Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
First: The bias/placebo effect very often results in the subject thinking "the difference is so obvious no blind testing is needed." That's what almost all the audiophiles who trumpet about the different sound of AC and speaker cables say. So the mere claim of obviousness is not good enough when we are talking about true threshold (limits of our perception) differences.
Well, Rich, the reality of using a lens is you really do use more pixels over a screen area compared to zooming, so at one point this has to be visible, and it is. Unlike AC or speaker cable claims which have in every instance been disproved in blind testing. So we can see the difference if we're close enough.
Placebo only works if you're wanting or expecting there to be a difference. If you're cynical and want proof, you use test patterns and do some testing. I wasn't convinced which is why the first lens I used was borrowed, and the next lens had a returns policy.
I've seen it said by ant-lens people that they could see the ANSI CR drop when a lens was in place, yet when tested, the ANSI drop is very small so as to be beyond the threshold of detection. Placebo in reverse I guess. They wanted to see a negative so that's what they saw.
I've already explained the visible differences but like Drexler you want to ignore them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
Ad we're not talking about instances in which differences are so obvious (and expected within what we know about human visual perception), that no blind testing is needed. Again, we are talking about seeing things - pixel size/visibility reduced even more than provided by E-shift - that would seem to be on the threshold of our perception. With your nose to the screen, pixels are essentially gone with E-shift.
That's a definite visible affect in the same way using 1080 pixels vs 817 pixels, yet you claim we need a double blind test for a lens, but not for e-shift. Art would pass a blind test from his front row.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
The claim that reducing the pixel size/increasing pixel density would make a visual difference (given the same source) is therefore made quite dubious.
It's a fact, not a claim that 1080 vs 817 means more pixels are on the screen and therefore smaller and less visible, yet you come out and say that. E-shift is doing something very similar, so therefore that must be very dubious as well...
Or are you deliberately trolling?
Do you seriously believe that having 33% vertically smaller pixels and therefore more of them on screen is never going to have a visible difference over the larger ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
No, he's not saying it IS placebo effect; he's saying it COULD be placebo, and without having taken steps to ensure it is not it's wise to not just take people's word for it. He (and I) have made that distinction a number of times. Drexler and I have never "ignored" the idea of extra pixels; just the opposite, the contention has been that it is DUBIOUS that extra pixels (via A-lens/processing) will make a visible difference from straight E-shift.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand this position.
And yet you want me to take your word on e-shift...
You say all that but you do seem to be ignoring the extra pixels and suggest it's placebo and nothing else (once the brightness had been debunked). Seems you're the ones not understanding. I'm not comparing to e-shift, I'm talking about A lenses and you're doing comparisons with e-shift now.
I would think that because of the overlapping of pixels with e-shift. the e-shift would have a more visible result because a lens does not remove SDE, it just reduces it because the pixels are smaller, but without seeing it I couldn't say for sure. I would have thought that some softening would be going on as well (overlapping corners), and may need some post processing to restore sharpness maybe, but that's just conjecture on my part. I'll need to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
But if you then chop those pixels into smaller pieces, resulting in 4 times the number of pixels in place of the original larger pixel, then no, you haven't made them larger, you've made them
smaller.
In fact, you've made them smaller than you would have if you'd used an A-lens/anamorphic processing instead of E-shift!
I'm baffled why you seem to keep ignoring this.
(And ignoring it is precisely what your question above does).
I'm not ignoring it because you're not actually chopping them into smaller pieces, you're overlapping them at the corners. You're still only using 1080 pixels and moving them around. By overlapping you're removing the visibility of the edges. Why I'm sceptical is because it's a trick, whereas an A lens really is using more pixels.
I could say that it's placebo that you're seeing smaller pixels because there are no smaller pixels, just the quarters that are overlapping and fooling you into thinking there are smaller pixels, which is more likely to be true than placebo over seeing a genuine increase in vertical pixels with a lens.
I've not seen it and I'm open minded, but I'm curious to see the affect of zooming with the e-shift.
If you zoom the image 33% larger does it get bigger or remain the same size?
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
So you seem happy to voice your caution and skepticism about E-shift, not having used it, but you have a problem with others who might have skepticism about an A-lens over E-shift, not having an A-lens. (Though, Drexler I believe has used an A-lens, and I've seen plenty of A-lenses, including on my own projector, in various locations).
All I'm saying is that if you zoom an e-shifted 1080 panel, does it become visible that the source is getting larger and more visible? I'm not saying it does, I'm just wondering what the affect is because after all, it's still a 1080 panel overlapping itself at speed to fool the eye. It seems to be a very clever idea and from the pictures I see, and very effective, but why do you have a problem with me wanting to see it for myself to alleviate that thought? I'm not going to buy blind and believe the hype until I see it. I did the same with A lenses, and I'll do the same here. I won't change that just because you now own one (and I can see why you're so defensive but don't be, it's not an attack on your pj).
I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm just saying zooming might still increase source pixel visibility, or it might not.
It's not so much the scepticism of an A lens as the constant claim that it's brightness and placebo that are the only real reasons an A lens works. Scepticism is one thing, ignorance and false claims are another. Now that you also support the placebo affect for the first time (never seen you use the term in this context before) makes me wonder if you're trolling, anti lens or just have a personal issue with me. Which is it?
I was sceptical about lenses until I did enough testing to see the benefit. You haven't which is quite obvious although you have some experience and probably negative placebo. Having seen them in action is different to having tested using test pasterns and comparisons over time etc.
I did once use a VC A lens with an NEC HT1000, but couldn't see a difference, so sold it on (again, bought it 'just to see'). I didn't do a lot of testing with it, and the real reason I didn't see a difference was because I was sitting too far back - it was the early days when I was happy with a big screen and my seating was where it was due to what I thought were structural constraints at the time. My bad but I've learnt something from that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
That misrepresents my attitude in those previous threads, presenting me as being sold-by-hype and incautiously leaping to conclusions. Which is wrong. I was constantly re-asserting caveats, saying IF the E-shift technology works as advertised and IF initial eye-witness reports supporting that it did work were true, THEN it may be that one advantage purported for A-lenses - reducing pixel visibility/increasing pixel density, can be had using the JVC E-shift. And I NEVER said E-shift would replace A-lenses, as I pointed out advantages some may still find with an A-lens (e.g. possible increase in brightness/greater convenience).
Well you're quite happy to say I only use an A lens due to placebo and sold by hype, yet when its turned around you get quite upset about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
I didn't just jump on the bandwagon proclaiming it fact. And look at my posts on my JVC RS55: Even OWNING the unit and playing with it's E-shift, I remain cautious and skeptical about my own observations. So, please don't try to paint me as someone incautiously won over by hype.
You seemed to think it would replace a lens - you even created a thread about it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...t=e+shift+lens
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
As it turns out, it seems those initial eye-witness reports were on the money: pixel visibility essentially disappears with the E-shift.
Further, here you are still repeating the "but it makes 1080 pixels bigger" line, and for some reason never taking in that simply doesn't represent what E-shift is actually doing. E-shift doesn't leave those pixels that size - E-shift ends up MAKING VISIBLY MORE, SMALLER PIXELS from those 1080 pixels. It's a physical fact of the technology. What is so hard to understand about that?
It doesn't though, it overlaps them to give that impression. I've only wondered about the effect of zooming and source pixel size.
You seem quite upset about my comments regarding e-shift, yet you're quite happy to jump on the anti-lens placebo bandwagon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
That's a misunderstanding of the placebo effect (and here I'm talking about placebo/bias/expectation effects that plague our perception).
You don't need to expect a difference or be told there is a difference per se.
You can go into a test having NO EXPECTATIONS of perceiving any differences between A and B. But you will often experience them anyway (taking, again, for example differences between wires). Because we are wired to look for differences, to think we perceive them. It just naturally happens when you start trying to see IF you can perceive a difference between A and B. You'll naturally do it, even if A and B are the same.
The misunderstanding you just gave is very often used by audiophiles to justify hearing sonic differences between amplifiers, cables etc. It's one of the most common retorts "Look, I wasn't even EXPECTING to hear a difference between the two, but I did, so it wasn't the placebo effect." That is just to be ignorant of how our perception and bias works: even when you aren't expecting differences, often you'll think you perceive them, hence...blind and double-blind testing is employed when we are at our most careful on these issues.
But you're forgetting the very real fact that there are more pixels, so it's quite believable that there is a very real affect. Which there is. You just don't seem to want to believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness /forum/post/21723952
(I fell for this problem myself. I was deeply skeptical about the claims for AC cables making an audible difference in audio systems. I received a selection of expensive AC cables from probably the most lauded-of-the-time audiophile AC cable manufacturer, ranging in price from about $300/cable to about $3,000 per AC cable. I EXPECTED I'd hear no difference. And I didn't hear a difference with most of the AC cables supplied. Until I put in the most expensive cable. Then it seemed to me my system had changed it's sonic character quite obviously, becoming smoother but "rolled off and darker." It was so "obvious" it didn't seem to need blind testing. And since I didn't go into this with expectations of hearing any difference, I could have thought that the bias effect wasn't in play. But then I blind tested it against a standard $15 military grade AC cable and, guess what? Need I tell you the results and whether I could tell which was which any more?)
A lot of companies are renowned for deliberately choking their equipments' performance by including an inferior power cable....
Gary