30, 2010)

For years, my take has been and continues to be:
- Calibrate as best you can.
- If you're satisfied with the PQ, enjoy.
- If you're not satisfied with the PQ - or if you simply want to do it - and you can afford it, have your display calibrated.

I have never had any of my TVs or PJs calibrated, and even though I have seen calibrated displays, I've never regretted not having had my displays calibrated.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## J&D (Apr 11, 2008)

I chose by eye if you mean using a reference calibration disk and DIY method. This is the method I use with all of my displays and FP. For me it is not really the cost of using an ISF certified technician it is more the hassle factor of finding someone you can trust, setting up the appointment, waiting in standby until they can get it done. I realize the test disk can only take you so far but for me it has been sufficient.


----------



## mandtra (Aug 30, 2010)

J&D said:


> I chose by eye if you mean using a reference calibration disk and DIY method. This is the method I use with all of my displays and FP. For me it is not really the cost of using an ISF certified technician it is more the hassle factor of finding someone you can trust, setting up the appointment, waiting in standby until they can get it done. I realize the test disk can only take you so far but for me it has been sufficient.


+1 , I use the disk method and it works very well


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

mandtra said:


> +1 , I use the disk method and it works very well


Same here but, I think the best would be ISF.


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

Would you guys consider the Darblet a preference or reference product.


----------



## jmschnur (May 31, 2011)

tele1962 said:


> Would you guys consider the Darblet a preference or reference product.


Preference


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

tele1962 said:


> What is your take on this, does ISF calibration mean the best we can get out of our tv's or should we tweak to where we think it should be? onder:


ISF calibration is not based upon what is the "best we can get our of our tv's." It is about bringing a given system closer to reproducing images in a manner consistent with the standards being applied. The way that you are posing the question does not enhance understanding of the value of calibration. It juxtaposes it to individual preference. This debate confuses people with regard to the value of calibration.

In my experience, calibration gets you closer to a system that is transparent, i.e. alters the input less than an uncalibrated system. This may be best in the view of some, or not, and may depend on the situation. It is well understood that even the best calibrated consumer system will likely not be reproducing images exactly like the professional monitors used in production and post production. It is also clear that the quality of the recorded material or the transmission may be substandard. Furthermore, the entire purpose of the home entertainment system is for the enjoyment of the material by the owner and that person may not prefer the result of calibration on any particular programming.

With so many variables, what then is the value of calibration. Here lies the point, IMO. By removing as many of the variables as possible, i.e. calibrating to standards, we have a starting point that allows us to have a better idea of how the image started. Does that mean that we should not try to make those images more appealing than what might be output on the calibrated system if we find that we can? I see no reason for calibration and tweaking to be exclusive at all. I therefore consider the question of this thread to be poorly posed and missing the point.

Of course calibration is a valuable tool that most can benefit from. It may not have sufficient value to ustify the cost and effort for many.

Of course we should tweak our systems to our liking. Even if they have been calibrated.

I will not answer the question posed in this thread because it is inadequate to capture my views on the matter.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

tele1962 said:


> Would you guys consider the Darblet a preference or reference product.


Clearly, the processing that darbee does is about making images more visually appealing, thus about preference.

The very aspects of the image that it manipulates are the tools that artists use to emphasize or de-emphasize the things that they want to communicate in their art. If one sees a video reproduction of a Monet, or of the Mona Lisa, would it look "better" processed by the darbee method? Perhaps, but I would prefer to see the image with luminance characteristics as close to what I would see in person to be able to see the effects of how the artist manipulated the light. It might look more three dimensional or "pop" more with the darbee, and I might want to watch it that way, but I personally want the option of seeing it as close to how I would see it as a two dimensional image in person. There is value in the calibrated system as well as in the modified image from the darbee or any other processing that I prefer.

My issue with Darbee is not that it departs from imaging standards. It is that in discussing the product the manufacturer, and many of its proponents, confounds the idea of image fidelity by wanting to assume for us what constitutes a "better" image. I want to decide that for myself. The masses may be happy having someone define that for them, and that is perfectly OK, even common. The majority of any population tend to follow the pack, letting what is the pleasure of the moment decide for them what they want. This is the essential difference between pleasure and enjoyment, and between enlightenment and populism. 

The majority of users here can reason beyond an either/or perspective. The device has an on/off switch and scalable processing. When it is off, it can be a reference product if the system is calibrated and capable of reference performance. When it is on it is satisfying the preference of the user.


----------



## dmiller (Aug 7, 2012)

I would add that in a sense tweeking is also done within the constraints of an ISF calibration. For example day/night modes. This is allowing for variable ambient light. Since ambient light is not a 2 step curve but continuously variable some tweeking may be required beyond the day/night modes.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Calibration is, after all, just a more organized method of tweaking. One cannot account for all of the possible variations in systems, signal conditions, and environments. This is why I have maintained that the important questions are what does it do and under what conditions. When I calibrated my clients' systems we spent as much time on teaching the proper use of the various controls and what they might accomplish as we spent on the calibration. I just don't get the assumption that a calibrated system is the end all any more than how someone can suggest that some particular setting of the darbee processor is going to be best for all viewing.

The value in categorizing is that it makes decisions easier. When you do it to the degree that it confuses issues, however, it does nothing but polarize people into one camp or the other.


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

lcaillo said:


> ISF calibration is not based upon what is the "best we can get our of our tv's." It is about bringing a given system closer to reproducing images in a manner consistent with the standards being applied. The way that you are posing the question does not enhance understanding of the value of calibration. It juxtaposes it to individual preference. This debate confuses people with regard to the value of calibration.
> 
> In my experience, calibration gets you closer to a system that is transparent, i.e. alters the input less than an uncalibrated system. This may be best in the view of some, or not, and may depend on the situation. It is well understood that even the best calibrated consumer system will likely not be reproducing images exactly like the professional monitors used in production and post production. It is also clear that the quality of the recorded material or the transmission may be substandard. Furthermore, the entire purpose of the home entertainment system is for the enjoyment of the material by the owner and that person may not prefer the result of calibration on any particular programming.
> 
> ...


Basicly if my understanding is correct you are saying even after calibration we should tweak the controls to our liking, then what is the point of calibration?
If you choose not to anwswer the question that really is up to you...........but if you remember correctly you asked me to set up a thread to ask this very question, so as not to confuse the Darblet thread.
I think the best coarse of action on this forum is probably for me being a none owner not to post here as it seems like owners of this product even here are determend to hound you off no matter which way you put it.


----------



## dmiller (Aug 7, 2012)

tele1962 said:


> Basicly if my understanding is correct you are saying even after calibration we should tweak the controls to our liking, then what is the point of calibration?
> If you choose not to anwswer the question that really is up to you...........but if you remember correctly you asked me to set up a thread to ask this very question, so as not to confuse the Darblet thread.
> I think the best coarse of action on this forum is probably for me being a none owner not to post here as it seems like owners of this product even here are determend to hound you off no matter which way you put it.


I do not think anyone is "hounding you off". No matter how you put it you are a proponent of calibration then forget it. That is your choice and you are welcome to it. Just allow us who have different opinions the same courtesy. 

You seem to conveniently miss the points that are made that are contrary to your views. Carefully read and understand what Leonard said. In my opinion its a concise summary of this subject.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

tele1962 said:


> Basicly if my understanding is correct you are saying even after calibration we should tweak the controls to our liking, then what is the point of calibration?
> If you choose not to anwswer the question that really is up to you...........but if you remember correctly you asked me to set up a thread to ask this very question, so as not to confuse the Darblet thread.


I have answered the question. The point of calibration is to have an image as close to reference as possible. That minimizes the random tweaking needed to get whatever it is you think is the "best" image.

With calibration you have a starting point which is as close as possible to what left post production. If the intent was to reproduce a scene as close to the way we would see it as possible, or if the intent was to create some visual art, the best way to approximate either is to start with a calibrated image. That is not exclusive of wanting to watch it differently than it was produced. The point with calibration is you have the ability to decide for yourself or to allow the artist vision to be reproduced (to the degree the system is capable of meeting the available standards). You have the CHOICE. When a set is uncalibrated you are shooting in the dark and it is harder to have an idea of what was produced.

You asked the question and I am giving my opinion. My opinion is that the discussion is valuable but the manner in which you pose questions is divisive and unproductive. Starting a thread comes with no assumption that others will agree with your perspective.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

tele1962 said:


> I think the best coarse of action on this forum is probably for me being a none owner not to post here as it seems like owners of this product even here are determend to hound you off no matter which way you put it.


That is your choice. As long as you post within the rules you are welcome. Everyone plays by the same rules here, so you won't get a pass on having your statements and views challenged any more than Darbee did. No one is hounding you off, but you seem determined to create conflict rather than promote understanding. That does not get much support here.


----------



## jmschnur (May 31, 2011)

lcaillo said:


> That is your choice. As long as you post within the rules you are welcome. Everyone plays by the same rules here, so you won't get a pass on having your statements and views challenged any more than Darbee did. No one is hounding you off, but you seem determined to create conflict rather than promote understanding. That does not get much support here.


I own a Darbee . My 151 is calibrated. The shows from FIOS are varying in quality. I find that the Darbee helps viewing Fios, ESP sports. I am not sure what reference is in this regard.

On the Blu Ray Spears and Munsil disk I found some aberrations . 

On the demos HD Darbee 30 was not offensive. In the luma tests I found some problems.

So I will use the Darbee for normal tv viewing.

For Blu Rays, I will play before choosing how I want to watch.

For classic black and white on blu ray I suspect will choose directors reference rather than 
Darbee


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

lcaillo said:


> That is your choice. As long as you post within the rules you are welcome. Everyone plays by the same rules here, so you won't get a pass on having your statements and views challenged any more than Darbee did. No one is hounding you off, but you seem determined to create conflict rather than promote understanding. That does not get much support here.


I don't get this creating conflict as i see it i am creating debate......the two are very different.

I hope you don't mind but i will use Alan Browns views on this one:

"As long as I am tolerated here, I will honestly speak my mind when invited to, or I encounter statements counterproductive to audio/video best practices. Agreement is not required in an open discussion. Bias is not bad as long as it is clearly understood. Everyone is biased to some degree. My bias in this context is to advocate for image fidelity as defined in motion imaging industry terms. 

I judged the product being discussed according to the manufacturer's declarations and descriptions, and after reading the vast majority of discussions in other forums. Evaluating their statements at face value revealed their bias. I found their fundamental premise to appear faulty and challenged them to further clarify their definition of terms. If a product is described by its maker to be fundamentally intended to alter image fidelity, I will not give them my money, nor will I be inclined to devote my time to experimenting with it. I don't view my home entertainment electronics as toys to be played with, but rather, tools for conveying the audio and video programs I enjoy. For me, it's ultimately and primarily about the art and the artists, not the delivery mechanisms. If the delivery mechanism alters the original performance, I consider it intrusive, distracting, and undesirable. It does not matter to me if some perceive the alteration as an enhancement, or a distortion. I simply want the original performance as near to the artist's intent as possible. If my considering the alteration of the performance to be utter nonsense, or baloney, offends anyone- tough noogies. 

Popularity and quality are not mutually inclusive terms or conditions. Anyone entering the consumer electronics marketplace with a product ought to be mature enough to anticipate that their device will encounter challenges and competition. How they respond to the challenges will affect their success in one degree or another. I'm still waiting for answers to my questions. I could be persuaded to spend my hard earned money on this device, if I become convinced it will provide value to me. 

Thus far, comments from people who's experience and understanding I regard highly lead me to doubt its suitability for my viewing habits. When I am just engaged in casual viewing, reference performance is not required, nor would I consider spending the money on additional video processing. It does not sound as if this device would be acceptable for critical viewing sessions, either. I have been studying cinematography for years and don't value what this device claims to do in that context."


----------



## dmiller (Aug 7, 2012)

You again are simply restating your premise of ISF calibrate then leave it alone. We understand.

Lets go on from here if this a debate. Find another way to restate the same thing if not a debate.


----------



## jmschnur (May 31, 2011)

Lots of stuff out there that is not received over the Internet or cable/fios that is HD and can benefit from the Darbee. It will not be reference. However reference is not available in these cases due to the transmission .

Blu ray has the ability to produce reference for those, I would prefer to watch with Darbee off so I could see the director intent.

There is place for the Darbee in my home . I will use it for most Fios broad casts, some DVDs, and probably not for Blu Ray movies


----------



## DJG (Nov 24, 2011)

My 2 cents as a DIY calibrator. If the calibration looks really good on the grayscale and color areas, I tweak the contrast / brightness / backlight controls. If I did not like the calibration, I try figure out what might help and do another run. But I never mess with the calibrated settings of CMS or 10 point white balance, just do over.

There is no such thing as a perfect calibration run - there are way too many ways of correcting that are mathematically similar but visually different. Of course a pro will have the experience of which way to correct that will be more optimized, but every TV has its variations and corrections are not infinitely granular, they often jump in steps not over where you want to be so you need to compromise some way.

So yeah, both .


----------



## dmiller (Aug 7, 2012)

I have had my displays ISF'd for a number of years. I believe it gives me the best starting reference point. I have rarely made any tweeks to my calibrated system. That being said I do not believe that a calibrated system is a reference system. Cable and satellite feeds leave much to be desired and Bluray even as good as it may be is still compressed and at reduced resolution from the Masters.For these reasons I am not against any further tweeking. 

Everything considered to me everything is preference even if a system is calibrated(a preference as well)


----------



## tcarcio (Jun 27, 2007)

ISF for me, I think it made my PJ much more lifelike and I don't think I could do that by eye...:nono:


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

tele1962 said:


> I don't get this creating conflict as i see it i am creating debate......the two are very different.
> 
> I hope you don't mind but i will use Alan Browns views...post trimmed


We are well aware of Alan's views. I tend to agree with him for the most part, but am not willing to ignore options that may make a more appealing image than is possible with a display that is calibrated to its potential. There are too many variables in play that calibration does not account for. Alan is right on virtually every point that he makes, but he is also careful to frame the context of his remarks. If you pay attention to the context, you can rarely find error in his logic. His opinion may not align with some, but that is fine.

Your posts, tele1962, seem to harp on the same points over and over, yet you are hardly as articulate at presenting them as Alan. He makes his point and does not belabor it in the manner that you do, which many find quite tiring. I have had complaints about your posts which at times push the limits of the letter of our rules. There is a fine line between debate and baiting an argument. If you are posting in a manner that extends knowledge and understanding through debate and discussion, you are within the rules, even if you point out errors in the logic or understanding of others. If you are just poking for a fight, you will be shown the door.


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

lcaillo said:


> We are well aware of Alan's views. I tend to agree with him for the most part, but am not willing to ignore options that may make a more appealing image than is possible with a display that is calibrated to its potential. There are too many variables in play that calibration does not account for. Alan is right on virtually every point that he makes, but he is also careful to frame the context of his remarks. If you pay attention to the context, you can rarely find error in his logic. His opinion may not align with some, but that is fine.
> 
> Your posts, tele1962, seem to harp on the same points over and over, yet you are hardly as articulate at presenting them as Alan. He makes his point and does not belabor it in the manner that you do, which many find quite tiring. I have had complaints about your posts which at times push the limits of the letter of our rules. There is a fine line between debate and baiting an argument. If you are posting in a manner that extends knowledge and understanding through debate and discussion, you are within the rules, even if you point out errors in the logic or understanding of others. If you are just poking for a fight, you will be shown the door.


Fair enough i am not very articulate due to my own problem but i have used Alans post to express my view.


----------



## David Mackenzie (Apr 15, 2012)

> ISF Or Tweak.
> ISF Calibration.
> Calibrate By Eye.


Not sure I really understand the point of the question; it's an apples to oranges comparison. You can't calibrate by eye (well, not beyond black level and a few other parameters).

So, as far as display an undistorted image, then no, there's no substitute for scientific calibration.


----------



## David Mackenzie (Apr 15, 2012)

> Bluray even as good as it may be is still compressed and at reduced resolution from the Masters.For these reasons I am not against any further tweeking.


Reduced resolution to a 4K scan, sure, but the compression on nearly every BD is almost meaningless. As far as 1920x1080 @ 4:2:0 goes, BD often comes close to visual transparency. The format was designed for MPEG-2 with a max bit rate of 40mbps, then had AVC and VC-1 added later. You have to have a seriously encoder to get bad results out of BD, or put another way, you don't even need to be a very good compressionist to make good-looking discs.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Compression, resolution, calibration parameters that are currently used...none of these is really relevant to what the darbee processing does. It is a different animal. Now when there are compression artifacts such as with sat broadcasts, they can be emphasized by the processing. 

The question of reference vs preference is another example of "Descartes' Error" as Damasio framed it. Simply not a useful question if we don't take the discussion to another level.


----------



## dmiller (Aug 7, 2012)

David Mackenzie said:


> Reduced resolution to a 4K scan, sure, but the compression on nearly every BD is almost meaningless. As far as 1920x1080 @ 4:2:0 goes, BD often comes close to visual transparency. The format was designed for MPEG-2 with a max bit rate of 40mbps, then had AVC and VC-1 added later. You have to have a seriously encoder to get bad results out of BD, or put another way, you don't even need to be a very good compressionist to make good-looking discs.


Thanks for the input. I am someone who thought DVHS was better than HDDVD or BD. I am encouraged by this.

Out of curiosity how much better are the studio set ups than even the best calibrated commercially available displays. I know its subjective but you are in a good position to provide an answer.


----------



## David Mackenzie (Apr 15, 2012)

> Thanks for the input. I am someone who thought DVHS was better than HDDVD or BD. I am encouraged by this.


DVHS better than HD DVD or BD? How come? I haven't seen one of those in a long time, but I was under the impression it was MPEG-2 @ 19mbps CBR? So, markedly inferior to HD DVD or BD.



> Out of curiosity how much better are the studio set ups than even the best calibrated commercially available displays. I know its subjective but you are in a good position to provide an answer.


The budgets I work on aren't Hollywood level, so I'm not the best person to reply.

A good, calibrated consumer HDTV isn't really that different to a studio monitor, though.


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

David Mackenzie said:


> Not sure I really understand the point of the question; it's an apples to oranges comparison. You can't calibrate by eye (well, not beyond black level and a few other parameters).
> 
> So, as far as display an undistorted image, then no, there's no substitute for scientific calibration.


Quite agree but i thought it needed a simple breadown as to what viewers want?


----------



## dmiller (Aug 7, 2012)

David Mackenzie said:


> DVHS better than HD DVD or BD? How come? I haven't seen one of those in a long time, but I was under the impression it was MPEG-2 @ 19mbps CBR? So, markedly inferior to HD DVD or BD.
> 
> .



No justification other than my impression at the time with a display inferior to what is available today. My sons now possess my players and tape collection.


----------



## phreak (Aug 16, 2010)

I doubt many private individuals are approaching reference video. I, like many, run a video calibration disc and don't mess with the settings. I'm not equating this with reference. I also am not against tweaking. I guess the fact that I don't bother tweaking means that calibrated video is my preference. 
On the audio side of my HT I take a different approach. Run Audyssey MultEQ. Use SPL meter to set all channels @ 75 dB. Start watching movies. Within the first couple hours I usually bump up the center and surrounds 2-3 dB,, and the subs 4-6 dB. Definitely preference.


----------



## David Mackenzie (Apr 15, 2012)

dmiller said:


> No justification other than my impression at the time with a display inferior to what is available today. My sons now possess my players and tape collection.


The idea of 1080i video inside a cassette shell the same as VHS is so absurd it makes me smile 

Even crazier still: the small format HDCAM SR tapes are still using the cassette shell originally designed for Betamax!


----------



## dmiller (Aug 7, 2012)

I had DVHS before HDDVD OR BD. I did not see the difference as I added the new gear. Either bad untrained eyes or poor display per todays standards (original LG LCOS RPTV)


----------



## Yiannis1970 (Sep 2, 2012)

David Mackenzie said:


> A good, calibrated consumer HDTV isn't really that different to a studio monitor, though.


Can you elaborate a little more, if you will, giving us some examples?

When you say ''calibrated'', i assume you mean calibrated all the way (grayscale, colours, 10-point gamma). Does a good consumer HDTV provide all these ''tools'' for the necessary tweaking?


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

Yiannis1970 said:


> Can you elaborate a little more, if you will, giving us some examples?
> 
> When you say ''calibrated'', i assume you mean calibrated all the way (grayscale, colours, 10-point gamma). Does a good consumer HDTV provide all these ''tools'' for the necessary tweaking?


Just looking the Panasonic VT has 10 point Gamma correction.


----------



## Yiannis1970 (Sep 2, 2012)

tele1962 said:


> Just looking the Panasonic VT has 10 point Gamma correction.


Yes i know, but VT series are Panasonic's cream. I hardly could call VT50 just a good consumer HDTV.


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

Yiannis1970 said:


> Yes i know, but VT series are Panasonic's cream. I hardly could call VT50 just a good consumer HDTV.


You have me confused there, the VT is a consumer tv.

Or maybe the ST, GT some Samsungs, can also come very close.


----------



## Yiannis1970 (Sep 2, 2012)

tele1962 said:


> You have me confused there, the VT is a consumer tv.
> 
> Or maybe the ST, GT some Samsungs, can also come very close.


I apologize for the confusion. I didn't debate over the ''consumer TV'' fact. Indeed, the VT series are a consumer product. My point is that VTs are an excellent consumer product that provide almost any necessary tool for calibration and not just good TV sets. On the other hand, ST or UT series lack of these options, therefore are considered just good TVs because you won't able to calibrate them according to known standards.

If it has to be seen a TV set as a reference display, at least it must provide the means for achiving reference standards.

JVC's X3 and X30 are very good projectors. Their picture quality though, will never be considered as a reference since they lack cms.


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

Yiannis1970 said:


> I apologize for the confusion. I didn't debate over the ''consumer TV'' fact. Indeed, the VT series are a consumer product. My point is that VTs are an excellent consumer product that provide almost any necessary tool for calibration and not just good TV sets. On the other hand, ST or UT series lack of these options, therefore are considered just good TVs because you won't able to calibrate them according to known standards.
> 
> If it has to be seen a TV set as a reference display, at least it must provide the means for achiving reference standards.
> 
> JVC's X3 and X30 are very good projectors. Their picture quality though, will never be considered as a reference since they lack cms.


Ah i see.
As far as i know you are limited to the functions the tv provides unless you add something like the lumagen. However the ST and GT get very close even without this.

I am sure David will be along at some point to explain further.


----------



## Yiannis1970 (Sep 2, 2012)

tele1962 said:


> However the ST and GT *get very close* even without this.


Everything depends on definition. 

Have a look on before and after calibration charts:

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-tx-p50gt50b-p50gt50-201205091797.htm?page=Calibration

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-tx-p50st50b-p50st50-201207041899.htm


PS.

The ST series do provide a cms option. I apologize for the error.


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

If I am watching Blu-ray movies, I prefer reference all the way. If I am watching sports, preference wins (I like things a little more over saturated and I prefer a little bump up in contrast). If I'm watching something on DirecTV, it depends. 

So in a way, I guess I prefer preference. :bigsmile:


----------



## David Mackenzie (Apr 15, 2012)

Yiannis1970 said:


> PS.
> 
> The ST series do provide a cms option. I apologize for the error.


I don't think there's a CMS on the North American ST50. Could be wrong.


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

I have removed my post.


----------



## dmiller (Aug 7, 2012)

Me too


----------



## tele1962 (Mar 7, 2012)

I have removed my post.


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

I think Buzz is well aware of David's credentials. Let's move on...


----------

