Oversaturated Primaries

[The_Preacher1973]

Since the release of the JVCHD1/RS1, the question of how important accurate primaries are has raised its head. A lot of us want to know whether it will affect our enjoyment of a projector that is a class above everything else in so many other areas.

Well I came across this post over at AVS in the Epson TW1000 thread which demonstrates the difference between oversaturated and accurate primaries. In it, an ISF calibrator got hold of a TW1000 and plotted it’s out of the box primary performance. You can see the CIE diagram about 2/3 rds of the way down the page in the following link:

AVS - Epson TW1000 Thread

As you can see, the pre calibration CIE diagram bares a remarkable similarity to that of the JVC (see cine4home’s review). The TW1000 is different to the JVC however, in that it has the necessary picture controls to allow it to be calibrated correctly to the Rec 709 standard.

Just below the calibration diagrams, the ISF tech has posted two photos of the same scene. The top one contains oversaturated primaries, the bottom is correctly calibrated.

Looking at these two pictures, should allow people to decide for themselves which colour performance they prefer.

Initially, I actually preferred the top image. It has much more “pop” leaving the calibrated picture look a little flat and lifeless. The more I looked at them however, the more I appreciated the bottom photograph. When you look at the woman standing on the left of the photo, in the top piture it looks like she has a case of mild sunburn, in the corrected photo you can see she’s got a tan. I think this is what Al was seeing and describing as “red push” when he saw Norpus’s HD1 yesterday.

Anyway, the photos are interesting none the less and I have no doubt that many people will prefer the oversaturated look in the top photo. I’d be interested to hear what people think of each photo and I hope it helps people decide how important colour accuracy is to them. It’s just a pity that JVC didn’t include the necessary bias and gain controls to give users a choice. Still, there’s always next years model…

[djOS]

Interesting find Preach - Im the same, Initially I really liked the uncalibrated pic but after a couple of extra looks I found the calibrated pic to be far superiour in overall colour balance.

I think it's worth noting that this scene is from what appears to be a 60's era movie and that the "muted" colours of the calibrated picture are true to the original look of film. (imo)

[JoshH]

Since the release of the JVCHD1/RS1, the question of how important accurate primaries are has raised its head. A lot of us want to know whether it will affect our enjoyment of a projector that is a class above everything else in so many other areas.

Well I came across this post over at AVS in the Epson TW1000 thread which demonstrates the difference between oversaturated and accurate primaries. In it, an ISF calibrator got hold of a TW1000 and plotted it’s out of the box primary performance. You can see the CIE diagram about 2/3 rds of the way down the page in the following link:

AVS - Epson TW1000 Thread

As you can see, the pre calibration CIE diagram bares a remarkable similarity to that of the JVC (see cine4home’s review). The TW1000 is different to the JVC however, in that it has the necessary picture controls to allow it to be calibrated correctly to the Rec 709 standard.

Just below the calibration diagrams, the ISF tech has posted two photos of the same scene. The top one contains oversaturated primaries, the bottom is correctly calibrated.

Looking at these two pictures, should allow people to decide for themselves which colour performance they prefer.

Initially, I actually preferred the top image. It has much more “pop” leaving the calibrated picture look a little flat and lifeless. The more I looked at them however, the more I appreciated the bottom photograph. When you look at the woman standing on the left of the photo, in the top piture it looks like she has a case of mild sunburn, in the corrected photo you can see she’s got a tan. I think this is what Al was seeing and describing as “red push” when he saw Norpus’s HD1 yesterday.

Anyway, the photos are interesting none the less and I have no doubt that many people will prefer the oversaturated look in the top photo. I’d be interested to hear what people think of each photo and I hope it helps people decide how important colour accuracy is to them. It’s just a pity that JVC didn’t include the necessary bias and gain controls to give users a choice. Still, there’s always next years model…

Great Post & Great Find.

PS. Accurate is ALWAYS better :-)

[Hydrology]

Using those photos for comparision, straight away I preferred the bottom pic. The main female (centered) seems to have more depth, noticeable on her "hairpiece". But it is an interesting point you raise, and probably explains why pro calibration is not undertaken by more consumers - I guess with the "pop" they see outta the box its hard to imagine a better picture.

[Santa1503559644]

Under a second!

I've never liked over-saturated images... its a no-brainer.

Even back in the seventies, I was the "odd one out" in having the colour turned way lower than everyone else on my TV!

I constantly say to people who love the LCD look hyper-reality Gameboy Generation look when they are debating this and/or looking at displays in stores ... just look at people around you! Do they look anything like what's on the screen?

(Maybe in Surfers they do! )

[Gino]

Saturated does me nicely

[Raaf_ Hornet]

Even after viewing the two I still couldn't justify the outlay of $500 or more to get the PJ calibrated, for such a small benefit

[JoshH]

Even after viewing the two I still couldn't justify the outlay of $500 or more to get the PJ calibrated, for such a small benefit

You call that a small benefit? *shakes head*

How about this.. one picture is right.. and one is just plain wrong. Are you happy watching an image thats wrong? Its certainly not what the director intended.

IMO its just plain silly to not spend $500 odd dollars to ensure your $8k projector is producing an accurate image.

[Foggy]

Only polyunsaturated for me.

For the record, the JVC that I saw wasn't as oversaturated as the uncalibrated screenshot from the Epson, despite what the graphs may show.

The unfortunate thing with the JVC though is that you won't get full value from a calibration because there are no adjustment options for the primaries in the service menu.

[Santa1503559644]

Even after viewing the two I still couldn't justify the outlay of $500 or more to get the PJ calibrated, for such a small benefit

If your display isn't worth more than a grand, that's fair enough, though you could probably tune it up yourself to a degree.

{NB: So much for my avoiding that pun, Foggy!}

[CAVX]

You call that a small benefit? *shakes head*

How about this.. one picture is right.. and one is just plain wrong. Are you happy watching an image thats wrong? Its certainly not what the director intended.

IMO its just plain silly to not spend $500 odd dollars to ensure your $8k projector is producing an accurate image.

You lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink

Once again, good link Preach

I call that a classic case of "peacock effect" - A male peacock spreads his tail feathers to attract a mate. The bigger and brighter his plumage, the better his chance to score. Display manufactures know that consumers will automatically be attracted to the bigger and brighter image (even if it is wrong), so they purposeply overdrive everything to "attract that mate"...

Mark

[Foggy]

I call that a classic case of "peacock effect" - A male peacock spreads his tail feathers to attract a mate. The bigger and brighter his plumage, the better his chance to score.

Hey, that's the term that I use for some WRX owners with pearlescent paintjobs, inbuilt dual IB subs, and wanky extra loud muffler

[Foggy]

{NB: So much for my avoiding that pun, Foggy!}

pun... what pun!!

You oughta be...congratulated

[Gino]

though you could probably tune it up yourself to a degree.

foggy - maybe he is referring to degree... you know, colour temp??

[betty boop]

I'm defintely one for the 'natural look'. skin tones are a real giveaway. not sure what it is but this goes back a fair way where euro CRT tellies for instance have always given a more natural look to the picture than say your sony of panasonic with their red green push. maybe its a japanese thing. my hitachi plasma has a bit of a red green assertiveness that took some toning down. and I havent bothered with a professional calibration myself but if had a expensive pj its a small price to pay I reckon. you almost owe it to yoruself. spend all the money and not go the last few steps... would seem like a pity I think.

[gobberon]

Its all about standards. If a device can be specified to a standard then any deviations means there is a quality issue or a fault. You can always have the "peacock" user setting to impress the neighbours, as long as you can keep achieving your correct colorimetry then you know your PJ is doing its job well.

[glennb]

Doesn't seem to be a good choice of examples, and personally, I don't think the skin tones in either picture look accurate. Seems to me that there should be a mid point in between the two pictures.

And anyway, how many of us are viewing this on uncalibrated LCD/CRT computer monitors?

[glennb]

*double post*

[betty boop]

~

And anyway, how many of us are viewing this on uncalibrated LCD/CRT computer monitors?

that is a very good point and hence why screen shots often peiople take look pretty average when posted. Its pretty hard to take proper screen shots in itself anyway and theres much variable there that can effect the end result. the eye can be the only judge. there probably only one accurate, maybe theres some allowance for personal taste. its a common comment when people get their displays calibrated they usually think its a bit washed out and takes time to adjust.

[Mjr69]

I agree with the difficulty in representation of what someone actually sees versus looking at a digital photo on an uncalibrated monitor no matter what flavour LCD vs CRT etc...

BUT I also have a real problem with wanting to get what the director intended eg aspect ratio and colour palette etc.

From my memory at the theatre most of those "Technicolor" pictures of the 60s were intentionally over saturated. Therefore I don't think it is a good source material for comparison.

Even taking a more modern movie like 300, Se7en, Minority Report, Memento etc.. can be problematic because there is a deliberate palette and saturation utilised to promote the emotion (even sometimes subconsciously) of the viewer.

Then think about the skills/art direction of the person who "remasters" an old movie and what their input has on the finished disc!

It means that even with an expert calibration of your equipment you may not get exactly what is beauty to the eye of the beholder for every single movie you watch - some might look unsaturated or over saturated to you depending on the movie - but if your equipment is at least calibrated - that is the best we can do.

[The_Preacher1973]

BUT I also have a real problem with wanting to get what the director intended eg aspect ratio and colour palette etc.

From my memory at the theatre most of those "Technicolor" pictures of the 60s were intentionally over saturated. Therefore I don't think it is a good source material for comparison.

Even taking a more modern movie like 300, Se7en, Minority Report, Memento etc.. can be problematic because there is a deliberate palette and saturation utilised to promote the emotion (even sometimes subconsciously) of the viewer.

Then think about the skills/art direction of the person who "remasters" an old movie and what their input has on the finished disc!

It means that even with an expert calibration of your equipment you may not get exactly what is beauty to the eye of the beholder for every single movie you watch - some might look unsaturated or over saturated to you depending on the movie - but if your equipment is at least calibrated - that is the best we can do.

But the point of calibrating a display is so that when the source sends a signal to display a particular shade of red the screen displays the same shade. When the source sends a signal to display a “light brown tan” the display displays “light brown tan”, not “2 hours too long in the sun” red.

If a film was filmed in Tecnicolor and deliberately oversaturated such that in the source the skin looks sunburned, then a correctly calibrated display will still show that sunburnt look. If however you set up the display to “oversaturate” everything, then when it receives an oversaturated source, it will “oversaturate” it more.

The whole point of calibrating a display is so that it shows the source how it was encoded. Now this is not necessarily the same thing as how the director intended as it mainly depends on the remastering/encoding process.

[JoshH]

The whole point of calibrating a display is so that it shows the source how it was encoded. Now this is not necessarily the same thing as how the director intended as it mainly depends on the remastering/encoding process.

Thats true - however, many directors are activley involved in their mastering process to ensure their film looks the way they want. If a director sits in on the mastering and says 'this is how I want it to look' to the telecinist and he makes it so on their reference monitors [which are calibrated daily] - then providing your display is capable of producing an accurate image and is calibrated then for all intents and purposes you are watching as close as possible to what the director intended.

If the director is not sitting in on the DVD authoring then your at the mercy of whatever the telecinist beleives you should see. But your not even going to see that correctly if you dont calibrate.

[Hydrology]

To all the professional guys in this thread...

I understand whole heartedly where you guys are coming from, but c'mon, you guys work in the industry, its expected that you would naturally agree/recommend a pro calibration. Theres a number of factors as to why some people wont cough up $500.

1. The difference is expected to be small and subtle, rather than dramatic. As you know the physics behind the work done, you can appreciate what goes into it and what comes out of it, the average consumer wont.

2. WAF. My missus wouldnt allow me to spend $500 on a "bloke coming out to the house to setup the PJ, when you work in the industry yourself". Im sure a lot of significant others would reduce the chances of getting that calibration done, as they certainly cant see the merit in it.

3. Reliability. As mentioned above, I work in this industry, but based on the 4 units from 2 brands Ive gone through in the last 8 months, I wouldve lost $500 each time - thats a significant amount of money should you have problematic electronics.

If somebody thinks that a calibration, based on the before and after, isnt worth the money, leave them to their opinion. Lets not be elitist, even if the proof is there.

[Raaf_ Hornet]

To all the professional guys in this thread...

I understand whole heartedly where you guys are coming from, but c'mon, you guys work in the industry, its expected that you would naturally agree/recommend a pro calibration. Theres a number of factors as to why some people wont cough up $500.

1. The difference is expected to be small and subtle, rather than dramatic. As you know the physics behind the work done, you can appreciate what goes into it and what comes out of it, the average consumer wont.

2. WAF. My missus wouldnt allow me to spend $500 on a "bloke coming out to the house to setup the PJ, when you work in the industry yourself". Im sure a lot of significant others would reduce the chances of getting that calibration done, as they certainly cant see the merit in it.

3. Reliability. As mentioned above, I work in this industry, but based on the 4 units from 2 brands Ive gone through in the last 8 months, I wouldve lost $500 each time - thats a significant amount of money should you have problematic electronics.

If somebody thinks that a calibration, based on the before and after, isnt worth the money, leave them to their opinion. Lets not be elitist, even if the proof is there.

Thanks Mark, thats what I was trying to say, I'm not saying the calibrated doesnt look better, but justifying the cost would an imposible task with the wife, as it would be for many others on here.

[JoshH]

If somebody thinks that a calibration, based on the before and after, isnt worth the money, leave them to their opinion. Lets not be elitist, even if the proof is there.

I dont agree at all The proof is there and its not elitist. Its just right vs. wrong.

So.. lets agree to disagree :-)