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.
 
#2 ·
Hello,
It looks interesting. As AVS is selling it at their Storefront, I am sure there is going to be a great deal of discussion about it over there. Please report back with your impressions as I am sure many will be interested here to read your findings.
Cheers,
JJ
 
#3 · (Edited)
Utter nonsense! The first example is in the opening paragraph of the product's 'User Guide:' "DVP is based on the discovery that fidelity is not the end-point in image science."

If you want more image authenticity and want to preserve artistic integrity, calibrate your video display system according to the same industry standards and best practices observed by the program authors and mastering technicians. Do they use and recommend this device? If not, why bother? If your objective is more "pop," or an altered program that appeals to your personal sense of "realism," then, by all means, try this product. You can consider this device as providing an enhancement to the original image or inducing its own sophisticated style of distortion. The truth is, using it alters the original image. You may find it pleasing. The fundamental goal in any mass communication medium is the delivery of the original message unaltered.

It's not really "....all about the art," as Joe Kane would say. It's all about the "pop." This baloney never ends. If a particular kind of signal distortion appeals to focus groups, money can be made off of it. I don't object to anyone making money, or some individual's preference for distortion. Agreement is not required, clarity of communication is. What I object to is such fallacious statements as, "...fidelity is not the end-point in image science." In the context of video program reproduction, it most certainly is. Unfortunately, some engineers seem to have difficulty comprehending the artistic side of program delivery.

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
 
#6 ·
Hello,
While I too am spurious, I figured as Bob had already ordered one, let him give his impressions. I actually deleted a sentence about just how much profit margin there must be in those little boxes and how that can sometimes create self serving Threads/Posts by those with a financial interest. However, sometimes I somewhat pull my punches especially when a Member has already purchased something.
J
 
#374 ·
Widescreen review's Kris Deering sure gave it a thumbs up and kris is not known for buttering up a product.
I got one to look at and I was not expecting much, nor was I expecting to keep it, but I was surprised at the difference this little device made and I have kept it in my system. I am using it with an RS45, 9' wide curved scope AT screen, anamorphic lens and a Lumagen. My image has never looked better.
 
#7 ·
I would be happy to do a thorough evaluation of the product if they want to send us a sample and discuss in detail the nature of the technology and the science and assumptions behind its operation. The very premise and language of the web site and it promotion indicates to me that there is much room for skepticism, at best.
 
#8 ·
I think what this boils down to is like I have always said...1080p just can't reproduce enough colors to satisfy the human eye. I wonder if this product is upscaleing like current AVR's do. If it is, it might be onto something with people with older equipment that don't offer this feature. An inline upscaler might not be a bad investment if it converts to 1440p or 4K. I don't think this is what this product is doing...they would extoll its virtures as such. The way the are advertising, it sounds like snake oil. But hey, lets see how it stacks up.
 
#9 ·
1080p has nothing to do with the number of colors that can be reproduced. Color gamut does. Wide gamut is possible, and even implemented in some systems, but not in video. I would disagree that the eye cannot be satisfied with current display technology. In fact, for most observers, the current systems are quite adequate. Some may prefer the kind of enhancement that this device provides, just like some prefer the rather distorted reproduction that most sets display out of the box in "vivid" modes. Those of us who prefer a display system or audio system that reproduces the image that was produced as faithfully as possible likely are not going to be impressed.

This is not a scaler. It is an image enhancement system that by its claims makes assumptions about what is salient in the image and attempts to enhance those features. I would make the analogy of an aphex unit in audio processing. It may be useful to get certain effects in a mix, but applying it to a playback system produces some unpredictable and annoying results.
 
#10 · (Edited)
I basically agree with all this. It should also be mentioned that numbers of colors relates to bit depth as well. Consumer video is limited to an 8 bit standardized system and will remain so for now. There are a few exceptions to this in computer gaming, some digital photography/camcorders, and graphics. Broadcasting, cable, online streaming, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, and video games are all 8 bit.

Film and digital cinema use higher bit rates for better color. However, digital video and HDTV still offer superior color to legacy video formats and have impressed the vast majority of consumers with the improvement.

Tonto's appraisal of what the Darblet device may be doing is a bit surreal in my opinion. The company offers a white paper on their site for download that describes in more detail what the device does. It offers some unique and patented processing that has produced a pleasing effect for some viewers. Such effects may even help an inferior display system look more impressive. However, once again, they do not value the principle of fidelity (faithfulness to the original signal) over subjective perception. Most consumers have no idea what a reference video image is supposed to look like. Therefore, consumers can be impressed with a non-reference image. Unfortunately, the same can be said for a wide swath of consumer video professional salesmen, system designers, installers, and marketing types. There are far too many consumer video market vendors and practitioners who have not sufficiently studied video program production, movie production, and video industry standards and best practices. This has resulted in much confusion, misinformation, misconceptions and wrong practice in the home theater arena.
 
#11 ·
Hello All,

I am pleased that the Darblet has caught your attention in this group. I join this group to simply make it easy for the users to interact with our company. Your lively discussion is already quite interesting.

Ultimately, the reason that we embrace your comments and feedback is because it will make our product better. You drive our excellence and we respect that fact. So I thank you in advance for that.

Please understand that we are big fans of fidelity. To capture and display fidelity that is true to the original scene is a wonderful goal. Our mantra includes, "make the best fidelity you possibly can." Beyond that we love to discuss all the many and amazing futures of computational imaging.

Thank you,
DarbeeDr
aka/Larry Pace, COO, President
DarbeeVision Inc.
 
#12 · (Edited)
Hello All,

I am pleased that the Darblet has caught your attention in this group. I join this group to simply make it easy for the users to interact with our company. Your lively discussion is already quite interesting.

Ultimately, the reason that we embrace your comments and feedback is because it will make our product better. You drive our excellence and we respect that fact. So I thank you in advance for that.

Please understand that we are big fans of fidelity. To capture and display fidelity that is true to the original scene is a wonderful goal. Our mantra includes, "make the best fidelity you possibly can." Beyond that we love to discuss all the many and amazing futures of computational imaging.

Thank you,
DarbeeDr
aka/Larry Pace, COO, President
DarbeeVision Inc.
Hi, Larry,

It's good to see you are interested in being a part of the discussion. I'm big on clarity and understanding the definition of terms used in a debate. It's also of value to get as close to the source for information about an issue as possible. Your comments here on "fidelity" seem to conflict with statements in your 'User Guide' and the white paper on your site. What is your concept of "fidelity" and "original scene?"

Are any studios using your processing prior to their post production approval monitors/projectors? How about optical disc labs? Can you provide a list of any directors and/or cinematographers, etc., who use and recommend your processing for consumer use in viewing their work? Did you have any endorsements from the Motion Picture Academy, when they sent out review discs to voting members prior to the Oscars, recommending movies be viewed with your processing? How about in the review and voting process prior to the Emmys? Any other awards shows? Have you presented any papers on your theory and/or processing to SMPTE?

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
 
#13 ·
Larry,

We would love to get a unit to review. We would also like to know more about the science behind the technology. What are the underlying principles and what research and theoretical perspectives support it?

Understand, the forum welcomes discussion of all products, but be prepared to justify your processing with facts and testing. There is a rather low tolerance for hype, and zero tolerance for manufacturers who simply want to promote their product without providing information that increases the knowledge of our users. If simple promotion is the goal, you are welcome to discuss becoming a forum sponsor.
 
#15 ·
Hello everyone. I am not a professional just a like av as a hobby to watch movies with a set up I best can afford.
Onkyo txnr 3009, JVC HD350pj, rotell 685 power amp used to bi amp my B&W683fronts and run B&W600s center. Use B&W685 surrounds powered by onkyo and polk bipolar rears and 4 small deftech bipols for heights and wides. A velodyne fsr1800 sub and an older ads18" sub. Panny tcp 50in plasma and a daylite 110 High contrast cinems screen with home made masking system. Just mentioned this to show where I am at Use New sony 790 bd player have tosh ax2, and ellite 58av mostly for audio.

I read about the darbee on another form it piqued my interest. I purchased one and received it last friday. Quickly set it up and found it just gave my picture with my pj more depth and pop. With the demo modes it is easy to compare and I found it very pleasing. There are some inherrent issues reported on another form but they can be worked around. I am sure there are som professionals and purists that will object to this as already stated above. I just know in my unprofessional opinion it is a nice little unit not overly expensive and improves my home theater experience. I watched a 1956 scope film yesterday black and white to be exact and it was amazing how the darblet improved the depth and detail of that standard dvd. I am sure you can find more professional assesments on some other forms and it is a bit new for professional reviews yet. But I would not just blatantly write it off. I also want to thank the company for theyre participation on the forms .
Will be interested to see some of the opinions of some members as they get to try one out.
 
#16 ·
Hello,
I am very glad you are pleased with it. $269 is certainly not cheap and I do not even want to think of what the Dealer Cost is on the DVP. I look forward to a Professional Review of this device and or having someone like Leonard getting a Review Device as I still remain somewhat spurious personally. Then again, the same can be said of expensive AV Cables, and many other topics. In the end, all that matters is that the Owner is happy with it. However, there is the age old issue of those with a financial interest driving the conversation and stirring the pot.
J
 
#17 ·
Yes $269 is not cheap at all. But in comparison to many video and audio enhancements you mention above it is to me less expensive than many in this category. and usually I am quite skeptical to jump on the bandwagon for gimmicks. I found this one quite pleasing if not I would gladly have returned it. Yes I agree the markup probably is quite generous and I too can be very skeptical of company reps, store owners , and some installers posts or real interest in forms. I also have found many very informative and offering some great advise and products. Of course a few professional reviews would be great and I hope some are comming soon. Especially ones not predjuiced for or against this type of product.
 
#18 ·
As I have indicated to Larry, we are happy to review it as well as carefully review the technology and science behind it. We have not seen enough to be any more than skeptical at this point, as the premise seems antithetical to image fidelity. Hopefully we can get a sample and test it under a number of image conditions on calibrated and uncalibrated displays.
 
#19 ·
The Darblet has been reviewed and given a solid thumbs up by these individuals you probably know and trust: Gary Reber, Jeff Meier, Josh Zyber and Japanese Video expert Asakura-san, who are among a growing set of famous video gurus who have tested the Darblet. All video purists, puzzled by our approach, and yet all convinced that a our technology represents a new and valid image enhancement to produce a gratifying result.
The Darblet is currently being reviewed by several of the most prominent Home Theater magazines, with their reviews due out in the near future. Come visit us in person at CEDIA.

-DD
 
#20 ·
Our readers don't typically go to Cedia.

I have seen Jeff's comments about the device, which are tentative and cursory, but seem to indicate some promise. I have not seen Gary's full review, only the blurb about the new product from CES. Josh's review is here:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/darbeevision-darblet/
and like one would expect, he finds some benefit to the device when adjusted properly but found it to look "artificial" when fully engaged.


The patent can be found here, with a pretty good description of the processing involved:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7995835

This looks like it could have some useful applications, but it is hard to parse the hype at this point. My guess is that the device will work best on calibrated displays or those that are set to ISF of THX levels OOB, and on higher quality sources. People who don't want to have their displays professionally calibrated, use high quality sources, and use the THX or ISF modes with lower contrast may find the most value here. I am guessing that displays driven hard out of the box in some "vivid" mode will look worse with this enhancement or there may be clipping in the highlights on some images since there is contrast enhancement going on here. This is all just speculation, however, until we see it in action.

I wonder how it interacts with compression artifacts. The background softening might actually make some artifacts on motion in the periphery look less offensive, while enhancing the more meaningful parts of the image.

Larry, you might meet less skepticism if you actually provided something more than what appears to be an attempt to promote your product. With some digging, it appears that there may be some merit to what you are doing, but it gets lost in the marketing. Forums like this one usually have a mix of people but a much higher number of more technically educated users who are very cautious about claims without science and validated technology to document actual performance.

I fully understand the challenges of marketing a product in the very ugly climate of today's consumer electronics business, but you won't get a pass on hype and name dropping with no substance here. But then, neither will hard core purists who throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even those people, however, are likely to acknowledge that there may be some value, perhaps for many applications if we can cut through the fluff and get to what it really does.
 
#21 ·
Hello,
That is an excellent post Leonard. I suppose my biggest issue is the cost. For $269, this must represent a huge profit margin. So even if I agreed that there was merit in the DVP, I would still find it difficult to recommend due to the price.

I completely understand R&D, Patent Application, Marketing, etc are not cheap. However, I would think pricing it at say $99 would still keep the lights on. After reading Gary's Review, I still have misgivings.
I suppose it matters not as they appear to be selling like hot cakes. I still question how places like AVS can remain impartial when they sell the DVP at their Storefront. As I wrote in another post, I would imagine they are making a decent amount of money on each unit sold. The DVP does not even include an HDMI Cable and the cost of making the DVP looks to be under $10. Again, not accounting for R&D, Patent Lawyers, etc...
J
 
#22 ·
I would not characterize my comments as tentative or cursory. I am personally more excited about this video processor than any other I have worked with.

I stand by what I said. I would use this device in specific circumstances where it does offer great improvement. I am not advocating it's use beyond those cases.

The following link has my views on this product.

http://homecinemaguru.com/?p=1909
 
#122 ·
Jeff, I apologize if I did not characterize your comments as you meant them. I would be curious to know if you have reviewed the unit further and have more input regarding where you see it as most useful. The tendency seems to be to treat this as all or nothing good or bad. You had some specific examples of where you thought it might be useful. Any more thoughts? Would you use it 100% of the time?
 
#25 ·
I've been asked a couple of times for my opinions on this device.

Alan Brown has said much of it already. As someone involved with reviewing displays, and also doing film cleanup and DVD/BD video encoding and authoring work, I agree with what he's already said.

First of all: I haven't seen one in the flesh. What I'm discussing is the principle behind blanket "enhancement" in a video chain, and also my thoughts on the example images on the Darbeevision site.

The images that have been processed by the algorithm, as seen on the site gallery, are obviously distorted. In particular, the images of the butterfly and the bee don't "read" as well as they did before, to my eyes. The processing looks similar to an Unsharp Mask algorithm, and looks to be more strongly applied in the horizontal direction. And it appears to be frequency adaptive, so it'll leave out of focus areas alone. That's just my observations, I don't know the specifics of how it works.

I've been told though that the images on the site show the device running at full strength. Perhaps it'd be useful for adding gentle sharpening to SD sources?

Speaking purely in terms of HD:
The resolution of properly-done BD content doesn't need "enhancement". Resolution is one of the last things wrong with Blu-ray Disc. Right now I'm working on a 2K cleanup and color correction of a 1980s film, which was shot with fairly cheap lenses and equipment. Even it doesn't need this sort of selective sharpening (although myself and the director agreed that adding a bit of controlled linear high frequency sharpening was a good idea).

And frankly, the idea of people using a device like this on discs that have already been carefully mastered and signed off on, well - it makes me more than a little uncomfortable. What goes onto the disc, what the director approved, doesn't need "enhanced" with selective contrast manipulation.

For film transfers that we know are compromised, perhaps the device would have some use. But the idea of plugging it in to the chain and using it indiscriminately is scary and it goes against any ideas of accurate imaging.

My last point is, that if the algorithm is a good one, why is it being sold to consumers? By that, I mean, why not sell it to professionals (either in hardware or software form) who could use it in a studio environment where DoPs and colorists could use it - carefully - as an artistic tool? That way its usage could be controlled, and its strengths could be employed where necessary.
 
#26 ·
David,
This is truly a brilliant post. I want to extend my heartiest welcome to HTS. You bring up some very salient points that warrant explanation.
Cheers,
JJ
 
#27 · (Edited)
Thanks JJ. I don't wish the makers of this device any ill, but I just hope that it isn't being mis-sold. While I've heard it has no ill effects on colour, grayscale or gamma, nothing about what it's doing is conducive to accurate video.

And, I'm seeing reviews of this pop up in outlets that promote video accuracy. I even saw one review on a blog claim that the device wasn't adding anything that wasn't present in the original signal, and that 'It helps the display to resolve the picture better" which is a misunderstanding of video systems and what these types of video filters do. If your display can't resolve 1080p correctly (pretty much ANY 1080p flat panel display can resolve 1080p properly - at least in 2D) then nothing will help it do so. Although if you have a projector with a poor quality lens, then pre-distorting the signal with a device like this could be beneficial (although again, let's not make any claims about accuracy - that's a kludge).

Edge enhancement and sharpening is a bit of a gray area in terms of accuracy. For example, if the purpose of a home theatre presentation is to mimic the original film as much as possible, then you could easily argue that some amount of sharpening on an SD (or very bad HD) source is MORE accurate than leaving it unprocessed.

But I'm talking there about LINEAR edge enhancement, something that applies constant gain to certain frequencies in the image. What this device seems to be doing is selectively sharpening objects in the image, meaning that the processing borders on artistic re-adjustment. Perhaps the creators can clarify how on-target my observations of the algorithm are.
 
#30 ·
Wow. There seem to be a lot of firm opinions about this device from people with no first hand experience, even in the face of many seasoned professionals and enthusiasts giving it the thumbs up. $269 is not a lot in terms of image processing. Whatever! I just ordered one for my RS45. I'll keep it even if it only makes a moderate improvement to broadcast sports, but from what other reviewers are saying I'm looking forward to trying it out on blu-rays and TV shows too. A little extra perceived sharpness and contrast would go a long way on a 120" wide 2.35:1 screen from 10' away. Way to go Dr. Darbee!!!
 
#36 ·
Wow. There seem to be a lot of firm opinions about this device from people with no first hand experience...
Wow. There seem to be a lot of firm opinions about this device from people with little to no understanding of the fundamental nature of image fidelity and how art should be communicated. I have no doubt that this device delivers processed video that some viewers find appealing. That can be considered ample justification for purchasing one and using it at will. I am not so much interested in being pleased by a process as I am in cinematic art delivered via the HDTV system in as unaltered a state as possible.

There is a pervasive misconception among video consumers that the objective of a video reproduction system is to always emulate what they consider to be "reality." Even some consumer video industry professionals get this wrong. This is not a new problem, either. I suspect this fundamental error may be at the root of why some viewers value what the Darblet process does. Many viewers fail to consider that the content creator likely had specific and deliberate reasons for their program to look the way it does- without additional processing or "enhancement." David Mackenzie has adeptly devoted additional perspective on this basic principle. Unfortunately, I have long ago recognized that some viewers are incapable of understanding the difference between image fidelity and "reality." Humans don't all come from the factory with their brains wired the same.

Live video programs usually aren't so concerned with rendering an artistic intent, but are actually attempting to depict reality as authentically as the technology allows. Perhaps the Darblet processing can improve on such an objective. I believe this forum is largely devoted to "Home Theater," last I checked. In the world of replicating cinematic art in the home, it's the art that is served by the technology- not the other way around. Also, it's the artist that should be allowed to perform, rather than the audience.

Clarity ought to be preferred over agreement in an open forum and free marketplace. It's not necessary to reach agreement in a debate. My challenging the validity of the Darlet process is not based upon whether it has achieved some measure of popularity. It is based upon my "first hand experience" with what motion picture and video industry standards and best practices are, as they pertain to image fidelity and artistic integrity, in a mass communication system generally, and home theater more specifically. Consumers have every right to want more "pop" with their viewing experience, if they prefer. Director/cinematographer collaborations typically approve video transfers with or without said "pop," in suitable proportion, according to their best judgement. Some viewers aren't satisfied with that.

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

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
 
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