Quantcast

CES VIDEO: Panasonic GZ2000 OLED - Hollywood Colourist Interview

steviedr

Distinguished Member
Could listen Stafan talk about his work all day - very interesting, hope you can get him on the pods one day, same goes for Neil from LG, fascinating stuff!
 

Sandyb01

Active Member
Think there are 2 concurrent questions going on here.

1. Is it a good thing for TV's to be able to more easily reflect creators intent? Whether that's via a specific setting, easily accessed etc, or however, I'd suggest most here would say yes.

2. Do the wider public care enough, or are they even attuned to the issue of "fake looking", juiced up imagery? To that I'd say (a) probably not at the moment, (b) it's a long process and needs to be made easy for Joe public, and (c) will they ever care?

To the last (c) I'm not so sure. There is something about generations of the public brought up with having spent a chunk of time gaming. As such I don't think they are enamoured of the filmic look of cinema, be that old or contemporary cinema.

You see some, even on forums, argue that they like super high frame rates, motion interpolation, and SOE's. Some of those that post as such are quite passionate about it too, and think it is us (ok, me in this case) that are slightly off kilter nostalgists for advocating for more true, realistic or lifelike images.

Many just like the over saturated, hyper real images you see in shop modes.

So, while I'm glad for the greater engagement with colouring suites, and lets call it better cinema modes (for shorthand sakes), I'm still not confident that the average consumer cares that much or has a similar preference to purists.
 

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
Think there are 2 concurrent questions going on here.
For me and AVForums in general, we have always asked manufacturers to have at least one picture mode that gets close to the industry standards. You can show end users this and explain why it is in their interests - better detail, deeper blacks, realistic skin tones and cinematic motion - but if they choose to do it their own way, that is fine. At least they have the choice to watch it in an accurate setting or not. For many decades you just couldn't get an accurate image from a TV, so that is a major development, really.
 

Sandyb01

Active Member
For me and AVForums in general, we have always asked manufacturers to have at least one picture mode that gets close to the industry standards. You can show end users this and explain why it is in their interests - better detail, deeper blacks, realistic skin tones and cinematic motion - but if they choose to do it their own way, that is fine. At least they have the choice to watch it in an accurate setting or not. For many decades you just couldn't get an accurate image from a TV, so that is a major development, really.
completely agree - the industry can only do so much, but yes I welcome all these developments.

Stellar work in Vegas, Phil.- must be getting tired by now!? But great stuff nonetheless, many thanks.
 

lgans316

Distinguished Member
Average consumers doesn't care this and DV/HDR10+ but I have full respect for Panasonic and the colourist.
 

Garioch

Well-known Member
What a fascinating interview; great questions Phil. Must be a record for most number of "just one more final question!"
 

THX1138UK

Active Member
Think there are 2 concurrent questions going on here.

1. Is it a good thing for TV's to be able to more easily reflect creators intent? Whether that's via a specific setting, easily accessed etc, or however, I'd suggest most here would say yes.

2. Do the wider public care enough, or are they even attuned to the issue of "fake looking", juiced up imagery? To that I'd say (a) probably not at the moment, (b) it's a long process and needs to be made easy for Joe public, and (c) will they ever care?

You see some, even on forums, argue that they like super high frame rates, motion interpolation, and SOE's. Some of those that post as such are quite passionate about it too, and think it is us (ok, me in this case) that are slightly off kilter nostalgists for advocating for more true, realistic or lifelike images.

Many just like the over saturated, hyper real images you see in shop modes.

So, while I'm glad for the greater engagement with colouring suites, and lets call it better cinema modes (for shorthand sakes), I'm still not confident that the average consumer cares that much or has a similar preference to purists.
The average consumer who just buys a TV based on what s/he sees in Currys (BestBuys is the equivalent in the US) on a Saturday afternoon, absolutely does not care. Ultimately they buy on price and soft features (Apps, SmartHome integration etc.). Picture quality isn't high on the agenda. It's the reason Panasonic quit the American TV market - it just became to difficult for them to differentiate their products in a crowded market and they weren't selling enough through BestBuys to sustain their US operation.

But the type of people who spend time researching products, because they want the best and are prepared to pay higher prices to get the best, really do care [AVForum members!]. It's a fairly small percentage of customers overall, and will remain so, but the manufacturers make far higher profit margins on the high-end (expensive) products, so there's a market they need to tap. If it wasn't profitable for them, they wouldn't do it.

Frame interpolation is an abomination. Nothing more to be said on the subject!
You can argue that people should have a choice, but it doesn't make it right.

Unfortunately it’s often on by default so the average customer just puts up with, because they don't know any better. Often they can see that it somehow looks odd, but they don't have the technical understanding as to why or how to fix it.

In 2 minutes, Tom Cruise did more to bring this to the public's attention than anyone else. Perhaps someone needs to ask him to talk about why Vibrant Mode is evil and why natural colour is important ;-)

Regards,
James.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom