Originally Posted by RonF
Hello Gordon....clearly you are thought of very highly at AVS as many people have said on multiple occasions I have seen.
To me the real difference on AVS seems to be not that people get more chippy (within reason) ........but rather
that in an actual "owners thread" on AVS ....."elitist opinions" and "philosophy" of a negative sort toward the product from persons who have not even tried the unit
....are tolerated maybe 2 or 3 times and then it's OK enough we get your point of view. But you're not speaking on our level of actual experience. So move along. On the UK and a couple of other forums where there are many more than US members with that kind of "philosophical"... "almost puritanical" view of the all sacrosanct
final transfers from high rez, low compression sources to higher compression, lower rez 1080 24P bluray. "Most" of these people are "above it" to actually give the technology a fair shot.
Yet they are there and allowed to be there in an owners thread..over and over and over again saying the same thing. Sometimes (likely often since the talking points are always the same).... not even up to speed
on the technology they continue to remind everyone interested that if you are "really serious" about being a "videophile" you probably will find this just another process to keep switched off. WHY is that permitted and OK intellectually??
Again it's the saving the users from themselves mentality, giving little credit to what users actually experience and report possibly to the exact contrary. Then it's just blown off with the "it's a preference thing however with your
opinion" as opposed to ours. Sight unseen....we've spoken....no need or desire to see it. And by logical extension then I guess they just dismiss the findings from weeks-on-end testing from the likes of Gary Reber, Josh Zyber, Kris Deering. Sight unseen.
Case in point exactly below today, no names named but the very same "blinders"-on posts as some of the others....time after time. Without knowing really what he is talking about, because frankly he doesn't give a bleep to really look at the technology. He has seen it all and knows it all. Nothing truly new ever comes along.
There's not a lot to report on - we know the purpose of it is to alter video images in a way which makes them more subjectively pleasing (depending on the individual), but which abstracts the source. I've got no interest in doing this. If filmmakers wanted to include effects like these (and they often do, to isolate subjects in a frame and guide the viewer's attention to a certain area)
, then they would do so during the colour grading stage.
When people say that it "does not alter calibration", what they mean is that they can pass test patterns through it and it doesn't knock the charts out of place. That's to miss the forest for the trees: image accuracy is about more than making sure charts line up. It's not surprising anyway, because the processing works by detecting edges (probably via frequency analysis, I'm not sure
) to decide what does and doesn't get adjusted. There's no texture or other high frequency data in a flat gray test box, so it's not surprising that this passes through as-is."
Yet again he refuses to acknowledge the DVP process starting from creating two new offset pictures at the OUTSET and doing its computations from that totally new mix of information. It's been asked here and in the UK...."OK what is
that pro product called, at any price level" that starts with 2 new offset images" and is capable in real time of allowing levels to be increased or decreased in various modes? Name it. Maybe it exists? Name it. By the sound of always the crickets chirping I can only guess that no
...it doesn't exist. Yet
And the "I'm not sure
" comment..... when the information below has been out there on Darbee's site since the beginning
. And spoken of many times on both sides of the pond. In their idea of "Science" they just continue to bash without first hand experience with quality
sources, .....in "owners" threads.
"DarbeeVision technology is a fundamental breakthrough for image realism. By putting into an image more of what the brain is expecting to take out, Darbee Visual Presence enhanced images help the viewer see them better. More a discovery than an invention, the Darbee approach solves two very tough challenges for monoscopic digital images:
• Problem – What is the right way to enhance monoscopic detail and depth cues?
• Answer – Use parallax disparity as the basis for luminance modulation.
• Problem – How do you avoid artifacts?
• Answer – Selectively apply modulation based upon a fast and accurate saliency mask."
"Despite the ubiquity of the unsharp mask in modern image processing software, defocusing one image of a stereo pair and subtracting it from the other image is quite unlike an unsharp mask. In those parts of the two images that are different due to the parallax disparity that arises from the displaced vantage points of the left and right cameras, the alterations to the final image are interpreted by the brain as genuine depth cues. Where the viewpoints are converged and the disparity is low, the process does revert to an unsharp mask and emphasizes image details, but in natural scenes containing 3D objects, there is always some disparity, so defocusing-and-subtracting embeds depth cues."