Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

Darbee Visual Presence: Darblet

85K views 486 replies 46 participants last post by  tele1962 
#1 ·
I just ordered one of these.
http://darbeevision.com/
They have generated quite a bit of interest on some other forums and I'm surprised to see nothing about it here.
 
#205 ·
I could not get this unit to work with my DirecTV HR20-700 at all. I tried several different cables but it failed to give me an image. I'll be checking it later with my other DirecTV receivers.

Initial impression using a Cars2 DVD with my Sony BDP-S370 and my Sony LED is impressive.
 
#209 ·
Hello,
HDMI Handshaking issues have been pointed out on both this thread and the other one. It seems certain Cable Boxes and Satellite Boxes are the most prone. I am glad you are experiencing a positive effect with your Sony Mech.
Cheers,
JJ
 
#211 ·
Hello,
Posts above deleted. Please do stay on topic. What happens elsewhere is not germane to here.
Cheers,
JJ
 
#216 ·
For those who read the posts regarding NCIS. I stumbled onto the end of an episode and tried the Darblet on a few frames. I definitely does not remove the vasoline. In fact whatever was done to the original image to create the soft effect seemed to lessen the Darblet effect as well.

Way beyond my comprehension but interesting
 
#217 ·
Hello,
HDMI is very much a 4 letter word to me. I have probably written this 300 times, but HDMI was foisted upon the consumer not to greatly simplify hooking up components. Rather, it was rolled out to ensure that Copyright Controls are in place. Both CD and DVD's encryption is like Swiss Cheese and is why Component Video, Coaxial and Optical Digital Outputs are going the way of the Dodo Bird.
 
#220 ·
More initial impressions...

I spent a little bit of time last night watching various DirecTV shows with the Darblet - various Olympic events, Twins baseball game, American Guns, and some SD content. If I were looking for something to clean up the image of a compressed satellite signal, I would look elsewhere for now. If it were $50 then maybe. It definitely adds to the compression artifacts of a DirecTV signal when set to a higher number - I'll get pictures of this later next week sometime. And to get the noise back to where it's not showing up in the image puts the number down to less than 40 which does little to the image anyways. Pausing the content and switching the Darblet on and off, you can see a subtle difference. But doing so with the content playing, you notice very little. Also, as Leonard stated earlier:

Areas of the image that are out of the lens depth of field get enhanced noticeably
Watching Olympic soccer, the Darblet had little to no effect upon the field and players, yet the crowd was enhanced. :scratch: And this was anywhere from 38-75. Why you would pay $270 for something that enhances the part of the image that you don't watch? Watching American Guns at the non-noisy level of 38, there was no noticeable effect. At higher levels you could see the Darblet effect start to occur but the noise enhancement came along with it. The only way I could find a way to remove the magnification of the compression artifacts was to set it back to a point where it added very little to the overall image.

Ok, so that's my impression of how it handles satellite TV. 90+% of this viewing was done using my Epson 3010 Projector onto my 100" screen. As I stated previously, I will get pictures of this later and maybe even some HD video as well.

I have yet to look at over the air broadcasts but plan to do so. This will have to be done on my Sony LED as that is the only display I have setup for over the air. I also have to view more blu-ray content as that is what really intrigued me and caused me to shoot that initial video. It actually seemed to do a very good job with this in my brief look at it.

More to come later this next week. :T
 
#221 ·
Hello,
Very nice write up. It will be interesting to read your thoughts on OTA with the Darblet as the amount of compression used by Cable/Sat is quite heinous. Granted it is the only current way to provide 100s of channels. It somewhat appears from what you and Leonard have written that it keys in on parts of a image where normally little emphasis is placed to accentuate the effect.
Cheers,
J
 
#223 ·
For Ken Ross & Others: Standards/Fidelity/Intent, Etc.

Ken,

I have been dwelling upon your questions in this thread for days. To answer each one in detail would be too tedious for this format. Here is my attempt to generally corral the major issues into some semblance of order and theme. Handling all the potential details in a manner that attempts to avoid further questions would more appropriately be a thread all its own. The root of this challenge has to do with not knowing what fundamental principles of motion imaging reproduction you already understand. That's a problem encountered in hobbyist forums regularly. The average videophile consumer simply has not had formal, structured training, but all too often a sparse or random mishmash of familiarity with essential fundamentals.

You have asked about "standards." Strictly speaking, motion imaging industry standards bodies publish standards documents, engineering guidelines, recommended practices, and registered disclosure documents to guide the industry in how to do what they do in a unified way. Here is a link to the complete index of SMPTE publications: https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/files/Standards-Index_07-09-2012.pdf . You may gain some degree of understanding of how all these publications differ by type from reading the titles. If you see a topic that interests you, perhaps you would want to purchase the document from SMPTE for personal study.

Contrast ratio, or dynamic range, is not specified in any standard that I know of. There is discussion of minimum specifications and tolerances in certain recommended practice publications. Here are some examples I located from my limited library:

Recommendation ITU-R BT.710-4, 'Subjective Assessment Methods For Image Quality In High-Definition Television'

Ratio of the luminance of the screen when displaying only black level in a completely dark room, to that corresponding to peak white- ~ 0.01 [100:1]


'Color Processing for Digital Cinema 4: Measurements and Tolerances' SMPTE Journal, July 2007, based upon SMPTE Engineering Guideline 432-1 (also in 'Digital Cinema System Specification' version 1.2, Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC, March 7, 2008)

Sequential Contrast:

Theoretical Reference: 2000:1 Minimum
Review Room Tolerances: 1500:1 Minimum
Theater Tolerances: 1200:1 Minimum

Intra-frame Contrast:

Theoretical Reference: 150:1 Minimum
Review Room Tolerances: 100:1 Minimum
Theater Tolerances: 100:1 Minimum


EBU-Tech 3320, 'User Requirements For Video Monitors In Television Production' May, 2008

Full screen (1% patch) contrast ratio shall be [1% white window on a black screen?]:
Grade 1 Monitor: above 1000 to 1

Simultaneous contrast ratio (with EBU box pattern) should be [similar to ANSI checkerboard?]:
Grade 1 Monitor: above 200 to 1


'Picture Rendering, Image State, And BT.709' Charles Poynton, April 29, 2009

"Today’s studio reference displays have gamma very close to 2.4, reference white luminance of between 80 and 120 cd·m-2, and a contrast ratio of about 100:1. They are viewed with a dim surround, illuminated such that the surround luminance is about 5% of the reference white luminance."


Essentially, content producers expect there to be some variation in contrast when viewing their work, depending on the type of display system being used. It is understood in the professional imaging world that contrast should be maximized where possible. There are limits to how much brightness the human visual system can tolerate, so the preferred method for optimizing contrast is to lower the black level. The ideal would be black at zero luminance, which would mean a contrast ratio of infinity, independent of peak luminance achieved.

Regarding "artist's intent" versus "reality" in electronic imaging, here is a pertinent quote from a leading industry expert:

"The goal of video production is not to reproduce, at the viewer’s premises, an accurate representation of the scene in front of the camera. Rather, the goal is to reproduce an accurate representation of what the director saw on his studio display upon approving the final product of post-production. Image data modifications are imposed for creative purposes at various stages of professional video production. Whatever image processing operations were used to create the final image – whether physically meaningful or not – are fair game." 'Picture Rendering, Image State, And BT.709' Charles Poynton, April 29.2009

Regarding the so-called "soap opera effect" resulting from certain frame interpolation schemes: it is an unintended consequence of attempting to solve or mitigate motion rendering deficiencies inherent in LCD display technology. It is simply a new type of image distortion that can dramatically alter the "look" of video programs.

Film-based programs offer their own unique characteristics that may not translate fully to the video domain. Horizontal pans are a good example. The 3:2 pull down motion artifact evident in 30/60Hz video frame conversion drives film people crazy to watch. Using even multiples of 24fps solves this problem but doesn't produce unintended consequences if implemented cleanly. Digital Cinema programs can be produced with 24fps digital cameras, higher bit rates, and wider color gamut. Converting such motion picture programs to consumer video is understood by the artist to require changes to the "look" of the program. It is difficult for an average videophile consumer to be aware of the nature of what potential changes may be tolerated and what ones are not by the cinematic artist community. I don't have an answer to that, other than seeking the guidance of someone trained and skilled in reference imaging.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
 
#224 ·
Alan, thanks much for the thoughtful reply, much appreciated!

I suspected there might not be any defining parameter for dynamic range. I'm not sure if that was the result of the tools available at the time that had relatively limited dynamic range or it simply wasn't though of as something that would alter the artistic intent. Either way it's good information.

Although it's certainly true that one can achieve an 'infinite' dynamic range with a black level of zero, in my mind it doesn't begin to express the perceived dynamic range that can be afforded by some of today's displays that, although not achieving a zero measured black level, still can attain very high luminance levels without clipping.

The concept of 'infinite CR' as the result of zero black levels doesn't (IMO) really express the tremendous variation that can occur in real-world displays with near zero black levels. Considering that we can have two displays with a zero measured black level yet one display can achieve double the peak luminance value of the other, kind of shows the limitations of this value. Does one have 'double infinite' CR? It gets a bit hairy. ;)

I have to admit I struggled and am still struggling with this: "Whatever image processing operations were used to create the final image – whether physically meaningful or not – are fair game." It seems to me this can be interpreted in many ways. Are we saying that since an image is created with almost countless 'image processing operations", that all of those operations are 'fair game'? Does that mean they can be tinkered with? I'm just not sure I understand the writer's meaning there.

It's interesting that the unintended consequence of the 'soap opera effect' was also not contemplated. However here, I feel it's almost intuitive that this effect truly was not the artist's intent. He created his message in film and I'm sure he meant to stay in that 'surreal' domain and not the more 'you are there' live look of video.

At any rate it's all interesting to me and I do appreciate your input. :)
 
#225 ·
Alan, thanks much for the thoughtful reply, much appreciated!

I suspected there might not be any defining parameter for dynamic range. I'm not sure if that was the result of the tools available at the time that had relatively limited dynamic range or it simply wasn't though[t] of as something that would alter the artistic intent. Either way it's good information.

Although it's certainly true that one can achieve an 'infinite' dynamic range with a black level of zero, in my mind it doesn't begin to express the perceived dynamic range that can be afforded by some of today's displays that, although not achieving a zero measured black level, still can attain very high luminance levels without clipping.

The concept of 'infinite CR' as the result of zero black levels doesn't (IMO) really express the tremendous variation that can occur in real-world displays with near zero black levels. Considering that we can have two displays with a zero measured black level yet one display can achieve double the peak luminance value of the other, kind of shows the limitations of this value. Does one have 'double infinite' CR? It gets a bit hairy. ;)

I have to admit I struggled and am still struggling with this: "Whatever image processing operations were used to create the final image – whether physically meaningful or not – are fair game." It seems to me this can be interpreted in many ways. Are we saying that since an image is created with almost countless 'image processing operations", that all of those operations are 'fair game'? Does that mean they can be tinkered with? I'm just not sure I understand the writer's meaning there.

It's interesting that the unintended consequence of the 'soap opera effect' was also not contemplated. However here, I feel it's almost intuitive that this effect truly was not the artist's intent. He created his message in film and I'm sure he meant to stay in that 'surreal' domain and not the more 'you are there' live look of video.

At any rate it's all interesting to me and I do appreciate your input. :)
Where there is even the slightest bit of ambient light in a viewing environment, a display black level of zero would be compromised.

"Double infinity" is, of course, a nonsensical concept. Where increased light output in a display pays off is in competing with ambient light levels in a viewing environment....up to a point. Bright rooms kill darker scenes in a program.

Interpretation and application of any statement must be according to the context in which it occurs. The reader must limit potential possibilities accordingly if confusion is to be avoided.

Any "tinkering" is limited to pre-"final image." Once a program is approved by the producer, the objective of a mass communication system is to convey the message faithfully, without alteration. Sensible audience members don't endeavor to spray paint the screen at the movie theater to suit their personal taste. Neither would you see serious art museum attendees wearing tinted or faceted glasses. In my deluded hippie days such options could have been considered enhancements.:rubeyes:
 
#226 ·
I am so grateful to Alan Brown for his post.

I am certainly in the non educated category and appreciate all references that may help me understand the process.

I am sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of making a film because I always assumed the makers were trying to reproduce what they saw, liked and approved of. Perhaps I have been influenced too much by how many 'takes' the film makers seem to do for one reason or another?
So do they start off with just a 'base clip' in mind knowing that they can use 'effects' on them later or are they uncertain how the clips will turn out anyway?
I thank you for highlighting this important quotation.

Live Outside Sports Broadcasts don't have the luxury of an editing room reappraisal of their work so presumably must literally cover all the angles. Some of the work is fantastic as is some of the films we watch.

I wonder, is the work of Live TV broadcasting seen as art?
 
#227 ·
I am so grateful to Alan Brown for his post.

I am certainly in the non educated category and appreciate all references that may help me understand the process.

I am sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of making a film because I always assumed the makers were trying to reproduce what they saw, liked and approved of. Perhaps I have been influenced too much by how many 'takes' the film makers seem to do for one reason or another?
So do they start off with just a 'base clip' in mind knowing that they can use 'effects' on them later or are they uncertain how the clips will turn out anyway?
I thank you for highlighting this important quotation.

Live Outside Sports Broadcasts don't have the luxury of an editing room reappraisal of their work so presumably must literally cover all the angles. Some of the work is fantastic as is some of the films we watch.

I wonder, is the work of Live TV broadcasting seen as art?
Great learning of how motion pictures are made is offered on many optical disc programs in the form of extra features. These can include: director interviews, commentaries, "making of" documentaries, alternate endings, etc.

Assume nothing. Get the facts. Avoid confusion and suspicion.

Directors can visualize what their goal is because they have experience, skill, and talent that qualifies them to guide the production process. Some experimentation is involved, but that burns up time, time is money, movie making is both an art and a business. Changes can be made in the digital intermediate (DI) stage of post production.

Some artistic decisions can be involved in live broadcasting. Like most things in life- it depends.
 
#231 ·
It would seem that film producers / directors have been given full encouragement by their Leaders to make a film as close or as far from reality as they wish.
Upon release, the film then assumes an untouchable status.

Is there the remotest possibilty that a personal viewing 'menu of effects' can actually be helpful to a final film?

I can visualise the Producer / Director having to decide between two effects they had used for the final version despite liking them both equally.
Would he / she be too outraged if their alternative choice could somehow be reproduced by a 'home effects' menu on a Display?
 
#236 · (Edited)
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Speculations can be endless. Study the fundamentals of motion imaging production and distribution and you will be able to eliminate most wild speculation at its source. The artist is in charge of his own workmanship, in some cases in cooperation with who hired him to do the work. Most art galleries and displays ask you not to touch the work being shown. Why is this a difficult concept for many people?

If you have a compelling urge to use some video process to alter a Francis Coppola movie, you don't need anyone's permission to endeavor to ask him if he minds. What the Darblet does has little appeal to me, and I will not be spending the money on one. You may do what you wish. If your dominant goal is to view in your home cinematic art as near as possible to its appearance when final approval was given, your TV will need to behave like a calibrated professional video monitor or projection system. How is it such a simple concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend? If you have differing viewing priorities or preferences, no one is trying to prevent you from exercising them at will. However, your results will differ from the intended appearance of the original program.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
 
#233 · (Edited)
Here's a cut and paste. No need to send people to avs when the Darbee folks can post here if they wanted to,

Some thoughts to address the noise/grain comments.

Signal to Noise...
When "noise" has enough structure, it might fool DVP's "don't look at noise" detectors.
Artifacts of compression and even grain can all become "interesting" structure.
The movie 300, might be best left alone for this reason (highly stylized artistic intent reason too).
Hi Def mode has detection that does the best job of causing the DVP algorithm to ignore "noise" structure.
The vast majority of video frames where there is nothing of interest in part of the frame: sky, wall, flat smooth surface, etc. DVP will not process that area at all. You can pause and A/B most frames and see this to be true (pretty fancy AI goes into selectively NOT processing the entire frame). That being said, there will be pathological cases and we apologize for not being perfect...yet.

Low Quality, Low Resolution Video...
Bad video contains artificial structure in areas that you would NOT normally be looking at, which can be tempting for the DVP algorithm, as Full Pop mode does not have the detection mode engaged. So Full Pop Mode will sometimes attempt to process "interesting noise." The issue of that happening will come and go depending upon the content.
On the other hand, bad video contains so many problems already, that the eye/brain will accept some of the DVP errors, because the content needs so much help. DVP artifacts are often trivial compared to what the eye/brain has to deal with given the artifacts of compression. Also, DVP artifacts are often hidden in low quality material, due to all the other artifacts.
Full Pop Mode is the best mode to use on low quality low resolution material because it forces DVP into the image strongly enough that you often get a change that your eyes/brain notice and thank you for.

High Quality, Hi Resolution Video...
Very clean video (CGI and end to end HD with good encoding bit rate for playback media) will absorb an amazing amount of DVP Full Pop, particularly if it is hi fidelity with organic structure content. Round shapes and textures of all sizes, object separated in many depth planes. Avatar is a good example of all that mix.
Higher levels (60-90) of Hi Def mode will be tolerated and the virtually artifact free result can be seen to its fullest.
The greatest example I have witnessed is uncompressed D5 tape (DVP post processed on movie frames then encoded to uncompressed video) of a feature movie test segments (A Knights Tale) on a studio reference monitor at FotoKem. Astonishing!, and too bad we all cannot have that quality in our homes.

Medium/High Quality, Hi Resolution Video...
This is where many are in their living rooms, families sitting around and wondering why you won't stop A/B'ing the image or why you won't turn that sliding line off.. Use judicious amounts of DVP, Full Pop in low 30-60 settings or Hi Def or Gaming Mode 40-80. Hi Def and Gaming Modes you have noise/artifact detectors engaged and you will have a wide range of settings to play with, or set and forget just below a level that you feel causes some artifacts to creep through.

High quality compression codecs are appreciated by DVP and with enough success maybe DVP will contribute its own.

-DD
 
#234 ·
More comments...

I did a bit of viewing last night with the Spears & Munsil disc. I've seen what Gary Reber described in his Widescreen Review article and I've also seen the issues pointed at AVforums. This, as well as the Darbee statement above, all add to what folks have said that this box is intended for quality content as opposed to helping out with lessor quality or overly-compressed content.

Tonight the family and I will be watching 'The Lorax' with the Darblet. This will be the first animated content with the darblet that I have viewed.

I"ll be getting pictures and videos later this week.
 
#235 ·
And some comments on the Darbee statement at avs today. Keep in mind this is my experience, we all understand that your experience may be different. :T

Some thoughts to address the noise/grain comments.

Signal to Noise...
When "noise" has enough structure, it might fool DVP's "don't look at noise" detectors.
Artifacts of compression and even grain can all become "interesting" structure.
The movie 300, might be best left alone for this reason (highly stylized artistic intent reason too).
Hi Def mode has detection that does the best job of causing the DVP algorithm to ignore "noise" structure.
The vast majority of video frames where there is nothing of interest in part of the frame: sky, wall, flat smooth surface, etc. DVP will not process that area at all. You can pause and A/B most frames and see this to be true (pretty fancy AI goes into selectively NOT processing the entire frame). That being said, there will be pathological cases and we apologize for not being perfect...yet.
I will have to check this out as I have 300 in my collection.

Low Quality, Low Resolution Video...
Bad video contains artificial structure in areas that you would NOT normally be looking at, which can be tempting for the DVP algorithm, as Full Pop mode does not have the detection mode engaged. So Full Pop Mode will sometimes attempt to process "interesting noise." The issue of that happening will come and go depending upon the content.
On the other hand, bad video contains so many problems already, that the eye/brain will accept some of the DVP errors, because the content needs so much help. DVP artifacts are often trivial compared to what the eye/brain has to deal with given the artifacts of compression. Also, DVP artifacts are often hidden in low quality material, due to all the other artifacts.
Full Pop Mode is the best mode to use on low quality low resolution material because it forces DVP into the image strongly enough that you often get a change that your eyes/brain notice and thank you for.
There is no mode that will fix anything low quality or low resolution. This statement is a pipe dream at best as the Darblet does nothing outside of adding/enhancing noise.

High Quality, Hi Resolution Video...
Very clean video (CGI and end to end HD with good encoding bit rate for playback media) will absorb an amazing amount of DVP Full Pop, particularly if it is hi fidelity with organic structure content. Round shapes and textures of all sizes, object separated in many depth planes. Avatar is a good example of all that mix.
Higher levels (60-90) of Hi Def mode will be tolerated and the virtually artifact free result can be seen to its fullest.
The greatest example I have witnessed is uncompressed D5 tape (DVP post processed on movie frames then encoded to uncompressed video) of a feature movie test segments (A Knights Tale) on a studio reference monitor at FotoKem. Astonishing!, and too bad we all cannot have that quality in our homes.
I haven't done a lot of high quality high res viewing yet. But from what I have seen, I've been impressed. :T

Medium/High Quality, Hi Resolution Video...
This is where many are in their living rooms, families sitting around and wondering why you won't stop A/B'ing the image or why you won't turn that sliding line off.. Use judicious amounts of DVP, Full Pop in low 30-60 settings or Hi Def or Gaming Mode 40-80. Hi Def and Gaming Modes you have noise/artifact detectors engaged and you will have a wide range of settings to play with, or set and forget just below a level that you feel causes some artifacts to creep through.

High quality compression codecs are appreciated by DVP and with enough success maybe DVP will contribute its own.

-DD
The last time I looked into it, DirecTV supposedly uses high quality codecs. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. And the problem I've found with this statement is that I think you will have to set it low enough so that the darblet is basically shut off. When viewing the baseball game I had to go all the way down to 38 before the enhancement of artifacts disappeared. And then it seemed to have little, if any, effect upon the image. :huh:
 
#237 ·
If your dominant goal is to view in your home cinematic art as near as possible to its appearance when final approval was given, your TV will need to behave like a calibrated professional video monitor or projection system. How is it such a simple concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend?

I don't think its difficult for most of us to comprehend at all. It simply is not always our priority. I consider film to be an art like painting, music, dance etc. The problem is defining good art or bad art is a personal thing. There are plenty of films, paintings and music not worth preserving in my opinion. The film makers intent may have been only to make money on a story or idea.

We do not buy or listen to music we do not like. I do the same with many films. Its easy to record them and delete these days. My biggest priority with a film is the story line. I want to be entertained. Poor images can detract from a good story and vice versa. I can not change the story but I can change the image. Its my choice. I do have a well calibrated high quality display so I can maintain the image fidelity if I choose. Most of the time that is my choice too.

As a professional in the field I expect your priorities to be no less than they are. If they were not I would not hire you to perform services for me. Its your job to deal with specifications, good industry practices etc but its my job to choose how to view once you have given me the opportunity.

Keep up the good work
 
#238 · (Edited)
My priorities were the same before I ever entered the profession. This was due to my early fascination with movies growing up, then my exposure to the writings of Joe Kane, after his chairmanship of the SMPTE Professional Monitor Working Group in the 1980s. I also acquired and studied the laserdisc he produced with Reference Recordings, titled: 'A Video Standard.' It was the first optical disc program intended for consumers to have reference test signals for properly adjusting their displays, sound equipment, and viewing environments. As a long time audiophile, it was of interest to me that I could have a tool that would allow me to also tweak my video components for better performance. Unlike audio reproduction, the video world was much more clearly defined and unified on technical standards and best practices.

Prior to SMPTE's work in the '80s, the NTSC video used in the U.S. was not nearly as unified or committed to faithfully following industry standards. The system was cynically referred to as 'Never The Same Color." This was not because of a lack of standards in the industry, but a lack of understanding and discipline to adhere to them in both the broadcast world and among consumer TV manufacturers. Video tape and disc formats for the home were in their infancy. The birth of "home theater" coincided with the broadening of advocacy for following reference standards. THX began influencing the consumer market after making its positive impact in the professional motion picture industry. The Imaging Science Foundation was formed to give Joe Kane a more effective voice in advocating for higher video quality to professionals, consumers, and the consumer video media voices.

It was not until 1997 that I became professionally involved in the home entertainment arena. Since then, I have only deepened my resolve to learn about and advocate for excellence in video quality. In the video world, the term "quality" has very specifically defined criteria based upon video industry standards and best practices. In the consumer world, the term "quality" can mean anything imagined in the space between the ears of the viewer. Have no doubt, if the video world was managed by consumers, it would soon devolve back to "Never The Same Color." Consistency of quality in program reproduction would just be a crapshoot.
 
#241 ·
Some have been running the Darblet through many tests and apparently it does not affect most areas that are calibrated in a consumer display. It appears to be maybe processing in a way not covered by standard terms. To me it is an interesting little box.

Since it is billed as a video processor too many are expecting it to "clean up" poor images from various sources. I do not think this is a something it does well as it often makes them worse. It appears to me to improve the image at times and other times it harms it. My frustration is liking to set it and ignore it which has proven hard to do. My expereience so far is with Direct TV and streaming Amazon from a Roku. Now that the Olympics are over I will crank up my Oppo and check Avatar for sure.

I have a feeling that the Darblet was introduced as a way of gaining experience with the process with the end goal being selling chips to third parties.
 
#243 ·
I suspect that the primary goal is much simpler, and that is to make a profit. I believe that the product definitely has a valid place in the market and the sellers have every right to make that profit. I wish them success in doing so. They will not get a pass on the very reasonable questions that we have posed (that have yet to be answered, mostly) nor on using terminology like "fidelity" in a manner that is inconsistent both logically and functionally.
 
#244 · (Edited)
I'm just curious and something that rambling in my head just now. What if a director primarly intended in a scene for a car to pop out of the screen at you and through the contraints of your monitor it doesn't so much. And then you modify the picture so that the object noticably pops out, and you go "Wow!" like the director intended but in doing so something like a mountain turns out not as clear as to what the director intended. So through manipulation, the original and primary important goal of the director, for that scene is achieved or much better achieved and the secondary or less important role of the mountain view is sacrificed. So at the end of the day the primary intention of that scene, as the director intended, is realised better through manipulation even tho the ratio of visibility for the scene, from car to mountain, is not what the director originally intended but the primary goal of the scene ie. the car popping out of the screen is much better realised. Would this manipulation be wrong?

Just like in sound. If a scene where a T-Rex marches around and the director, very importantly, intended for you to feel the thumping of his feet and to a much lesser degree the rustling of the trees. But what if, due to the contraints of your sound system, the thumping isn't very, well thumpy and bassy :bigsmile: and through manipulation you go and ramp up the bass in your sound system and then you feel ' Wow! Heavy and big thumping!" just as the director,importantly, intended you to feel. But by doing this, you don't hear much of the rustling trees, so you've changed the ratio of audible sound to what the director originally intended but you've achieved and attained the primary and most important goal of what the director intended for that scene, through manipulation. Would the director not be happy you've done this and achieved his primary goal? Would this be wrong? And would the director not be happy that you've chose to try to get closer to his primary and most important goal?

Loads of 'director intended' there. :clap: But it's late and if I've wrote something completely wrong and out of line... *I'll get my goat* :dumbcrazy:
 
#248 ·
You have a virtually infinite "effects menu." You have every right to choose to use the myriad of ways to modify your images and vendors have every right to sell you more permutations on how to do so. If we had not had the attempts to apply some order to the industry in terms of standards for imaging science, you would have far less options with regard to either reproducing content as produced or with whatever manipulations you prefer.

I see no hypocrisy in Alan's views. The desire to have distribution and display systems that allow us to reproduce exactly what goes in without alteration does not imply that one should not choose to make alterations according to preference. The hypocrisy is in the disdain for standard terminology and in the misuse of terms like fidelity in service of marketing. Is there greater hypocrisy in claiming science as a justification for preference or in having a preference for good science? In asking the tough, yet reasonable questions in a forum that calls itself a "shack" or in castigating any skepticism on a forum that has "science" in its name?

Personally, I choose to question the prevailing view that the world is flat, even if it is not popular to do so.

Epistemological ranting done.
 
#249 ·
Perhaps somebody could define 'fidelity' for me as it is used by the film industry then perhaps we can all start with a level playing field.

I have been advised on this thread to never assume so perhaps my uninformed technical and artistic background makes me prone to make rudimentary errors in these areas.

Incidentally I agree completely about current 'effects' capabilities so I don't see why another addition to this rich treasure store should cause such a furore.

Regarding 'flat earth' I'm afraid I did not major in geography so I can only 'assume' you may be correct.
 
#261 ·
Some definitions from Dictionary.com, perhaps not perfect, but applicable here:

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Technology: the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

Fidelity: adherence to fact or detail, accuracy, exactness.

There is no new science in this product. It is technology, i.e. the application of science. Clever technology, and potentially very useful, no doubt.

Contrary to what some have claimed, it is entirely possible to analyze, investigate, and learn much about a product and its effects without actually having it to observe. Since there are no currently accepted standards and test equipment for evaluating what it does, one might actually argue that any observation can only be subjective anyway and a rational analysis could be more objective or more meaningful than an empirical analysis. After all, most of the reports from those who have used the processor have been like/dislike rather than seriously trying to objectify the conditions that produce various effects. Most of the discussion has been rather emotional.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top