Apple TV Color Balance Feature May Make Image Quality and Colors Worse

[MacFan782040]

Would it?
i’m not so sure.
lets start with construction. The majority of TVs that people have in their homes are made of plastic. With Apple, that wouldn’t be the case. It’s Apple, they would want to make it out of fully recyclable aluminum and glass, and be as thin as possible. so add $500 for that.
next, there’s the panel. Now the majority of regular consumers would be fine with just a simple 1080P or 4K panel.
Not Apple.
they would most certainly want to include all of the technology from there XDR Display. Now the XDR display is 32 inches and 6K. I’ll just take a rough estimate, and say that Apple‘s television set, if it were to exist, would be about 64 inches and 8K or more. So that’s a $5,000 panel, plus the Apple tax, so let’s just bump it up to $6,000.
so with the panel, and the fully recyclable aluminum and glass construction, we’re already up to $6,500.
but we’re not done yet.
of course you would need a cool way to mount it. Apples not just gonna have you hang it on your wall like a regular TV, they want it to have a cool floating design. So… $1,999 mount.
We’re up to $8,499, rounded up to the nearest hundred, because of course you would know they would do that.
Now, we would need the processors to be able to both power this insane display, and power tvOS.
now Apple wouldn’t cheap out and include the A12, it probably wouldn’t even be able to power this entire thing.
We’re going with the M2, whatever it may be. Whatever the most powerful processor apple makes at the time that’s not in a Mac Pro is.
Let’s say, $1,000.
$200 for all The included cables and Power supply, $100 for tvOS, $100 for the special remote, rounded up to the nearest thousand…
oh and did I mention, of course this thing needs to have the best speakers. $1,000 for the speaker set up.
and I’m sure there will be other things that would cost a little extra money, so we’ll just bump it up to be safe.
we’re looking at a television set that costs upwards of $12,999.
now, do you think customers would be willing to spend that much money on a television? A television that most wouldn’t be able to fully appreciate, that costs way more than the majority of customers would be willing to spend on a television?
They weren’t willing to pay $350 for a home speaker, so I’m gonna go ahead and say no.
on top of all this, the majority of consumers only upgrade their TVs every… what... 8-10 years? Some even longer than that.
not saying that an Apple television wouldn’t be beautiful, because of course it would be. But would it sell a lot? I don’t think so.
If anything, Apple should be working on a cheaper version of the box. It’s already hard enough trying to sell a $200 box from Apple, when the competition is basically giving their streaming sticks away

That was an extremely long post just to say no.

 

[StrongArmmed]

FTA: "When the tests were re-run with the TV's default color presets, the Apple TV's calibration feature improved color accuracy on all three models."

Wellll....the on-screen directions accompanying the feature advise that you should measure your TV in its base, default configuration. So, if one follows that simple yet important direction, there's a good chance that the color accuracy of your display will be improved.

Following directions. Go figure.

 

[SpringKid]

I can’t even get it to work no matter what distance and Color setting on the TV, always comes up failed.

I had to lower the chroma setting in the Apple TV while measuring, otherwise it failed on the grayscale which couldn't produce different greys. After that I could switch the setting back.

 

[deeddawg]

I don't get it.

Common sense suggests it isn't going to work well for every television in every circumstance.

Apparently these tests confirm that expectation.

Slow news day?

 

[SpringKid]

I don't get it.

Common sense suggests it isn't going to work well for every television in every circumstance.

Apparently these tests confirm that expectation.

Slow news day?

And it's not like you have to use the measured result. You get the comparison screen and select which one you want. 💁‍♂️

 

[peterloch]

hmm... sounds like him panicking that his expertise is going to be replaced by an iPhone

 

[Chunk72]

hmm... sounds like him panicking that his expertise is going to be replaced by an iPhone

Dumbest post in the history of dumb posts.
Vincent just tells it as he finds it.

 

[iSunrise]

And there’s a reason people pay so much for professional calibration.

By the way let me be clear, it only makes sense to pay for professional calibration if you have a very high-end TV, like a Sony Master Series or LG OLED or something like that. It would be silly to use Color Balance on those TVs lol

Nowadays, if you select the right picture mode, it’s already pretty close most of the time (panel lottery included). You actually get the most benefit if your TV is completely off, but from a money perspective, a perfectionist obviously does want all of his/her TVs to be as accurate as possible, since you are losing some details (e.x. fine textures of clothing, smoke in the dark), which you never though are there.

 

[deeddawg]

And it's not like you have to use the measured result. You get the comparison screen and select which one you want. 💁‍♂️

Exactly.

If you think it looks better, keep it. If you think it looks worse, switch back.

The setting is simple to get back to and turn off if you later decide it's not working for you.

In other news: your car's seat adjustment might let you adjust it to an uncomfortable position.

 

[SpringKid]

Nowadays, if you select the right picture mode, it’s already pretty close most of the time (panel lottery included). You actually get the most benefit if your TV is completely off, but from a money perspective, a perfectionist obviously does want all of his/her TVs to be as accurate as possible, since you are losing some details (e.x. fine textures of clothing, smoke in the dark), which you never though are there.

Not really. Calibration is about color accuracy.

 

[lotones]

Yeah, the Apple calibration wanted to make my already-calibrated TV slightly cooler. So I kept it the way it was.

Good thing Apple didn't say 100% of the TVs it's used on would show improvement... I feel that is why Apple gives you a comparison on your TV so you can make the decision for yourself.

Yeah, people seem to be missing the point that this feature is recalibrating the output of the ATV4K, not the TV. Pick your before or after. No harm, no foul.

 

[iSunrise]

hmm... sounds like him panicking that his expertise is going to be replaced by an iPhone

Vincent just hints with his professional background that Apple surely can improve their maths behind the color translation and/or adapt their feature to the color spectrum of the TV.

In theory: if they are able to measure the Apple patterns, the Face ID camera should also be able to measure a wider spectrum of more patterns, so the end result is more accurate. Apple really wanted a minimalist approach, that’s why this feature is so fast…

Since Apple also has color experts (they care a lot about accuracy on iPad Pro, iPhone…), it shouldn’t be hard for them to do better and improve it.

And that’s the reason we need to thank Vincent for his analysis and insight. If Apple does improve it everyone has a direct benefit.

 

[iSunrise]

Not really. Calibration is about color accuracy.

No, calibration is not solely about color accuracy.

 

[jarman92]

Just to be clear his job is to professionally calibrate displays for money. I’m not saying he’s wrong just an important consideration.

Exactly. And he has extremely specialized and expensive equipment. And the “best-calibrated” display is not necessarily the best-looking for most people. And Apple never claimed it would flawlessly calibrate your display. And the TV shows you the difference so you can make your own decision. And…I could go on about this idiotic story but I think I’ve made my point lol

 

[Sarkany]

Just to be clear his job is to professionally calibrate displays for money. I’m not saying he’s wrong just an important consideration.

“He’s biased!”

- You

 

[brianjlambert]

When the tests were re-run with the TV's default color presets, the Apple TV's calibration feature improved color accuracy on all three models.

So it seems to work best if your tv isn’t professionally calibrated? This article gives a lot of mixed messages.

 

[w5jck]

Imagine that, a guy who makes a living charging for calibrating TVs says not to use the FREE Apple TV calibration tool.

He might be correct in some cases, but it certainly didn't turn my Sony XBR49X800H colors cooler. It made them slightly warmer, and slightly better. However, my TV's colors were already really accurate OTB. I do agree that it matters which of your TV's color setting options you use with the ATV calibration, and Apple clearly states that. You are supposed to use the most accurate one. It also matters if you have modified the TV color option before you attempt to calibrate it. If you screwed it up pretty bad, then you will likely get garbage in = garbage out. So reset the TV color option you use to factory settings before doing the calibrations.

Remember too that the ATV calibration is FREE. If it works great. If not then find a friend who can set it for you, or pay a professional a ridiculous amount of money to do it. Seems to me the best option is to first try the free ATV color calibration tool to see if you can improve your TV colors without having to pay a professional.

 

[Sarkany]

Exactly. And he has extremely specialized and expensive equipment. And the “best-calibrated” display is not necessarily the best-looking for most people. And Apple never claimed it would flawlessly calibrate your display. And the TV shows you the difference so you can make your own decision. And…I could go on about this idiotic story but I think I’ve made my point lol

The best-calibrated TV is always the best-looking for everybody. People are used to uncalibrated colors so they will automatically believe that a calibrated TV is crap because they aren’t used to it. Allow them to adapt and it changes their views.

 

[Jefe's MacAir]

I have a very high quality, picture wise, TV and using CNET's settings for this particular tv using their sensors and when I used the Apple color correction, it only slightly brightened the picture. I'm sure it's a good feature but is dependent on the quality of the TV and the user interface between the Apple feature their TV. IOW, user error?

 

[jhwalker]

I mean look, a properly and professionally calibrated display by a professional who does this for a living is always going to trump something automated. That said, how many folks here have EVER had their TV professionally calbrated? I've bought one of those DVD thingies back in the day, but for the most part I just manually tune it to my taste and then leave it. I've got a reasonable sense for what needs doing from researching the topic, but I'm no pro.

I used the new Apple calibration function on two TVs and it made a small difference, but nothing dramatic. I'm pleased with the result, there's no way I can tell if it is more accurate or not. I suspect that it's more accurate than I could have done.

I don't think Apple's goal here was to supplant the professionals. It was to provide an option that's likely good enough for 'most' people. Those who are particularly discerning will want the work done by a Pro.

Exactly.

I never expected this to be the equivalent of a professional calibration, and I'm already happy with my TV (have been calibrating my own displays for years). That said, for the 99% of consumers who have never taken their TVs out of "torch" mode this is bound to be a great improvement.

 

[thekev]

The best-calibrated TV is always the best-looking for everybody. People are used to uncalibrated colors so they will automatically believe that a calibrated TV is crap because they aren’t used to it. Allow them to adapt and it changes their views.

That isn't how anything works^.

These things are definitely calibrated at the factory to standardized targets, and there are actual established standards for broadcast and conversion between color spaces. The hardware itself can still have a lot of variability, particularly on cheap televisions (side by side comparisons show this). The problem is even then, you don't have good controls available to fix this. You're just messing with internal lookup tables or matrix transforms. I'm not aware of any of them providing some analog means to tune the color temperature of the backlight, which is what you would actually need for a more lossless result.

In the example image, the input might look a bit dull, but you actually want a dull input to map to a dull output, since the mapping is applied to everything indiscriminately. They might be able to get away with minor adjustments without problems, just nothing anywhere near as dramatic as the example.

 

[_Spinn_]

Not really too surprised. I suspect this will provide some improvement to your average "Walmart" TV but not higher end TVs.

 

[jarman92]

The best-calibrated TV is always the best-looking for everybody. People are used to uncalibrated colors so they will automatically believe that a calibrated TV is crap because they aren’t used to it. Allow them to adapt and it changes their views.

That's complete and utter nonsense. Study after study has shown that people prefer displays with brighter colors and higher contrast. The accuracy is terrible and pros probably thinks its awful, but many people prefer it. Now if you stuck a calibrated display in front of someone and forced them to watch it for a while, they would probably grow to like or even prefer that. But that's not the same as claiming that a calibrated display is "best-looking for everybody"

 

[pcorrado]

I mean look, a properly and professionally calibrated display by a professional who does this for a living is always going to trump something automated. That said, how many folks here have EVER had their TV professionally calbrated? I've bought one of those DVD thingies back in the day, but for the most part I just manually tune it to my taste and then leave it. I've got a reasonable sense for what needs doing from researching the topic, but I'm no pro.

I used the new Apple calibration function on two TVs and it made a small difference, but nothing dramatic. I'm pleased with the result, there's no way I can tell if it is more accurate or not. I suspect that it's more accurate than I could have done.

I don't think Apple's goal here was to supplant the professionals. It was to provide an option that's likely good enough for 'most' people. Those who are particularly discerning will want the work done by a Pro.

Your posts hit a couple of important things:

(1) most people do not professionally calibrate their TVs (or even adjust them from factory settings). This is who this designed for.

(2) I spend a good amount of time calibrating my tv to my taste. And that is the key. It’s definitely not accurate but it’s what I like. If this tool helps someone get an image they like more - it’s a success regardless of accuracy - unless what they want is accuracy.

(3) if you want an “accurate” picture - you probably should hire a pro.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Teoh's tests indicate that the Apple TV's color calibration is certainly not a replacement for professional color calibration using specialized tools, and should be used with caution. AFTVnews suggests that users may be better off using the Color Balance feature to see how drastically it changes the TV's image, and then attempting to match the result using the TV's built-in color options.

And the Apple Watch is not a replacement for professional medical equipment. And the iPhone is not a replacement for professional camera equipment. And the iPad is not a replacement for a professional serving tray.

State an obvious thing about Apple, get clicks

EDIT: And the AirTag is not a replacement for professional skipping stones…. ahhhh MacPro is not a replacement for a boat anchor…