I thought that was a very interesting read.
The crux of it seems to be this part:
In reply to:
the calibration rendered by an ISF technician does not have the goal per se of “creating a real-looking picture.” It is instead goal number one for an ISF technician to bring the performance of your display in line with NTSC imaging standards. A smoother, more realistic image is often the happy by-product of a display calibrated to NTSC standards, especially compared to most artificial-looking factory settings. But the essential idea of such calibration is that a movie image should look the same on my display as it looks on your display, as it looked on the original broadcast monitors used for transferring the image. Whereas my goal is strictly that of realism: picture settings that are specifically created to my taste, in a way that best fools MY own eyes in to believing the image
In order to buy-in to the Steaming Rat method, you have to also believe a couple things. First, that subjective adjustments can be more realistic than NTSC standards as implemented by ISF technicians, and second, that your enjoyment of program material is enhanced by making it more "realistic" rather than viewing a purer representation of the intent of the artist/director.
Obviously, the author's enjoyment was much enhanced by his adjustments and I truly believe that his shared experience could help other people. Only he sees out of his eyes, so who am I to quibble?
The whole thing does seem more than a little like the tube debate. In either case, I enthusiastically support subjective evaluations like "more enjoyable". I'm not sure I can be equally supportive when people use terms like "better" or "more accurate".
Perhaps I find it hard to get too worked up about this stuff since I have an old CRT RPTV. Or maybe it's because I really have always liked those super-saturated Technicolor movies. To me, making "The Wizard of Oz" look more "realistic" would not enhance my personal HT experience.
