Originally Posted by Glimmie
I'm sure they could and isn't that what this thread is all about?
So you base your assessment of dvdo's vastly superior engineering skills on the stuff they haven't
done (but surely could!) but that the competition has. I see.
CMS is rather simple hardware. In a 1D LUT it's noting more then a RAM. The table is loaded via the data lines and the video drives the address lines. A 3D LUT is more complicated due to the RGB interaction but the same basic principal. The real complexity is generating the LUT values.
Yes, a 3D CMS is complex because of the interactions between the primaries and secondaries. That's why the XD's CMS is nice, because the R/G/B/C/Y/M adjustments don't affect from one another. A side effect of their sub par engineering skills.
Deinterlacing and scaling are very complex hardware. But if Lumagen is going to the trouble to build out all the other functions themselves, why not the deinterlacing too? That Gennum chip is probably not cheap. I do realize this still may be a marketing call and not an enginering decision.
Love the way you throw those insulting little jabs. Anyhow. Trust me, if there's one thing that Lumagen sucks at, it's marketing. They used the gennum because it was the best available deinterlacing solution (at the time anyway). As you yourself point out, it's a complex function, so why do it yourself if someone else has already come up with a great solution?
P.S. Why does Lumagen not support SDI?
Because it has no real world advantage over hdmi in terms of pq? If you really want sdi there are hd/sdi to hdmi boxes out there. But clearly the demand is not there. I'd be curious to know what % of vp50pro users use the sdi connection. Or hd-sdi for that matter, which must be an even smaller number.
And you sound like a talking Lumagen brochure.
You mean the part where I don't recommend the XD? Whatever you say, dude.