Hi-Def vs. Film Grain

[Mr Sheldrake]

When you google on calibration settings for a HD model you get as many different recommendations as recommenders.

I bought the BD of The Third Man, and had already calibrated my tv to what I thought looked right. With the sharpness at zero, all the swirling grain had gone, but there still seemed to be a layer of fine grain covering the film. I had noise reduction set at off. When I set that at high, suddenly Kraskers' incredible images glimmered as they would in a theater, even better. No more grain distractions, just a great movie. The final shot mesmerised me as much on my 30th or so go round as it did when I first saw it back in the fifties as a kid. I agree with the suggestion for Criterion to supply some calibration info especially for these old movies. The average viewer, myself included, has little affinity for tech stuff, and some frustration can be averted.

[David M.]

First of all, "calibration settings" copied from someone else is a misnomer. A Calibration is when every component of your system is configured exactly to give the best quality in line with industry standards. That requires understanding of what everything in the system is doing, measuring using a probe/meter, and adjusting - not just keying in numbers.

Components in display devices (Optical components like backlight lamps, projector bulbs, and Plasma panels) have tolerances. Not every one is the same. Likewise, some DVD/BD players can have quirks which mean that black, for example, is output at a higher-than-ideal level. And then you have the problem that manufacturers are pushing the *very wrong* idea that you should "set the TV up according to your personal preference". All of these things need to be accounted for and "calibrated out".

So, while copying other people's settings is going to give you a much better image than the ludicrous manufacturer presets, you should really get an ISF calibration done. This will be of tremendous benefit to things like Greyscale and Color reproduction, which need to be measured and adjusted and can't be copied or set by eye.

[jsteffe]

It may depend on your model, but changing the factory seeings is not always necessary. Several years ago I purchased a Sony WEGA CRT and spent a great deal of time filling with the DVE disc. After hours of fruitless futzing, I discovered that my TV was already set up just about perfectly. When I performed a calibration again this spring, I ended up with the exact same settings again. And this was after reading quite extensively on the calibration settings, including how to interpret the basic NTSC color bars.

Our new Pioneer 60" plasma screen looked fantastic right out of the box. I could experiment with a Blu-ray calibration disc, but I'm not convinced at this point that it's even worth it. Remember, Digital Video Essentials and other companies like that are in the business of SELLING CALIBRATION TO YOU. Of course they'll tell you it's necessary! Just like the salespeople will tell you that you need expensive gold-plated HDMI cables to carry a DIGITAL signal.

I would only bother with the calibration if you really feel something's not right with your picture. Beyond that, I'd keep the sharpness enhancement turned off, and avoid other "enhanced" settings. (The "vivid" setting on the Sony TV looks just awful!) I'd also avoid making adjustments every time you put in a particular DVD. Stop worrying, relax, and keep it simple.

Video projectors may be a different case, because the image can be affected seriously by ambient light. And if you purchase a floor model, that's also another matter...

[David M.]

Sorry JSteffe, but calibration is necessary if you want to see the film as it was intended. When you say your WEGA CRT was set up just about perfectly, it's possible that Black Level and White Level were just about right out of the box.

But did you measure Greyscale, Gamma, and the Hue, Saturation and Luminance of the 6 Primary and Secondary color points? I can assure you, these will not have been perfect, and they make a huge difference to the image you see. Try watching a film with the 9300k color temperature that's standard on out-of-the-box TVs, then do it again at the correct, industry standard 6500k, which is what a calibrator will aim for. The mood can be totally changed by the color cast added by incorrect Greyscale.

Perhaps the basic controls were just about right, but no professional calibrator will stop at those.

Remember, Digital Video Essentials and other companies like that are in the business of SELLING CALIBRATION TO YOU. Of course they'll tell you it's necessary! Just like the salespeople will tell you that you need expensive gold-plated HDMI cables to carry a DIGITAL signal.

OK, a few things. 1, Digital Video Essentials isn't a company and its producers don't directly profit from calibration.

Second, your point about gold-plated ripoff HDMI cables is good on its own, but calibration makes a real, measurable, visible difference, so comparing this process to ripoff HDMI cables isn't a fair comparison.

I would only bother with the calibration if you really feel something's not right with your picture.

If the dispaly hasn't been calibrated, then there WILL be things not right with the picture - that's 99% guaranteed! That said, the Pioneer Kuros are exemplary in their out of the box quality, so long as you use the Pure mode. They can drift over time, however, as can any display.

I'd also avoid making adjustments every time you put in a particular DVD. Stop worrying, relax, and keep it simple.

The point of calibration is to get the display device as close as possible to industry standards - so yes, the settings should absolutely not be changed from disc to disc!

With that said, I do admire your skepticism, although you're wrong on this particular count. There are a lot of rich idiots out there who will pay lots of money for tweaks which make no difference at all (usually in terms of audio where the differences are much harder to measure).

[jsteffe]

Yes, I did check for grayscale, hue, luminance, etc., not just black and white levels. I still wound up at more or less exactly the same place where I started. In fact, one of my colleagues commented once, shortly after I purchased it and before I calibrated it, that the color was better on my Sony WEGA CRT monitor than it was on another colleague's very expensive LCD projector. But you're right, I was lucky and someone else might well need adjustments to their display when they buy it.

I guess my point is that calibrations cost time and money, and very small tweaks may or may not be noticed by the casual, or even moderately knowledgeable consumer. Also, who's doing the calibration? How would I ever know that the people I hired aren't cutting corners, or that the company didn't send out a complete oaf to adjust my plasma that particular day? People are either happy with how it looks when the work is finished, or they're not. Unless they're trained professionals with the same equipment on hand, or if they hire another technician for a second opinion, they wouldn't have any way to judge the quality of the work they paid for. You're right, of course, the plasma screen or other display may drift after extended use and may need adjustment eventually. That's a good reason to consider getting your display calibrated.

As far as seeing the film "as the filmmaker intends" it, yes, to that end it's absolutely worthwhile being concerned about whether your set is calibrated properly--up to a certain point. But keep in mind that especially with older films, people are viewing telecines of films that may or may not reflect the filmmaker or DP's intentions anyway.Video transfers are often manipulated in various, sometimes subtle ways to make them look good on video, which is not the same thing as looking good in 35mm projection. If I'm to believe one of my friends who used to work at a transfer house, even major studios (I won't name any names!) often did one-light telecines of low-profile titles to save money, though I would imagine the Blu-ray market has changed that. And even if they did scene-by-scene adjustments, who was doing the adjustments? It was a technician at the facility, not the DP.

Even Blu-ray discs, nice as they are, are highly compressed and they may have to filter out some of the grain just so the video will compress well. At any rate, there's no way you can preserve all of a the film's original grain structure unless it's scanned and displayed at an extremely high resolution, way beyond the capabilities of what any normal consumer could purchase. This isn't even talking about the difference between 35mm film stock and video in terms of contrast--I've even noticed slightly burnt-out highlights in theatrical digital projection of 35mm-originated films.

Striving for perfection in home theater is a noble ideal, but video technology is *inherently imperfect* as a vehicle for viewing 35mm-originated films, and video displays can only go so far in conveying a filmmaker's intentions, whatever they may be. If you buy an HD LCD panel, for instance, automatically you're going to loose some depth in the blacks no matter how well it's calibrated. Not everyone can afford a Pioneer Kuro plasma.

On the other hand, if I were working at the Criterion Collection and supervising HD telecines, then yes, I'd want the very best technician to adjust my monitor so it's reference quality, and I'd want them to come in fairly often to keep it tweaked just right.

To sum up, I wholeheartedly endorse being concerned about image quality, but there's only so far you can go with display/projector quality anyway, unless you have a significant amount of disposable income. If you can easily afford calibration or feel strongly enough about it to spend a lot of time on it yourself, then by all means do it. But I say, if you like the way your display looks, be happy with it. It's there for your pleasure and no one else's.

[Antoine Doinel]

I think the last two posts demonstrate the difficulty in selling hi-def. jsteffe, I certainly understand your position, but the point of calibration is to bring the monitor as close as possible to displaying the director's visual intentions. And yes, while video is "inherently imperfect", that might've been a valid argument during the VHS era, but not in the age 1080p (not to mention that actual film projection is only "perfect" if it's done right, which very often, it's not). BluRay affords a level of clarity that can offer a stunning representation of color, grain etc that comes pretty damn close, if not exactly, to what one would expect from a proper projection. And why is a proper calibration important and telecine important? For reasons like this. This an example of a telecine gone horribly wrong and an example of a film where a film's extreme coloring heavily influences it's overall tone/feel. An improper calibration would lose that vital element to a film entirely.

All that being said, you're right in that the average person cannot afford a home calibration or top of the line gear. That said, a simple investment in a calibration disc to ensure your playback is in the ballpark of what is being used in the industry isn't unreasonable when a home theater setup can run into the thousands of dollars anyway. Or, as I did in my case, I Googled my model number and played around with a few different settings, tried some different films, until I found something that was as close to "right" as I was going to get it. It took a couple of weeks of fooling around with settings and driving my girlfriend bananas, but now I'm very comfortable with the picture playback I have.

I think the studios/manufacturers need to do a much better job at informing themselves and the public of just how big a jump it is from CRT/DVD to LCDorPlasma/BluRay. It really is a night and day difference that does require a certain tinkering to really see it. From the studio end, they have to be more responsible in their transfers. There is no reason why a film like Do The Right Thing, that was so purposefully pushed in terms of color, should have hit the market like that. I think consumers are getting short shrifted by being sold on "hi-def" 720p and poor telecine above (and the countless of cheapo BluRay transfers of studio catalog titles that are flooding shelves) and ultimately, it will really begin to devalue hi-def as a whole.

Anyway, I'm not looking to pick on you jsteffe. If you're happy with your setup, you're right, that's what counts, but you may be missing out on a whole experience you might not have been aware of.

[aox]

Hey Antoine, I am confused by your use of that example. Which version is more accurate to the original intention? The yellow filtered cinematographer approved SD by Criterion or the Blu which looks realistic?

I think I prefer the yellow sd from Criterion.

[jsteffe]

Not to worry, Antoine Doinel--I hardly feel "picked on." And you don't have to sell me on the intrinsic value of Blu-ray, which I agree at its best is marvelously film-like on a good 1080p display or projector. In fact, this week I was showing one of my friends the new Criterion THE LAST EMPEROR on our Pioneer plasma in comparison with the same Criterion transfer on DVD, pointing out how you could see more grain and how it had more subtle gradations of color, to say nothing of more finely rendered detail. She had a hard time seeing the difference, but it was obvious to me right off the bat and I'll continue to crow to all my friends about why a good hi-def setup is totally worth the money if you've got it.

However, I think our Pioneer plasma looks fantastic out of the box and I won't be buying a $39.95 Blu-ray calibration disc, nor will I be hiring anyone to come in and calibrate it, at least not for the time being. It's perfectly understandable to devote time and energy to something you care deeply about, and for people who are really interested in film, image quality is obviously important. I'm only suggesting that one should keep realistic expectations about the likely outcome in terms of visible improvement, weighed against the cost and/or time expenditure that the calibration involves.

As for the studios being more "responsible" in their transfers, good luck!

[Antoine Doinel]

Hey Antoine, I am confused by your use of that example. Which version is more accurate to the original intention? The yellow filtered cinematographer approved SD by Criterion or the Blu which looks realistic?

I think I prefer the yellow sd from Criterion.

The yellow. I was using the film as an example of where the studios have to step up their responsibility in the advent of hi-def.

[Tommaso]

Fascinating topic. Has anyone ever tried the calibration thingy that is one David Lynch's "Eraserhead" and "Inland Empire" discs? I did, and had to change my own personal setting only very little. However, according to the Lynch instructions, my brightness setting should be even lower than it is now. I already had friends of mine saying that my TV was set to give a rather dark image before I tried the Lynch test; but with the Lynch settings, I found the image definitely too dark myself. But I have no idea how professional that Lynch test is.

[stwrt]

The calibration test on Lynch's discs appears to be an attempt by Lynch to persuade people to lower their TV's contrast setting - most people probably have it set to high/very high. Other than that, I can't see any point in the test.

[David M.]

jsteffe, what probe and software did you use to measure Grayscale? You really cannot do this by eye.

It's true though, calibration doesn't come cheap. But it's a small price to pay given how much we spend on displays, players, and discs.

The calibration test on Lynch's discs appears to be an attempt by Lynch to persuade people to lower their TV's contrast setting - most people probably have it set to high/very high. Other than that, I can't see any point in the test.

I've not seen the test you describe, but there is a benefit to lowering the Contrast setting. In digital displays, if you have this too high, you'll either cause thresholding (white clipping/burn-out) OR you'll cause the Grayscale tracking to exhibit discoloration at the brightest points.

[stwrt]

It's true though, calibration doesn't come cheap. But it's a small price to pay given how much we spend on displays, players, and discs.

I could be wrong on this one but doesn't calibration involve paying a guy big bucks for him to turn up some of your TV settings and lower others ?

[David M.]

It involves paying an experienced, trained professional who's passed a fairly tough exam to use expensive equipment and software to take measurements and see what your system is doing, and then to adjust various parameters to obtain the best performance. Those parameters almost always interact with each other to some extent, so it's a delicate balancing act.

Depending on the complexity of the system and the design of the hardware, it usually takes 3-5 hours. It's not turning a few dials, charging you a couple of hundred bucks, and then going home.

[David M.]

Then the Sony VW60 which as everyone knows is wildly off 6500 IRE white outtadabox and needs very substantial recal, and again after 300 or 400 hours.

Eugh, you're telling me - I have a Sony VW60 and the greyscale tracking (once ruler-flat) has gone crazy!

[Tribe]

Ya know, out of all the things I've learned from this Forum over the past years I've been present during its various incarnations...self-calibration, or calibration for dummies has always been one of those things that have eluded me. More often than not I end up using the set's "move" pre-set and leave it there. It would be nice if some kind soul in the know posted a brief adjustment guide for those of us who just don't have a clue when it comes to calibration without a dvd and without paying someone to do one of those heavy duty calibrations mentioned earlier.

[David M.]

Ya know, out of all the things I've learned from this Forum over the past years I've been present during its various incarnations...self-calibration, or calibration for dummies has always been one of those things that have eluded me. More often than not I end up using the set's "move" pre-set and leave it there. It would be nice if some kind soul in the know posted a brief adjustment guide for those of us who just don't have a clue when it comes to calibration without a dvd and without paying someone to do one of those heavy duty calibrations mentioned earlier.

I posted a "Quick and Dirty TV Setup guide" on my site.

Again, this is NOT a calibration guide. Calibration is adjusting things exactly. This guide is really just an introduction to what your controls do.

The problem is, beyond the basic front panel controls, calibration requires an investment: you need to use a meter to do measurements, and you also need the knowledge to know what they mean. (Or pay someone who has both of the above).

[Tribe]

I posted a "Quick and Dirty TV Setup guide" on my site.

Again, this is NOT a calibration guide. Calibration is adjusting things exactly. This guide is really just an introduction to what your controls do.

That is perfect! Thanks much...I've been looking for something like this that explains it like to a child for the longest time. You've made my day.

[Cinetwist]

If I win the 90 million Lotto netx week I'll definitely get a pro calibration (and a decent sceen instead of the paint gool.

Hell, if I won the 90 million lotto I'd be going 35mm and getting a live-in projectionist!

Anyway, I'm with Tribe on this one. I'm not a technophobe at all, but calibration is beyond me too. And this is reinforced when I ever wander over to an AV forum, promptly running away feeling dirty.

And can I ask about something that David Mackenzie said. Something about not being able to calibrate everything by eye. Surely if it's something that can't be calibrated by eye, it doesn't need to be calibrated? Film being a visual medium and all; if your own eye can't tell the difference, what does it matter?

[David M.]

And can I ask about something that David Mackenzie said. Something about not being able to calibrate everything by eye. Surely if it's something that can't be calibrated by eye, it doesn't need to be calibrated?

A very good question. There are a few issues here.

1. Calibration is scientific. The point is to get, for example, the color of red as close to the filmmaker's intentions as possible, and to do that, we have to measure. Look at a variety of consumer TVs, and you'll see all different sorts of red: browny-red, orangey-red, apple red, blood red, red wine red (and most of them will be wrong!) - all of these descriptions mean different things to different people. If I told everyone here, "Set your TV up so Red is orangey-red", everyone would pick a different tone. The only way to do it right is to measure an exact value.

2. Back to your original point: if we can't set it by eye, does it matter? Yes, although we can't set these things by eye, this is because all of the controls affect each other and offer incredible granularity. It's not that the difference isn't visible, it's because of the complexity involved. Unless the Greyscale tracking (for example) is in the right ballpark, the tones you're seeing on screen are not those of the filmmaker, and the only way we can quantify how right or how wrong those tones are is to get precise measurements, rather than filter things through language.

[Norbie]

Just started collecting CC titles in blurays and i noticed that a lot of them have large amounts of grain. Reading through these forums most say that this is a good thing. But when im watching The 400 Blows (especially scenes indoors), to me it seems there is a lot of potential to make the image a lot "cleaner" and "sharper". Why not get rid of the grain? It seems that it is easy to get rid of it (grain) with digital restoration. Why leave it in?

And then there is MoC "City Girl." Someone mentioned in the forums that this is a perfect release. According to the booklet "there was no heavy handed digital restoration...., or grain removal." Now, if i had a time machine and i decided to go to the premier of "City Girl" would i see all those scratches and grain thats in the MoC release or among others?

[CSM126]

Now, if i had a time machine and i decided to go to the premier of "City Girl" would i see all those scratches and grain thats in the MoC release or among others?

Yeah.

[cdnchris]

Just started collecting CC titles in blurays and i noticed that a lot of them have large amounts of grain. Reading through these forums most say that this is a good thing. But when im watching The 400 Blows (especially scenes indoors), to me it seems there is a lot of potential to make the image a lot "cleaner" and "sharper". Why not get rid of the grain? It seems that it is easy to get rid of it (grain) with digital restoration. Why leave it in?

Because the image is sharper and looks more filmlike, because grain is inherent in the film and depending on the type of film it can be somewhat grainy to really grainy. Using software to remove grain also removes other detail in the image. It can be done to an extent but the image can look waxy because of it.

And then there is MoC "City Girl." Someone mentioned in the forums that this is a perfect release. According to the booklet "there was no heavy handed digital restoration...., or grain removal." Now, if i had a time machine and i decided to go to the premier of "City Girl" would i see all those scratches and grain thats in the MoC release or among others?

More than likely yes. The grain was there to begin with, scratches could have been picked up.

[Schkura]

Bill Hunt went the f@#% off about this very issue the other day.

[Zot!]

Rent Green Zone, which is a POS, but is a movie that was made last year. Take a look at the amount of grain that was intentionally included in the film. Just like a number of other "imperfections" film grain is an aesthetic consideration. Impressionist painters similarly use techiniques that could be considered a flaw.