Increasing sharpness and contrast on your projector - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 194 Old 08-26-2012, 08:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Iceland
Posts: 1,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

I received mine yesterday and playing around with it last night I can say that I like it best at 45% on the HiDef mode.
I tried to capture some shots to show what kind of a difference I was seeing. All of these are with 45% HiDef Mode:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142395
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142396
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142399
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142401
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142403

I notice in the second pic which I've also noticed in many others that have been posted that the whites look like their clipping/crushed or whatever is the correct term. The detail in the brigh area is noticably less. It's noticable there in the right hand side of the pic.

Birgir "keyser"
keyser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 194 Old 08-26-2012, 09:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

While you have valid points you still need to remember that projectors especially won't always be on the same level in sharpness compared to an LCD or Plasma. There are drawbacks by going to a 3 chip projector. Adding the Darblet inline helps restore some of that intended sharpness that was taken away by the projector technology.
Also, who is to say, other than the director, what his film was supposed to look like. Even if your display has perfect greyscale balance and it otherwise is perfectly calibrated each display technology will ultimately look very different from each other. LCD looks very different from Plasma and LCOS looks very different compared to both LCD and Plasma and even DLP.
You don’t think they are using projectors in grading suites? When the target image is to be projected in the theatre?

Xze8P.jpg

Justify it however you like, but you are not compensating for projector deficiencies, you are artifically boosting the contrast of the scene to create a more pleasing image. (to your eyes)

If they felt that a scene needed more local contrast, it would have been encoded into the film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

I received mine yesterday and playing around with it last night I can say that I like it best at 45% on the HiDef mode.
I tried to capture some shots to show what kind of a difference I was seeing. All of these are with 45% HiDef Mode:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142395
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142396
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142399
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142401
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/142403
Thank you for the comparison images. This looks just like Adobe’s “clarity” tool, which is roughly the same as high radius unsharp mask. (PCs have been able to apply USM in realtime to videos for years now) Which may impress at a glance, but is actually detrimental to image quality upon closer examination. And of course, it’s also going against the intended look of the image.

Here’s a very quick edit of your untouched image for comparison.

Original:
offx1sgd.jpg

+20 Clarity, +50 USM:
clarityacsgm.jpg

Darbee:
darbeelts5f.jpg

I would actually argue that “clarity” is doing a better job of emphasizing areas that need it, and avoiding areas that don’t, giving a more natural result.
It looks like there’s also possibly a slight tone curve being applied to the image as well, brightening up highlights a bit. As someone else mentioned, there appears to be clipping in at least one of your photos. (though it could just be the exposure)


If you like the look, that’s fine, but there are very clearly sharpening artefacts in the image (not ringing) and it’s not how the image was intended to look.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #93 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 06:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gene9p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 1,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
post green issues here?

every now then. Turning off my tv and then turning it on again usually clears this. My Pioneer 111fd Kuro is set to auto to accept whatever signal it receives from the darbee. It has the latest firmware.Also the reset issue.It has happenned 2x's over a period of 2weeks but none this past week.

The 2nd one I ordered is dedicated to my pc and so far no resets, and only once green issue to my monitor.One week up and running.
gene9p is offline  
post #94 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 08:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42Plasmaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You don’t think they are using projectors in grading suites? When the target image is to be projected in the theatre?
Xze8P.jpg
Justify it however you like, but you are not compensating for projector deficiencies, you are artifically boosting the contrast of the scene to create a more pleasing image. (to your eyes)
If they felt that a scene needed more local contrast, it would have been encoded into the film.
Long hours and eye fatigue can have subjective results that are not ideal or perfect.

2014
42Plasmaman is online now  
post #95 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 09:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,297
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Liked: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Content is mastered to have a specific look to it. Any kind of image processing you do to that, is not accurate to the source. For example, many films intentionally reduce the contrast of a scene to create a specific look. This type of processing completely eliminates the director’s intent with that for example, as it brings back the “original” contrast of the scene.

Do you presume that your consumer display provides you with a 100% accurate represenation of what the filmmaker wanted? Do you believe that your projector is transparent to the studio reference monitors that are used to master movies?

I find it fracking hilarious how it's always the people who have not actually seen the device who seem to hate it the most, entirely on principle, based on absolutely no knowledge of what it actually does.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #96 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,471
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 568 Post(s)
Liked: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyser View Post

I notice in the second pic which I've also noticed in many others that have been posted that the whites look like their clipping/crushed or whatever is the correct term. The detail in the brigh area is noticably less. It's noticable there in the right hand side of the pic.

That's my camera's fault. There isn't any white crushing in the actual image. I just used a simple $100 Canon point and shoot to take these photos (mounted on a tripod). The exposure was set just a little too high.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale: JVC DLA-RS45 1080p Reference Series 3D Projector - $1849

My Crazy Projector Journey
Seegs108 is online now  
post #97 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

That's my camera's fault. There isn't any white crushing in the actual image. I just used a simple $100 Canon point and shoot to take these photos (mounted on a tripod). The exposure was set just a little too high.

Well that's too bad....there goes a piece of someone's theory.....that from a few screen shots on line that it's proven destructive to the images and he has also figured out exactly what to use in Photoshop or on an HTPC to precisely duplicate what DVP is doing. Where exactly is that new left and right offset images created in real time technique located?
RonF is offline  
post #98 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 05:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jnabq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Albq. NM, USA
Posts: 1,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnabq View Post

Hi Mike, after talking with Mark there, I bought new cables, monoprice 22 AWG 6' cables to replace the ones I had between all my components. I've tried different power sequences with no improvement. I just got my new switcher today from monoprice, (3x1 enhanced, to replace my kinivo). The new switch didn't help.
Setup as, Panasonic BDT300/Dish 722>>6' 22AWG>>Monoprice 3X1 switch>>6' 22AWG>>Darby>>>25' Black Bull hdmi>>>Epson 6010.
Turn on the pj, and Dish 722, gets me a green image, cycling the switch inputs it goes away. Accessing some BD menu while in 3D, only the middle third of the image is displayed, again, cycle the switch and that issue goes away. Taking Darby out of the chain, they go away. I'm considering ordering a new 30' redmere to see if that helps. The installer used the Black Bull cable, which is suppose to be ok for a 3D run of that length, but I know nothing about 'em.
I seen a couple users in the Darby thread post about the green image issue as well, one with a switch, and one with an extender in their setups.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1399154/darbee-vision-darblet/2670#post_22340394
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1399154/darbee-vision-darblet/2580#post_22333089
I did try a suggestion by Plasmaman, if I set the Darby to "no darby mode", prior to turning on the pj/Dish, no green image.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1399154/darbee-vision-darblet/2670#post_22340578
I think I'll try setting up the darby near the pj and see where that takes me, before ordering ANOTHER cable. Thanks for your interest Mike. I do appreciate you trying to help me enjoy the product, but the issues are hurting my pocketbook, LOL

Posted in the Darby thread, and thought it warranted a repost here.

This issue may have been solved on my setup. While following a suggesting on trouble shooting by plasmaman, I had set it to (darby off), no processing, and in doing so was planning on just leaving it in the "off" mode prior to powering down my components each night. I didn't set it to no processing one night and I think that now, a proper handshake took place. Now the "green image" is no longer appearing? Maybe setting the unit to "no processing", is required for some setups, to get an initial good handshake to take place?

As to my reset issue, I was in the process of changing output on my Panasonic BDT300, I think to 4:2:2, when my pj abruptly powered off. Once powered back up the darby settings had been reset. It hasn't happened again.
jnabq is offline  
post #99 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 07:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
henrich3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Do you presume that your consumer display provides you with a 100% accurate represenation of what the filmmaker wanted? Do you believe that your projector is transparent to the studio reference monitors that are used to master movies?

I find it fracking hilarious how it's always the people who have not actually seen the device who seem to hate it the most, entirely on principle, based on absolutely no knowledge of what it actually does.

+1

I could understand the uproar about "director's intent" if we were talking about colorizing classic B&W movies. To my eye all this little gizmo does is make my display appear to be better focused. If watching an image with greater clarity could cause a tear to roll down the cheek of a director somewhere, I'm willing to take that risk...
henrich3 is offline  
post #100 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 08:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
audiovideoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Murray KY
Posts: 2,661
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Liked: 95
I am debating on trying the darbee with my Sony 1000 but am affraid that I wont like what it does. Some of the images I've seen posted here or there are awesome but others seem like it adds more than needed. I do have a close row of 13' with a 13' wide scope screen and the actuall sharpness with the sony is sharp enough that adding the darbee will really only show the contrast tricks that it does.

I also have a Sharp 70" which I think could use all the help it can get. Has anyone used the darbee on the cheaper Sharp 70"ers with positive results? Atleast I could move it from the Sony and on to the Sharp if it just doesnt look right to me in the theater. I checked out JoeRods pictures of the darbee with the Sony and just thought some of the images looked better with Sonys own processing, but one cant really take screen shots and use them to make a decision. Guess I'll give it a try but was curious about anyone using it with the large Sharp LCDs since can use it on it if dont like the outcome with the Sony. Honestly, I think all the large lower end Sharps lack a lot in plenty of areas and are purely only worth buying just for the sheer size.

Will give Mike a call and order one but wanted some feedback while waiting.
audiovideoholic is online now  
post #101 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,718
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 395
it's difficult to capture the exact effect on a screenshot, it needs to be seen in person to know if you like it or not. There's a number of VW1000 owner's who seem to like it.

There's little risk with the money back guarantee, so give it a shot and see what you think.
zombie10k is online now  
post #102 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 08:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiovideoholic View Post

I am debating on trying the darbee with my Sony 1000 but am affraid that I wont like what it does. Some of the images I've seen posted here or there are awesome but others seem like it adds more than needed. I do have a close row of 13' with a 13' wide scope screen and the actuall sharpness with the sony is sharp enough that adding the darbee will really only show the contrast tricks that it does.
 ...

I have a Darb with my Sony1000 and think it is a nice enhancement.    (I sit 11' from a 12' W screen.)    It's a no-brainer to try it up to 30 days and return it to AVS if you don't like it.    You will be able to tell in a few days.

millerwill is offline  
post #103 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 08:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,485
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiovideoholic View Post

I am debating on trying the darbee with my Sony 1000 but am affraid that I wont like what it does. Some of the images I've seen posted here or there are awesome but others seem like it adds more than needed.

Well don't worry about that, you can set it to do however much you like, all the way from nothing up to way, way too much.
Quote:
I do have a close row of 13' with a 13' wide scope screen and the actuall sharpness with the sony is sharp enough that adding the darbee will really only show the contrast tricks that it does.

I don't think that really does it justice, I can pretty much guarantee it will make things look sharper no matter what projector you have, actually I'd guess it probably works best with sharper projectors to begin with because you "lose" less of it's work on the projector, or the projector won't "undo" it as much.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #104 of 194 Old 08-27-2012, 10:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Do you presume that your consumer display provides you with a 100% accurate represenation of what the filmmaker wanted? Do you believe that your projector is transparent to the studio reference monitors that are used to master movies?
I find it fracking hilarious how it's always the people who have not actually seen the device who seem to hate it the most, entirely on principle, based on absolutely no knowledge of what it actually does.
The device boosts local contrast and uses a non-ringing sharpening algorithm. They claim that they are using depth cues to improve the effectiveness of this, how they achieve this effect doesn’t really matter.

The results are no different from tools that have been available to photographers for years, and they are generally techniques that amateurs use because you can quickly end up with an image that you like if you don’t pay close attention to the changes it is actually making.

As I said previously, this is no different from using any of the “vibrance” controls available on a number of displays now that boost saturation non-linearly, and protect or enhance skintones. Rather than working on hue & saturation, this works on sharpness & contrast.

If you prefer the effect, that is fine, but it is not correcting for deficiencies in your projection setup, it is altering the image in a way that is no longer accurate to how it was meant to be viewed, to something that you find more pleasing.

There are horrible sharpening artefacts—not ringing—in some of the images that have been posted here, but it seems that a lot of people are only actually looking to avoid ringing, rather than avoid sharpening the image.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #105 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 01:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jnabq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Albq. NM, USA
Posts: 1,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
You sound well informed, but have you actually tried the device Chrono? Critiquing the process or end result, without actually seeing it work? If you haven't actually tried it, then your end conclusions may be unfounded, or if you have, are you here to push a purist agenda? Being a noncritical viewer, I tend to watch content the way I want to view it, regardless of how someone may have wanted me to view it.

The "not as intended" argument has been discussed over and over, and now the point has been made in this thread. Darby adds a nice improvement on my $3000 pj that I'm very happy having paid a fraction of that, for the amount of improvement I like, and enjoy. Thanks for your input, but I'll be keeping my darby, to view MY SETUP, the way I want.
jnabq is offline  
post #106 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 06:42 AM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
In these times of change, one can freely exercise an act of let's call it forum disobedience with only, for many, a minor financial adverse consequence (defined as a reduction in available capital), by buying and using or not using a Darblet. Watch content the way you want to view it, and not the way someone somewhere wants you to watch it with someone defined as anyone from the director to the most feverent Darblet supporter or opponent here on AV Science forum.
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
post #107 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 07:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
henrich3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

If you prefer the effect, that is fine, but it is not correcting for deficiencies in your projection setup, it is altering the image in a way that is no longer accurate to how it was meant to be viewed, to something that you find more pleasing.

There are horrible sharpening artefacts—not ringing—in some of the images that have been posted here, but it seems that a lot of people are only actually looking to avoid ringing, rather than avoid sharpening the image.

I agree with you that many of the photos posted on the Darblet threads show enhancement artifacts. Most of the pics have been taken with Darblet settings that are too high either because the poster enjoys a strong effect or they're just trying to demonstrate the effect using a strong enough setting to be obvious in their compressed screen shots. Sitting at your monitor examining these screen shots can give you an idea of what the Darblet is doing, but it's simply not the same as viewing a movie with the processing enabled. When I watch a movie I see an image that's a slightly blurred representation of reality. Watching a movie with the Darblet set to a modest HD 40% level snaps the image into focus. Images in motion using conservative Darblet settings do not appear processed or enhanced to my eye. I submit for your consideration that unless one has actually demo'ed the Darblet watching images in motion, one is not in an ideal position to judge it's merits.
henrich3 is offline  
post #108 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 08:50 AM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Of course it doesn't have any effect on focus but does enhance contrast changes and the ability to resolve contrast is one of the two primary specifications of lens quality, the other being line pair resolution which the Darblet has nothing to do with. It enhances the perception of depth from a 2D image as well when viewed with 2 eyes..
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
post #109 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 08:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,297
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Liked: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

If you prefer the effect, that is fine, but it is not correcting for deficiencies in your projection setup, it is altering the image in a way that is no longer accurate to how it was meant to be viewed, to something that you find more pleasing.

Have you calibrated your projector? If so, you have electronically manipulated the incoming video signal to alter its brightness, contrast, colors, gamma, etc. Did you violate the filmmaker's intent when you did this? Did you make the picture "no longer accurate to how it was meant to be viewed"?

Of course not. You need to adjust these parameters to bring the picture in line with what the filmmaker wants you to see and how it is meant to be viewed.

Calibration can only take you as far as your display is capable of achieving on its own, but no consumer display is perfect. They all have inherent limitations, and virtually none is capable of achieving transparency to the image on the studio reference monitors used to master movies (much less transparency to the movie's actual photography itself). Those studio reference monitors are sharper, more detailed, and have better contrast than your consumer display. The Darblet is just a tool that, when used properly, can help to bring the image on your display a little closer to that ideal. It does not violate filmmaker intent, any more than upgrading your projector to a higher-end model with better contrast and higher-quality optics would violate filmmaker intent.

No filmmaker wants his movie to be forever restricted by the limitations of current display technology. As our displays improve, so too should the apparenance of the movies watched on them.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #110 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 11:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Have you calibrated your projector? If so, you have electronically manipulated the incoming video signal to alter its brightness, contrast, colors, gamma, etc. Did you violate the filmmaker's intent when you did this? Did you make the picture "no longer accurate to how it was meant to be viewed"?
Of course not. You need to adjust these parameters to bring the picture in line with what the filmmaker wants you to see and how it is meant to be viewed.
Adjusting display controls does not change the incoming signal. It lets you calibrate the display’s output to be more accurate to the source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Calibration can only take you as far as your display is capable of achieving on its own, but no consumer display is perfect. They all have inherent limitations, and virtually none is capable of achieving transparency to the image on the studio reference monitors used to master movies (much less transparency to the movie's actual photography itself). Those studio reference monitors are sharper, more detailed, and have better contrast than your consumer display.
With the exception of the new OLED monitors, not as much as you might think. Many studios have still been grading on CRT monitors which are probably softer than a good consumer projector, and have less ANSI contrast. As illustrated, work is normally carried out on multiple displays—adjusted on the reference monitor and checked on a projection setup.

Theatre projectors such as those from Barco are lower contrast than most consumer projectors—usually around 2,000:1.

yEUEd.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The Darblet is just a tool that, when used properly, can help to bring the image on your display a little closer to that ideal. It does not violate filmmaker intent, any more than upgrading your projector to a higher-end model with better contrast and higher-quality optics would violate filmmaker intent.
No filmmaker wants his movie to be forever restricted by the limitations of current display technology. As our displays improve, so too should the apparenance of the movies watched on them.
Local area contrast, and display contrast are very different things.

Increasing local area contrast can have a “focusing” effect on a flat panel display as well. That’s why Adobe called their implementation the “clarity” tool. The point is that if it was felt that a scene needed this kind of processing, it would have been applied and put there on the disc.

Increasing local contrast introduces negative effects into the image that may not be immediately apparent—just like people seem to be claiming that this box increases sharpness without detrimental effects, when I can clearly see sharpening artefacts other than ringing present in the images posted here.

An argument could be made that LCD displays (and probably SXRD/LCoS) are not saturated enough near black, and that non-linear “vibrance” controls could potentially be more accurate if used lightly. Do you advocate doing that?

When the control is non-linear in such a fashion that it cannot be accurately measured or characterised, I think you are into the realm of tweaking the image to your preferences, rather than compensating for display deficiencies or creating a more accurate image.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #111 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 11:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,485
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Theatre projectors such as those from Barco are lower contrast than most consumer projectors—usually around 2,000:1.

Do you calibrate your projector/display to 2000:1 sequential contrast?

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #112 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Where did I miss the change in evaluating home theater gear by screen shots was for fun only? We've changed this now in your opinion to it's OK here though for me to do my armchair analysis. And explain to all of you that actually have the unit......everything you always wanted to know about it. Where's Allen Iverson when you need him.....Low Rez screen shots....we're talking bout low rez screen shots??
RonF is offline  
post #113 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 12:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Do you calibrate your projector/display to 2000:1 sequential contrast?
And the CRT mastering monitors have a contrast in excess of 10,000:1 and OLED monitors, in excess of 100,000:1.

What is important, is adhering to a 2.4 gamma (or BT.1886) to maintain the correct intra-scene contrast rather than matching display contrast. Increasing display contrast while maintaining accurate gamma, increases image accuracy.

Artificially adding Local Contrast Enhancement to the image is absolutely not making up for contrast deficiencies in your setup—it is adjusting the image away from reference, towards personal taste.

My point is that your HT projector is likely already exceeding the contrast capabilities of the projector the content was mastered on, and designed to be viewed on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

Where did I miss the change in evaluating home theater gear by screen shots was for fun only? We've changed this now in your opinion to it's OK here though for me to do my armchair analysis. And explain to all of you that actually have the unit......everything you always wanted to know about it. Where's Allen Iverson when you need him.....Low Rez screen shots....we're talking bout low rez screen shots??
I have a lot of experience with image processing and Local Contrast Enhancement techniques. That this is the first consumer device to apply this technique to video processing doesn’t really matter. It’s very clear from the images posted that this is what it’s doing, in addition to a non-ringing sharpness enhancement.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #114 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I have a lot of experience with image processing and Local Contrast Enhancement techniques. That this is the first consumer device to apply this technique to video processing doesn’t really matter. It’s very clear from the images posted that this is what it’s doing, in addition to a non-ringing sharpness enhancement.

Your position is laughable. All this negativity and your enlightenment to all of us how "misguided" we are is from looking at low rez screen shots, nothing like you see in person. But of course you know. More so than actual users and highly respected "industry" persons in Gary Reber, Josh Zyber and Kris Deering who actually put the technology through its paces for weeks on end. With tremendous, large imaged gear. Always with you guys it's the snooty....but hey if that's what you want to do to your image....fine by me......blast.

Until you put it into your system and decide you can find no use for it and get your money back...you are talking out of your hat. You may hate it eventually but you have zero credibility to blast it at this point.
RonF is offline  
post #115 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 07:23 PM
Member
 
mhaneef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South of Boston,MA
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
RonF- +1 for your "Iverson" impersonation: "we're talking bout low rez screen shots??" LMAO
mhaneef is offline  
post #116 of 194 Old 08-28-2012, 09:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Gradius2 is an ISF calibrator in Brazil posting right now in the most current pages of the actual Darblet thread. Apparently he was open minded enough to actually order one for himself to see. Originally he came on sight unseen with the unit, like Chronoptomist, and almost word for word stated the same negative things about directors' intentions being (ignored or whatever), and also did the same armchair analysis of what DVP was doing, declaring he had it all figured out in Photoshop with the unsharp masking options. Same stuff if you go back and find his first posts on it.

Now he is saying literally he is finding the bigger the image the better the Darbee looks to him. And is posting 720P photos of 0%, 45% HD and 45% Pop. Where are these "horrible artifacts" ????? Just goes to show you can't pass judgement on this technology without giving it an intellectually honest, thorough testing with a lot of "high quality" material. Bluray.....OTA HDTV, or even cable and satellite if your provider gives you clean signals without a lot of garbage in them. And yes....still photographs too.
RonF is offline  
post #117 of 194 Old 08-29-2012, 02:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,264
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 33
I can easily follow Chronoptimist's reasoning and logic and concur with what he wrote here. I have several years of calibration theory and practice myself and passed that stage long ago when I tried to improve on image quality by tweaking software part in my video player (shaders, avisynth scripts and so on). I realized two things: a) it looked good on some sources and looked pretty bad on other sources; b) those sources that looked good to my taste looked bad for my friend who had different tastes.
Then I studied calibration standards and underlying theory and now all sources look good for me and my friend without using any "enhancements". They are good to toy with however, if you like experimenting with the image and want to see a familiar movie with a different look. But don't forget you're altering cinematographer's intentions while doing so. It's the undeniable truth. If you think otherwise you're probably thinking you're better than those men involved in creating final image for the film too. I see some of you simply refuse to understand Chronoptimist's points because of lack of knowledge and experience needed to grasp it.

@RonF
It would be nice if Gradius2 himself commented on Chronoptimist's posts because I find it weird to interpret other person's intentions based on what he wrote. Just because he ordered Darbee doesn't mean what Chronoptimist said is wrong.
Elix is offline  
post #118 of 194 Old 08-29-2012, 05:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SOWK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 126
I'm guessing you never tried one... Lol.

HD mode on setting 40-45 is undeniably better then not having it in the chain. Regardless of directors intent...

The difference is more like they shot the image with a better camera, not that it changes the directors intent.


It's also similar to saying watching on DVD is the directors intent and now that blu-ray is avail, that's no longer the directors intent... I know it's not the same, but that's the similarities the Darbee introduces.
SOWK is offline  
post #119 of 194 Old 08-29-2012, 08:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42Plasmaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

Then I studied calibration standards and underlying theory and now all sources look good for me and my friend without using any "enhancements". They are good to toy with however, if you like experimenting with the image and want to see a familiar movie with a different look. But don't forget you're altering cinematographer's intentions while doing so. It's the undeniable truth. If you think otherwise you're probably thinking you're better than those men involved in creating final image for the film too. I see some of you simply refuse to understand Chronoptimist's points because of lack of knowledge and experience needed to grasp it.
You are implying that every consumer projector/monitor/display is transparent and reference quality and displays EXACTLY what was mastered to disc.
By the time the digital signal is read from the laser through the player and down the signal chain to the display, it has been altered/enhanced.
You just hope that all your calibrations and settings have not altered enough that it "looks" reference quality like the master.

Without seeing the master on the reference equipment & a specific display side by side, you can not at 100% certainty commit that what is being displayed is a 100% replication of the mastered product.
It's also humorous that you and others can comment on behalf of the director on his intentions with no conversation or source to base these statements.
It's like those who claim what they seen a movie in the theater 10-20 years ago is not the same PQ as the disc all based on memory.

2014
42Plasmaman is online now  
post #120 of 194 Old 08-29-2012, 08:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,297
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Liked: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Adjusting display controls does not change the incoming signal. It lets you calibrate the display’s output to be more accurate to the source.

I take it that you've never used an external video processor such as Lumagen or DVDO models for calibration.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Avscience

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off