Do It Yourself Calibration

[PersianImmortal]

I thought I'd chronicle my experiences with a relatively quick and cheap 'Do It Yourself' Calibration so that it might encourage other people to give it a go, as I think the results are definitely worth the minimal investment in time and cost. A professional calibration is the best way to get accurate settings and colours, because aside from using professional quality equipment, the calibrator has the experience to tune everything to your specific viewing environment, equipment chain, etc. The problem is that it's not cheap. It usually costs several hundred dollars, and should you wind up with a replacement TV from a warranty claim, or buy a new TV in a year or two, or have multiple displays to calibrate, you have to pay to have it done again and again; calibrated settings from one TV don't transfer to another.

I'm pretty fussy, and I don't mind a bit of hands-on tweaking, so I decided to bite the bullet and conduct a proper calibration of my own. Although I got my Panasonic P50V20A looking quite good just by eye, I had to get a warranty replacement a month ago, and with identical settings to the first TV, this one didn't look as good. There seemed to be a greenish/bluish tinge to the THX mode which would require adjusting the white balance settings to correct, and that can't be done by eye.

After a bit of research, I found the right tools and instructions to do my calibration:

A display sensor - The tool that measures the colours on your screen. In my research the X-Rite Eyeone (i1) Display LT is agreed to be the best price/performance choice. The hardware is identical to the more expensive i1 Display 2, and the extra software is irrelevant as we'll be using a free calibration package. The i1 has also been shown to be more accurate than the Spyder range of sensors, and only a far more pricey sensor would be much better. The cheapest i1 LT I found in Australia was around $260 online (e.g. here), but I bought a new one from the UK via Ebay for $145 all up. Mine took 10 days to get here, is in perfect condition and is new stock.

Calibration software - This is installed on your PC and drives the sensor, mapping its results. The best free calibration software available is ColorHCFR. Other software such as Calman costs $200, which I didn't consider worth the extra cost; ColorHCFR is more than adequate when combined with a decent guide.

Calibration Disc - This is used on your TV to generate the test images the sensor needs in order to take measurements at various levels. A good free calibration disc is AVS HD 709, which can be downloaded and burned to DVD for playback. It even includes a ColorHCFR section on the right side of the main menu for generating the necessary images for ColorHCFR.

A calibration guide - This provides the instructions for how to use the above software and equipment. The Greyscale and Color Calibration Guide for Dummies is the most popular one and covers usage of ColorHCFR and an i1 sensor, but this guide is also useful to understand the concepts involved. Don't worry as you don't have to understand all the complexities of calibration, just the basics.

Summary: For around $150 you can have everything you need to conduct a decent calibration of your TV. The best part is that if you need to do it again on a replacement TV, or another person's TV, or multiple TVs (of any type) in a household, or on a new TV in the next couple of years, you can do so repeatedly at no extra cost.

I've found the results to be excellent, especially as it has allowed me to fine tune everything precisely to my personal taste. The image quality now is without exaggeration spectacular - rich, vibrant, deep and natural all at once. I quickly flicked back and forth between my old original settings (on Professional 1 preset) and my new settings (on Professional 2 preset) and there is a pronounced difference, even though both are THX-based presets. So yes, calibration does make a major difference, but it needn't be a professional one to get great results.

___________________________________________________

For anyone who's interested, the following is a discussion of my results from my calibration:

In my case, I didn't want to calibrate to reference levels for everything, especially Contrast, Brightness and Gamma. I've seen reference levels of these and they appear too washed out and grey-black for my liking. I wanted a deep, rich picture, but retaining natural accurate colours and not being overly bright (i.e. not LCD-like). I used as my starting point the Professional 2 preset. All processing enhancements like Noise Reduction, Eco Mode etc. were disabled.

I made initial measurements with 10% increment grey windows to see what the default THX settings of Contrast 50%, Brightness 0 (midpoint), Gamma 2.2 look like in terms of accuracy on my TV:

Default Greyscale

The first chart above has two sections - the top half shows how close red, green and blue are to the ideal of 100% at the ten points from 0% grey to 100% grey. The bottom portion of the chart shows the Delta E (purple line), which is the degree to which all three primary colours are accurate at each point. A Delta E of 3 or less is generally quite accurate. We can see that although there's possibly a level of inaccuracy due to my noobish use of the sensor, the default colours aren't too bad, but still mostly above Delta E of 3, which explains why I was seeing a greeny/bluish tinge in THX mode on my set. It's showing a distinct lack of red and excess of blue at almost all levels. My previous P50V20A had the reverse: it tended to show a slightly reddish/yellowish tinge in THX.

Default Gamma

The second chart shows the actual gamma at default settings at each point along the 0 - 100% grey scale. The reference target (white dotted line) is 2.22 gamma. The yellow solid line is the actual measured gamma from my TV, and the light blue dotted line is the average of the actual gamma. The aim is to get the actual (yellow) gamma curve as flat as possible, as close as possible to tracking the reference (white dotted) gamma line. Now oddly enough, the TV tracks this same ramp-shaped curve at 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 gamma in my testing, so it's not sensor error. I've confirmed with another user on AVS forums who has a US Panasonic G20 TV with a similar shaped gamma curve, so it's likely to be normal for Panasonics.

So the initial results reveal that my TV at default settings in THX (Professional 1/2) mode has noticeably inaccurate deviations in colours and the gamma is too bright (average around 1.9 rather than 2.2). This is lines up with exactly what I see at default settings on my TV.

I then spent several hours over two nights calibrating the TV. Since I wanted a deep and rich image with some more pop to it, I decided to base my main settings around a Contrast of 62 and Brightness of -7, with Gamma 2.4. After my first night of testing I found it to be too hard to get accurate colours at all points along 0% to 100% grey using these settings, so I altered it. I kept Contrast at 62, but set Brightness to -2 and changed Gamma to 2.6. The end result is visually similar to my initial settings, but more accurate for greyscale purposes.

I then spent another couple of hours testing and adjusting the colour accuracy using the White Balance controls in Professional 2 mode. Unlike the Samsungs, the Panasonics do not have 10 point white balance, so compromises need to be made to get a low Delta E at all points between 0% and 100%. I think however that I've done a reasonable job, as shown below:

Calibrated Greyscale

Aside from a higher Delta E of 10 for 10% grey (which is extremely dark), Delta E for the colours at all other points is now at 3 or below. This means visibly accurate colours. A professional calibration would likely get them even lower, usually at Delta E of around 1 or less, however bear in mind that I've chosen a non-reference set of Contrast, Brightness and Gamma settings which are based on personal taste, and these settings make colour accuracy harder at all points on the greyscale.

At 100% grey I have 30.737 ftL and 105.31 cd/m2, which means for a plasma the image is bright but not overwhelmingly so. I mainly view movies in low light conditions, so this is perfect for me, though I have to say it still looks quite good during the daytime due to the 2.6 Gamma and higher Contrast (i.e. less washed out than default).

Calibrated Gamma

Finally, my gamma results above show an exaggerated version of the default Panasonic gamma shape. I was deliberately aiming for a 2.30 - 2.35 gamma average, so it's very close to my target gamma. The odd shape is a result of my contrast, brightness and gamma settings (hence the big flare out at 90% - though it's also probably because I'm using window patterns), and again is part of my personal taste in getting a richer picture with more visual pop. As long as it doesn't affect greyscale accuracy too much, which my earlier graph shows it doesn't, then it's not a major issue.

My final settings are as follows, but remember that my white balance settings definitely don't apply to anyone else's TV:

Mode: Professional 1

Contrast: 62

Brightness: -2

Color: 39 (BD) 31 (Digital TV)

Sharpness: 10

Gamma: 2.6

R-Gain: +11

G-Gain: 0

B-Gain: 0

R-Cutoff: -8

G-Cutoff: 0

B-Cutoff : -1

Saturation and Hue all at 0

Ultimately the proof is in how it looks, and visually it is fantastic. Not a doubt in my mind that the results are accurate. So again, for a minor investment of $150, and a bit of time and effort in terms of research, reading, and testing, I now have a TV which I genuinely believe to be perfectly calibrated for my tastes, with accurate colours and a beautiful image quality. It is definitely noticeably better than the out-of-the-box THX setting. So you don't need a professional calibration to get great results.

[diesel]

Nice thread PI.

[Owen]

If I may I would like to make a few points.

There is no “reference” level for “Contrast”, Contrast sets the peak light output of the display (on a Plasma) and the setting is dependant on ambient lighting and personal preference.

A light output of 30ftL is often used but its an arbitrary number, display size, display type and ambient lighting all have an affect on the appropriate level.

Plasma displays cant maintain peak output if a large proportion of pixels are turned on hard, so peak output varies a lot depending on average picture level. This is a form of dynamic compression where bright scenes will be dimmer than they should be relative to dim scenes, its the opposite of what happens with dynamic back/edge lit LCD's, they use dynamic expansion where bright scenes get brighter and dim scenes dimmer.

If you use a “windowed” test screen to set white level (a small white box rather than a full white screen) and set it to say 30ftL the level on a full white screen will be as much as 30% lower (20ftL)

Do the same thing with a non dynamic lite LCD and the full screen level will be the same as the windowed level.

With a dynamic lit LCD (most mid the high end models) the full screen white level will be significantly brighter than the windowed level as the dynamic system will turn up the back light under such conditions.

Obviously the visual effect of the same notional white level is very different between Plasma and LCD and this needs to be considered when setting up a TV.

When the screen size viewing distance combination is such that a large proportion of your vision is filled buy the picture 30ftL is very bright in a dim to dark environment and likely to cause eye strain. By the same token 30ftL in a bright room is no where near bright enough.

As you can see there can never be a calibrated level for contrast.

The setting of the brightness control is much simpler, it should be set so that video black (digital RGB level 16) is as dark on screen as the display is capable of, BUT any higher level (17 and up) are visibly brighter.

A simple way to do this is to display a wide screen movie with black bars, preferably on a dark scene so your eyes are not blinded by bright picture content. Turn the “Brightness” control up so the black bars go visibly grey, then turn it down one step at a time until the black level just stops getting any darker and no lower. Get up reasonably close to the screen while doing this as it makes it easier.

Go up and down a couple of times to make sure you don’t go lower then necessary or you will crush shadow detail. A higher than necessary setting gives you grey blacks and reduces contrast ratio.

Different settings will be required for bright and dim viewing environments as your eyes cant see shades close to black in a bright room and that needs to be compensated for. Normally one or two step up in Brightness is enough to compensate for a bright room.

The advantage of this method is that it can quickly and easily be used on any input on any TV without a test disk and the results are just as accurate.

So there is a “calibrated” level for the Brightness control and there really isn’t any flexibly, the setting is either correct for the ambient lighting or its not.

Gamma is a curly one, its one of the most important aspects of performance for overall picture quality as it affects colour saturation and the overall look of the picture.

Gamma is a complex curve in the transfer function of the display. The industry standard for video is 2.2 but this is simply a number used to describe the average area under the curve, the average can be right while the curve is wrong. Without a 10 point or more RGB gamma control you cant correct for inaccuracies in the gamma curve and are stuck with the presets that the TV provides which may have the right number but typically not the right curve.

Panasonic's typically have a slight lift in the lower end of the gamma curve which lifts shadow detail too much while Samsung's typically go the other way and have a higher contrast look with darker shadows. Both are wrong but it does provide product differentiation in the market as some will prefer one look over the other. At least the Samsung’s have 10 point gamma adjustment so you can have the look you want.

A gamma of 2.2 is only appropriate for dim to dark viewing conditions, in brighter environments a lower gamma number like 2.1 or even 2.0 may be appropriate as this will lift shadow detail into the range where it can be seen.

It is not good to increase shadow detail artificially beyond what is required to compensate for bright viewing conditions as this will make video noise / compression artefacts more noticeable and give a washed out look to the picture.

If the gamma curve is not correct the picture will never look right no matter what you do with the TV's other adjustments, so Gamma is very important.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Owen

[PersianImmortal]

There is no “reference” level for “Contrast”

Fair point, I guess what I mean is the Contrast level which results in the best gamma curve. I decided to work backward by choosing a contrast I find most pleasing to the eye then trying to make greyscale accurate, then getting average gamma to my target of 2.35, in that order of priority. None of this would be considered correct from a calibration point of view, but I did it this way because I know it gives me the most pleasing image. In my relatively dim viewing environment, with a 50" screen at 3m, the contrast doesn't cause eye strain, it just gives a more vivid 3D-like picture.

So there is a “calibrated” level for the Brightness control and there really isn’t any flexibly, the setting is either correct for the ambient lighting or its not.

We've discussed this before and you're correct in that there is a way of setting brightness by eye and getting the accurate result. However I disagree with your statement that there is no flexibility. As I've mentioned before, I do not like the technically correct brightness level. It leaves the screen looking milky and washed out in my opinion. Again my aim is to get a deep, rich image, so I willingly sacrifice some minor black level detail to achieve this. In practice, I have repeatedly paused and checked various dark scenes using first the correct Brightness/Gamma and then my own Brightness/Gamma (flicking between two presets set up accordingly) and the loss of black detail is indeed quite minor and acceptable to me. As an added bonus, my settings result in less pixel noise in the picture too, though that's just a byproduct and not my main aim.

A gamma of 2.2 is only appropriate for dim to dark viewing conditions, in brighter environments a lower gamma number like 2.1 or even 2.0 may be appropriate as this will lift shadow detail into the range where it can be seen.

If the gamma curve is not correct the picture will never look right no matter what you do with the TV's other adjustments, so Gamma is very important.

Again, let's agree to disagree. I find the use of the 2.6 Gamma preset, which gives an effective gamma of 2.3 average, to be the sweet spot. In fact it was our last discussion which prompted me to try 2.6 Gamma/-2 Brightness instead of 2.4 Gamma/-7 Brightness to achieve the same result. That combo seems more accurate because it let me get colour accuracy to a much lower Delta E.

I'm relatively newb on this topic. I suppose that was the aim of this thread, to demonstrate that someone with rather ordinary understanding and ability in terms of the calibration fundamentals can, with a bit of assistance and the right tools, and a minor initial outlay, arrive at the point where they are extremely happy with their calibrated image quality. That's the beauty of DIY calibration - you get to choose what you want, what tradeoffs are acceptable, and still wind up with reasonably accurate colours and image quality using instrumented tests. The last thing I want is to pay a calibrator hundreds of dollars to come to my home, set up my TV with reference levels of Brightness and Gamma for example, only to find it doesn't look good to me. This way I get the best of both worlds. It also doesn't make sense, now that decent TVs are dropping in price to below $1,000 in some cases, to spend up to 30-40% of the price of your TV for a single calibration.

[Owen]

Fair point, I guess what I mean is the Contrast level which results in the best gamma curve. I decided to work backward by choosing a contrast I find most pleasing to the eye then trying to make greyscale accurate, then getting average gamma to my target of 2.35, in that order of priority. None of this would be considered correct from a calibration point of view, but I did it this way because I know it gives me the most pleasing image. In my relatively dim viewing environment, with a 50" screen at 3m, the contrast doesn't cause eye strain, it just gives a more vivid 3D-like picture.

Nothing “backward” about your approach mate, one would normally set the desired contrast and work from there. Its ok to sacrifice grey scale accuracy near white to get better dark and mid tone accuracy where it matters, whites can be quite a long way off before its noticeable.

I am curious what light level you are getting with a full field rather than a windowed test. 30ftL full field is overpowering on a 70” at 3 meters in a dark room.

We've discussed this before and you're correct in that there is a way of setting brightness by eye and getting the accurate result. However I disagree with your statement that there is no flexibility. As I've mentioned before, I do not like the technically correct brightness level. It leaves the screen looking milky and washed out in my opinion. Again my aim is to get a deep, rich image, so I willingly sacrifice some minor black level detail to achieve this. In practice, I have repeatedly paused and checked various dark scenes using first the correct Brightness/Gamma and then my own Brightness/Gamma (flicking between two presets set up accordingly) and the loss of black detail is indeed quite minor and acceptable to me. As an added bonus, my settings result in less pixel noise in the picture too, though that's just a byproduct and not my main aim.

Your approach is valid although your conclusions are not on the money.

It's quite understandable you would want to drop brightness down a notch or two from where it should normally be to help address the lift in the bottom end of the gamma curve typical of Panasonic’s. However if you have complete control of the gamma curve there is no need to set brightness to anything other than dead on. Black is black, white is white and gamma adjusts everything in between allowing you to get whatever look you desire. If gamma curve control is not available (not just a single gamma control) compromises have to be made.

Again, let's agree to disagree. I find the use of the 2.6 Gamma preset, which gives an effective gamma of 2.3 average, to be the sweet spot. In fact it was our last discussion which prompted me to try 2.6 Gamma/-2 Brightness instead of 2.4 Gamma/-7 Brightness to achieve the same result. That combo seems more accurate because it let me get colour accuracy to a much lower Delta E.

Whats to disagree about mate? Inevitably compromises have to be made and only you can determine what you prefer.

I'm relatively newb on this topic. I suppose that was the aim of this thread, to demonstrate that someone with rather ordinary understanding and ability in terms of the calibration fundamentals can, with a bit of assistance and the right tools, and a minor initial outlay, arrive at the point where they are extremely happy with their calibrated image quality. That's the beauty of DIY calibration - you get to choose what you want, what tradeoffs are acceptable, and still wind up with reasonably accurate colours and image quality using instrumented tests. The last thing I want is to pay a calibrator hundreds of dollars to come to my home, set up my TV with reference levels of Brightness and Gamma for example, only to find it doesn't look good to me. This way I get the best of both worlds. It also doesn't make sense, now that decent TVs are dropping in price to below $1,000 in some cases, to spend up to 30-40% of the price of your TV for a single calibration.

I wasn’t having a go at you mate, just filling in the blanks so readers would have a better understanding of the issues. I commend your efforts and encourage other forum members to experiment with settings to get a better understanding of how they interact.

A colour meter and software are great leaning tools as they give feedback on whats happening as you adjust and thats invaluable in gaining understanding. However experience and often a lot of time are required to work out the best compromises and get the best overall result.

Calibration means adjustment to a set of standards (or at least attempting to), deviation from that is simply adjusting to suit personal preference. Nothing wrong with that but the term “calibration” does not apply.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Owen

[PersianImmortal]

No problems, didn't take any of what you said as an attack on me. I appreciate your experience and input, so it's all good

I think a lot of it comes down to confidence. I'm fairly confident in knowing what I want in a plasma image after years of using plasma. I also feel I have a good enough eye to be able to work out if something looks wrong to me. Whether you want to call it calibration or otherwise, the area where I needed the most help though was in getting accurate colours as a starting point through the white balance controls, as you can't do that by eye. I was perfectly willing to adjust the calibrated colours to be slightly inaccurate if the results looked unpleasant to me, but as it happens the accurate colour levels look great, so I've kept them. If you look at my gains and cuts, you'll see it's almost entirely around changing the reds. For some reason this TV came from the factory with noticeable red deviation, when the last one seemed much closer to being on target out of the box. I could never in a million years have done that without some form of instrumented calibration, so that was my main motivation in heading down this path.

And I agree, calibration is getting to a reference standard, which again is precisely why I prefer and recommend the DIY approach, because not everyone is going to like the reference standard on their TV.

I am curious what light level you are getting with a full field rather than a windowed test. 30ftL full field is overpowering on a 70” at 3 meters in a dark room.

I haven't tested it on a full field yet, will have a go at some point if I get the chance. I was under the impression that 30-40ftL is the normal range for Plasma. My final luminance graph looks like this:

Calibrated Luminance

What I can say is that THX mode on the Panasonic is recognised as being dimmer than other modes, and with only a side lamp on in the room while viewing movies, at 3m I don't find the image blazingly bright at all. I've only watched a couple of blu-rays and a DVD since the calibration (Planet Earth episodes and Goodfellas on blu, Office Space on DVD) and so far nothing strikes me as overly bright. I do have the option of turning down Contrast a couple of notches to 60 if it starts bothering my eyes without any real impact on the overall pop of the image.

Anyway the most important portion of my first post is the top half, which talks about the specific requirements for undertaking calibration. The second half is only my personal experience and choices, which are just provided as an example, and have no real bearing on what others should do. What I can say is that calibration is certainly not dead simple for the first timer, as it requires a lot of trial and error, but most people should be able to pick up the essentials within a few days and get excellent results. In fact if you have a few friends who need their TV calibrated, you can split the cost of a sensor and wind up only paying $50 each or less for example to get the job done.

[petetherock]

Nice thread TS.

I got someone to calibrate my Kuro a few months back. Set me back about 200, but it was nice. ISF pro and all. He was a hobbyist, so I think I had lower rates than the real pros.

Happy with the day and night settings.

[Owen]

And I agree, calibration is getting to a reference standard, which again is precisely why I prefer and recommend the DIY approach, because not everyone is going to like the reference standard on their TV.

Agreed, thats why I consider adjustment to taste more important to many people than “calibration”.

I haven't tested it on a full field yet, will have a go at some point if I get the chance. I was under the impression that 30-40ftL is the normal range for Plasma. My final luminance graph looks like this:

Calibrated Luminance

What I can say is that THX mode on the Panasonic is recognised as being dimmer than other modes, and with only a side lamp on in the room while viewing movies, at 3m I don't find the image blazingly bright at all. I've only watched a couple of blu-rays and a DVD since the calibration (Planet Earth episodes and Goodfellas on blu, Office Space on DVD) and so far nothing strikes me as overly bright. I do have the option of turning down Contrast a couple of notches to 60 if it starts bothering my eyes without any real impact on the overall pop of the image.

Here is a typical relationship of Plasma peak output V the number of pixels driven hard on.

Plasma Screen White Area vs. Brightness

---------------------------------------

10% 45 foot lamberts brightness

50% 25 foot lamberts brightness

100% 17 foot lamberts brightness

As you can see the more pixels driven the lower the peak output of the panel so 30 to 40ftL on a windowed test (the way Plasmas are tested) results in a full field output of less than 20ft. No wonder you think 30ftL is not very bright, in reality you are likely getting little more than front projector peak like light levels on a full bright screen, certainly not startling.

Imagine bright scenes being almost twice as bright as you have now and you get the idea.

The upside is that normally average picture levels are quite low so a Plasma can deliver a picture that is plenty bright enough even with its current limiting system.

I find 25ftL plenty on a display that is not dynamically limited.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Owen

[PersianImmortal]

I got someone to calibrate my Kuro a few months back. Set me back about 200, but it was nice. ISF pro and all. He was a hobbyist, so I think I had lower rates than the real pros.

For a more expensive reference level TV like a Kuro, and with the price you got, it makes sense to have it done by a professional/pro-hobbyist.

Although I and many other people have known that you can do home calibration using the right equipment, in my opinion it's only been fairly recently that a combination of factors has made it something worth actually pursuing:

1. The latest TVs now allow easy access to a range of finer controls like white balance within the normal user menus, rather than the more difficult and risky service menu method.

2. The price of TVs has fallen such that spending $300-400 calibrating a ~$1,000 TV just seems wasteful. The quality has also fallen such that there's no guarantee your TV won't die in the first 6 months and you need to pay to get a new calibration. It used to make financial sense when you paid $5000 five years ago for a plasma, and they had better quality, but not as much these days.

3. The price of sensors is falling in Australian dollars due to the strong dollar. I wouldn't be keen to spend $300 on a basic sensor like the i1 LT/D2, whereas $150 is much more palatable.

4. THX mode means TVs now come from the factory with far less of the horrendously out of whack colours they used to. So as a starting point we're already much closer to accurate colours, making home calibration easier.

No wonder you think 30ftL is not very bright, in reality you are likely getting little more than front projector peak like light levels on a full bright screen, certainly not startling.

The upside is that normally average picture levels are quite low so a Plasma can deliver a picture that is plenty bright enough even with its current limiting system.

I understand what you mean, although I wouldn't suggest it's front projector levels of luminance. It seems quite bright, just not overwhelmingly so. As I say, I've even toyed with dialing down Contrast from 62 to 60, so I certainly don't feel it's too dim You can see my luminance curve tracks reasonably close to the reference level for plasma, a bit below at the low end, a bit above at the high end. The result is very pleasing to my eye, which is the main thing. To put it another way, what I like in a plasma image is the impression of looking through an open window, rather than seeing something that looks projected onto a screen.

Edited April 18, 2011 by PersianImmortal

[Owen]

1. The latest TVs now allow easy access to a range of finer controls like white balance within the normal user menus, rather than the more difficult and risky service menu method.

Good displays have offered full white balance controls in the user menu for many years

I understand what you mean, although I wouldn't suggest it's front projector levels of luminance. It seems quite bright, just not overwhelmingly so. As I say, I've even toyed with dialing down Contrast from 62 to 60, so I certainly don't feel it's too dim You can see my luminance curve tracks reasonably close to the reference level for plasma, a bit below at the low end, a bit above at the high end. The result is very pleasing to my eye, which is the main thing. To put it another way, what I like in a plasma image is the impression of looking through an open window, rather than seeing something that looks projected onto a screen.

Even modest output home projectors can deliver 30ftL on a 90" screen these days. Average picture levels are lower as there is no dynamic compression as with Plasma.

The look of front projection is very different as you note, not a fan myself.

Your luminance graph looks like you described, a bit dark in the shadows. It reminds me of a Samsung response so given your preference for that look I'm surprised to chose a Panasonic in the first place.

[betty boop]

hi persian, good on you for posting your method and giving go yourself to obviously a result your happy with. havent quite got the necessary to do a full blown professional level calibration myself. however having seen the result on not only plasmas but many pjs as well think well worth the result and something will most definitely get done but likely when my system settles down and perhaps end up going down the pj path at the same time

in the mean time for whats tis worth the thx optimser I have found particularly exact in getting both contrast and brightness correct and it is pretty exact not too much subjectiveness involved and found it to work exceptionally well on both plasmas and lcds have used it on. the kuros "pure" setting like the thx setting on the pana's take your pretty close to there in my opinion however it is well worth going the extra. I wouldnt settle for jsut Pure or THX on either display. plasma phosphours tend to take a while to settle down anyways something like 100-200 hours that have seen on my last three plasmas so no way they can pre calibrate individuals panel from the factory. So defintiely even if on those settings its worth the extra effort as you know doubt have also shown

good stuff and great to see contributions as these from you thats hopefully helpfull to others wanting to do the same or contemplating

[coylum]

I'm pretty fussy, and I don't mind a bit of hands-on tweaking, so I decided to bite the bullet and conduct a proper calibration of my own. Although I got my Panasonic P50V20A looking quite good just by eye, I had to get a warranty replacement a month ago, and with identical settings to the first TV, this one didn't look as good. There seemed to be a greenish/bluish tinge to the THX mode which would require adjusting the white balance settings to correct, and that can't be done by eye.

Very interesting and informative thread ... particularly as it develops with comments from others.

Could you just confirm one detail - you mention THX mode on a P50V20A, do you mean True Cinema Mode? I have just purchased a P50V20A and can find no THX mode as such.

Cheers

[miata]

Very interesting and informative thread ... particularly as it develops with comments from others.

Could you just confirm one detail - you mention THX mode on a P50V20A, do you mean True Cinema Mode? I have just purchased a P50V20A and can find no THX mode as such.

Cheers

It's in the specs, picture modes "Dynamic/Normal/THX/Cinema/Game/Photo/Pro1/Pro2 (ISFccc) ". So it's got to be there somewhere.

[PersianImmortal]

Could you just confirm one detail - you mention THX mode on a P50V20A, do you mean True Cinema Mode? I have just purchased a P50V20A and can find no THX mode as such.

Yes, on the P50V20A, True Cinema mode, along with Professional 1 and Professional 2 modes, are equivalent to THX mode as confirmed here

[Tweet]

Yes, on the P50V20A, True Cinema mode, along with Professional 1 and Professional 2 modes, are equivalent to THX mode as confirmed here

Hi 'P-I', I have the P54V20A if you may remember, it has about 300 hours up now since new, it still displays that slight 'pinkish' hue on the right of the screen (seen at the less bright, lighter levels of grey) but one does become oblivious to it at the higher contrast levels for daytime viewing. I usually view my panel at night under diminished bias lighting with a black curtain backdrop behind the panel to enhanced the image, an 'Owen' innovation.

That aside, I tried your 'Professional 1' settings and found it was rather washed out on my display, I found at a Gamma 2.2 a lot of video noise and artifacts were highlighted at that setting, a gamma 2.4 it improved black levels somewhat but the picture still looked rather 'flat' and lacked depth at least to my eye. I'll give it another go in case I missed something.

Not having the advantage of any test equipment I did my best by eye with DVE and a Bluray HD calibration disc.

Though obviously not entirely accurate, I tweaked a well balanced image with excellent blacks with the trade-off of some minor shadow detail to gain that 'pop' a well defined image should have. It does come down to personal preference though. I did this tweaking in daylight hours with some ambient light in the room so re-adjustment is a likelyhood tonight. Actually the colours on the Panasonic don't seem to need much tweaking at all it seems.

C.M

[PersianImmortal]

That aside, I tried your 'Professional 1' settings and found it was rather washed out on my display, I found at a Gamma 2.2 a lot of video noise and artifacts were highlighted at that setting, a gamma 2.4 it improved black levels somewhat but the picture still looked rather 'flat' and lacked depth at least to my eye. I'll give it another go in case I missed something.

I've never used Gamma 2.2 in any of my settings What I posted first up was the default 50% contrast, 0 Brightness, 2.2 Gamma only to demonstrate the readings it gives. My final settings are at the bottom of the first post in this thread and involve 2.6 Gamma, 62 Contrast, -2 Brightness, 39 Colour and 10 Sharpness on the Professional 1 preset.

In any case, the aim of the thread isn't really to get people to copy my settings, but to try out the method I used to calibrate my set

Edited April 19, 2011 by PersianImmortal

[blonk]

I borrowed a colourimeter a while ago and used the same method and software to calibrate my Plasma. Took me a few days but the final result is well worth it. The difference in picture was a vast improvement.

[Owen]

a gamma 2.4 it improved black levels somewhat but the picture still looked rather 'flat' and lacked depth at least to my eye.

Not having the advantage of any test equipment I did my best by eye with DVE and a Bluray HD calibration disc.

light in the room so re-adjustment is a likelyhood tonight. Actually the colours on the Panasonic don't seem to need much tweaking at all it seems.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what gamma is.

Gamma has no effect on black level if the display is working properly.

Black level is set by the "Brightness" control and the brightness setting must be readjusted after adjusting gamma.

[Guest sweetchuk]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what gamma is.

Gamma has no effect on black level if the display is working properly.

Black level is set by the "Brightness" control and the brightness setting must be readjusted after adjusting gamma.

That is exactly what Aaron from Avical told me - nearly word for word - when it came to the effect of Gamma on Black levels too, so Owens contention is entirely valid and correct.

I do appreciate reading anything about DIY calibration, but I will say that despite all the DVE attempts when I puchase a new set, despite tweaking settings to within one inch of their lives, they do not - to my eyes anyway - stack up to what someone like Aaron can do professionally.

2. The price of TVs has fallen such that spending $300-400 calibrating a ~$1,000 TV just seems wasteful. The quality has also fallen such that there's no guarantee your TV won't die in the first 6 months and you need to pay to get a new calibration. It used to make financial sense when you paid $5000 five years ago for a plasma, and they had better quality, but not as much these days.

PI, I must agree to disagree here. There's not too many Plasma's made 5 years ago that were of demonstrably superior picture quality than what you can get these days, with the obvious difference there being the Kuro range.

But irrespective of whether a display is $10k or $1k, most videophiles here would likely be prepared to do, within reason, whatever it took to extract the very best viewing experience from that display. Why else would you get a good quality display, price paid notwithstanding, if you didn't want it to perform to its best high definition capability, especially if that calibration was only a few hundred dollars?

If a person was prepared to pay $5k 5 years ago, and now can get a similar experience for $2k or less, then there's little reason to not get the best out of it via a professional calibration, from the savings that lower price represents.

Spending $300 - $350 for a professional calibration seems like very good value taken in that context to be honest.

Of course, if someone prefers a DIY calibration and is happy with that, then it's all good - purely personal (and in some cases, financial) preference there.

Aaron will be coming to calibrate my new Panasonic 65" VT20 in August, and like my last two displays, I have done everything I can to calibrate it myself, but like the last two times, I know I will be pleasantly surprised at just how much of a professional calibration difference his efforts will make.

All the same, good thread, and some good bits of info for those who prefer to DIY.

Edited April 20, 2011 by sweetchuk

[PersianImmortal]

In terms of Gamma, lowering gamma doesn't affect black levels, but it does affect the perception of black. In particular, a lower gamma/brightness combined with a higher contrast gives a much richer image with more pop. Even lowering Gamma by itself with no other change perceptibly reduces the 'milky' look on these V series Panasonics, especially from the default of 2.2 to say 2.4 or 2.6. I'm not arguing the science involved, simply the practicality of how it actually looks.

As for DIY calibration vs. professional, well as you say, a professional job will be better. I disagree that it would be that much better, given the degree of accuracy attainable using a sensor is actually quite good. There's a major difference between doing a basic calibration using DVE, and actually using a display sensor/colorimeter. I too have spent a lot of time mucking about trying to calibrate by eye using various sources, and to an extent it works reasonably well. But using a sensor to calibrate the colours is in a different league altogether, as it really does make a noticeable difference in getting accurate colours.

[larry42]

very interesting discussion this....

i would love to watch someone go through this process on a tv in perth.....

while a lot of the points are valid, i do get lost reading all this information

obviously calibration as a process makes more sense when you can see it...

[kwarrior]

Nice to see this thread....

I did all my calibration on my PJ myself....and also ran a check on my Plasma....that was done by Aaron....had great fun doing it over a couple of evenings....when the kids are asleep...and the Red always help overcome minor obstacles...

[mikeathome]

Yes, on the P50V20A, True Cinema mode, along with Professional 1 and Professional 2 modes, are equivalent to THX mode as confirmed here

Does anyone know how to access the ability to make the adjustments outlined by the OP on a Pana P54V20A? I can find true Cinema Mode but not P1 and P2. The range of adjustments available in the various modes seems to be limited.

[PersianImmortal]

Check the TV's manual and it explains how to enable Professional 1 and 2 modes - it involves turning on the Advanced (ISCFFF) option.

[mikeathome]

Check the TV's manual and it explains how to enable Professional 1 and 2 modes - it involves turning on the Advanced (ISCFFF) option.

Thanks, manual lost and Panasonic don't have it as a download. But its sorted now - thanks for your help.