or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Increasing sharpness and contrast on your projector
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Increasing sharpness and contrast on your projector - Page 5

post #121 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

I see some of you simply refuse to understand Chronoptimist's points because of lack of knowledge and experience needed to grasp it.

nice rolleyes.gif
Edited by Gary Gleave - 8/29/12 at 8:53am
post #122 of 194
From the expert at ChromaPure:

"Understanding Contrast
Unfortunately, manufacturer specifications for contrast are nearly useless. They will routinely cite figures under conditions that no one would ever watch (inaccurate color and contrast turned up to 100%, for example). The Imaging Science Foundation (ISF) is working on a specification for contrast that consumers can rely on. High-end audio provides a good exemplar for how this might work. Many years ago stereo manufacturers agreed to cite the power output of amplifiers according to a realistic and pre-defined standard (number of watts within a specified frequency range at a set amount of distortion). Until this RMS standard was widely adopted, power specifications were almost meaningless. Because the video world has yet to catch up with the audio world in this regard, consumers cannot rely on manufacturers to accurately report contrast figures. Until the video world adopts something similar to audio's RMS specifications, you should take officially published contrast numbers with a enormous grain of salt.

Two types of contrast

Contrast is measured in 2 ways: On/Off and ANSI. Each measurement is important, but they measure different aspects of the display's performance.

On/Off contrast, as the name implies, expresses a ratio between the darkest dark and the whitest white that the display can produce. Because it is measured by first a full black signal and then a full white signal, it is sometimes referred to as sequential contrast. ANSI contrast also expresses a ratio between the darkest dark and the whitest white, but it is measured using a checkerboard pattern that shows black and white at the same time. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to a simultaneous contrast.

Because the on/off number is always higher, for marketing reasons manufacturers generally cite this figure. Figures for ANSI contrast are rarely published at all. There are two reasons for this. First, simply as a marketing device the ANSI contrast of a display is less valuable insofar as the number is always so much smaller. Second, unlike on/off contrast, the measured ANSI contrast is a function of both the display AND the room in which it is measured. This is because the checkerboard pattern used to measure it will throw a considerable amount of light into the room. Rooms with highly reflective surfaces will return a significant portion of that light back onto the screen, which washes out the dark squares and thus lowers the measured contrast.

Two types of on/off contrast

We must also consider two types of on/off contrast: native and dynamic. Native contrast refers to the inherent ability of the display to produce sequential differences between light and dark. Dynamic contrast refers to the display's ability to produce sequential differences between light and dark aided by a mechanical iris and some type of electronic signal processing. Generally, dynamic contrast is achieved by sophisticated software that senses the brightness of the program material, sometimes on a frame-by-frame basis, and then adjusts a mechanical iris that lies in the light path, closing it during dim scenes and opening it on brighter scenes. At the same time an iris closes, the better dynamic systems also electronically boost the signal strength so the image does not appear to change in its inherent light output compared to what it would have looked like in absence of the iris. This all works to significantly raise the contrast ratio, because during dark scenes the iris lowers the black level, whereas in bright scenes the iris opens to allow the full light output of the bulb. Fixed irises can also have a positive impact on contrast by virtue of the fact that they lower the black level more than they lower peak output, but their measured effect is not as dramatic as dynamic systems. The downside of a dynamic system is the complexity required to

detect the average brightness of a scene
adjust the iris to match the signal level
electronically boost the signal strength as the iris closes

All three of these processes must occur nearly instantaneously and with great precision, otherwise artifacts will appear. The two most common artifacts are "image pumping" and "brightness compression." Image pumping occurs when the iris reacts to changes in the brightness of the program material too slowly and the viewer can visibly detect the image getting brighter or darker as the iris lags behind the program material. Brightness compression occurs when the electronic boost of the image reduces detail in brighter objects.

All else being equal, native contrast is always preferable to an equivalent amount of dynamic contrast. The reason for this is that on/off contrast not only provides lower black levels for dark scenes, it will also greatly improve the perception of depth in almost all scenes. Dynamic contrast can match the effects of native contrast in lowering black levels, but it will never have the other benefits of high contrast that are visible in better illuminated scenes as well.

How do we get high contrast?

The ability of a display to produce a high contrast ratio depends on three factors: the type of display technology, the manner in which that technology is implemented, and the room in which the display is viewed.

DLPs provide the excellent ANSI contrast figures in the 400-800:1 range (front projectors are better than rear projectors). Oddly, CRTs, which perform so well with on/off contrast, offer poor ANSI contrast figures of 75-150:1. LCoS displays offer numbers somewhere in between DLP and CRT. The champs for ANSI contrast are plasma and LCD flat panels, which offer ANSI contrast figures that are much closer to the measured on/off contrast than what you find with the other display technologies.

Until very recently CRTs performed the best with on/off contrast. CRTs are capable of producing very deep blacks, and since it is much easier to cut the black level in half than double the light output, very deep blacks will always mean high on/off contrast ratios. In recent years, however, digital technology has finally caught up with the CRT. JVC in particular has developed a line of LCoS-based projectors that provide native on/off contrast that challenges CRT performance. Several LCD and DLP projectors have implemented dynamic irises that are very effective in improving on/off contrast. Finally, plasma flat panels have achieved native on/off contrast that approaches the JVC projectors, while at the same time offering stratospheric ANSI contrast as well.

LCD flat panels have recently begun to provide world-class contrast as well. This is difficult for LCD because this display technology relies upon backlighting, a light source behind the panel. This makes it difficult for LCDs to provide low black levels. However, a recent advance in LCD technology called "local dimming" provides this backlighting from thousands of individual LED light sources. This dramatically improves both ANSI and on/off contrast because the light sources can be locally dimmed. This allows the display to maintain high output in the bright areas of the image while the dark areas stay quite dark. The weakness of this approach is that it is cost prohibitive to provide an LED for every pixel on the screen. Thus, a signal LED must illuminate an area of many pixels. When this area contains an abrupt change in light and dark, the light from the LED can spill over into the dark part causing a haloing effect. This is most evident on light/dark boundaries.

The best contrast performance will be achieved in a room that has as few reflective surfaces as possible. This is specially important for front projectors, which can flood a room with an enormous amount of light and which require a dim environment in order to avoid washing out the image on the screen. The single most important step an owner of a front projector can take to improve the perceived contrast on the screen is to install black, non-reflective material on the ceiling directly in front of the screen. Because flat panels are so much brighter, they can be viewed in well-lit rooms. Thus, the reflectivity in the room is much less important. However, even with flat panels it is a good idea to lessen as much as possible the amount of direct sunlight or artificial light that hits the screen.

Why is contrast important?

On/off contrast is an important specification because it measures the ability of the display to accurately reproduce very dark scenes. A display with poor on/off contrast will portray naturally dark scenes as though one is looking through a milky haze. Try watching Dark City, Sin City, or Alien on a display with poor on/off contrast. You won't like it.

The important point to remember about ANSI contrast is that this figure is profoundly affected by the room. If the room has a lot of reflective surfaces, then the light from the bright part of the image will bounce off the walls and ceiling and reflect back onto the screen, washing out the dark areas. This issue is worse for front projectors than with direct views and rear projectors, but it is still a factor even with these displays. In my experience, ANSI contrast is generally a less important specification than on/off contrast. If CRTs have shown us anything it is this. However, when ANSI contrast gets very high, as it does with some plasmas, and LCD flat panels, the effect can be startling.

It is important that your display produces high contrast, both on/off and ANSI, for three reasons.

Realism: A high contrast display will impart to an image, especially dark images, an enormous amount of realism.
Depth: Contrast (on/off and ANSI) is an important predictor of a display's ability to provide an almost 3-D effect.
Good color: Colors seems much more subjectively pleasing when viewed on a display with high contrast.

The Contrast Trap

Don't get caught in the contrast trap. This is when consumers chase a high on/off contrast ratio to the exclusion of all else. As important as contrast is, it is only one measurement of image quality. You should evaluate the image a display provides based on a broad variety of criteria, including (in addition to contrast):

Sharpness
Resolution
Color accuracy
Freedom from artifacts
Perceived Depth

Engineering good contrast is generally not cheap, so high contrast displays will usually offer great images in any case."
http://www.chromapure.com/colorscience-contrast.asp

I agree 110% with everything Tom states. LCoS projector excel at on/off contrast but because of uncorrected light scatter, suck at ANSI contrast (no pop to picture). Do they need Darbee's ANSI contrast help? According to this forum the answer is YES smile.gif

Here is Sharp's new 2K 90" panel with true (no pumping) 6720:1 measured on/off contrast. Because of the technology, it goes without stating the ANSI contrast is very high.
http://www.hometheater.com/content/sharp-lc-90le745u-3d-lcd-hdtv-ht-labs-measures

Who is going to argue that Nikon and Canon don't do superb image processing? Their real-time .jpg processing is superb. Do they need a Darbee?
It is immensely rewarding to mount a 70-90" display with excellent ANSI and on/off contrast in your family room as you go about your daily business.
The heck with 4K video sources (for now), I want the true fine detail of my existing 4K photographs in a wall mounted "picture window" which document our families life.

Please don't conclude that i endorse this 90" $10K Sharp.
At this price 4K rez with PASSIVE 3D offers the best solution:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1407829/official-sharp-lc-90le745u-discussion-thread-no-price-talk-d/240_60#post_22345827
Edited by HiFiFun - 8/29/12 at 9:46am
post #123 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

 ... I see some of you simply refuse to understand Chronoptimist's points because of lack of knowledge and experience needed to grasp it.
 

Or maybe many of us understand his points very well and just don't agree with them (based on our experience with the Darblet).

post #124 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

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.


I was just mentioning that Gradius2 had an open mind to try it for himself, and from his first few comments with the unit....... following his opening remarks from that same "armchair" position looking at screen shots only.....seems to be excited about it now with the following quote, though he said he would have further comments to follow: "As for Darbee, the bigger the screen, the better the results.



Chronoptimist is not the first person to slam the Darbee technology sight unseen, based on a philosophical point of view concerning directors' intentions and all that, and being "certain" DVP is no more than another sharpening tool that simply uses localized contrast adjustment like other "pro" tools that have been available. Never does address though the new left and right offset images created in real time to allow that mix of information to be adjusted with Darbee's proprietary algorithms for creating "roundness and depth" perception in 2D.

But OK....here's a couple comments below from actual "pros" in the content creators' world that purists do so much hand wringing about, in response to Gradius2's first comment in the $20,000+ forum after finding the basically negative, or use at your own folly review on the UK AV Forum. Please note that the 2nd is actually a director/dp.



Glimmie

offline
6,498 Posts. Joined 9/2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius2

Finally a good review:
http://www.avforums.com/reviews/DarbeeVision-Visual-Presence-DVP-5000-Darbee-Darblet-Video-Enhancement-Device-Review_352/Review.html
The color issue wasn't fixed yet?
Cons......
Expensive for a one trick pony

LOL! Some people gladly spend $250 or more on a 6 foot HDMI cable promising image enhancement that does absolutely nothing yet we scoff at the price of the Darbee that does make a visual improvement in some material anyone can see?

OK so it produces artifacts in a zone plate. What image processor doesn't? If you have a pristine Bluray, then turn the Darbee off. Just good Bluray, then use it at 20-30%. Satellite or cable TV, run it at 40 or 50%.

For $250 this thing is a great bargain. And I have worked with broadcast / mastering grade image processing gear over the years costing in excess of $100K.





rblnr

offline
795 Posts. Joined 3/2001
Location: New York, NY
Quote:
LOL! Some people gladly spend $250 or more on a 6 foot HDMI cable promising image enhancement that does absolutely nothing yet we scoff at the price of the Darbee that does make a visual improvement in some material anyone can see?

OK so it produces artifacts in a zone plate. What image processor doesn't? If you have a pristine Bluray, then turn the Darbee off. Just good Bluray, then use it at 20-30%. Satellite or cable TV, run it at 40 or 50%.

For $250 this thing is a great bargain. And I have worked with broadcast / mastering grade image processing gear over the years costing in excess of $100K.
Edited by Glimmie -

Could not agree more on all counts, and I've done at least a few hundred digital grading sessions as a director/dp.

With my JVC RS2, it addresses my main gripe with it -- a mild lack of apparent sharpness/resolution -- with minimal visible artifacts. $250 gets me an extra year or two out of the PJ (was considering the 55), and improves directv dramatically.
post #125 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Or maybe many of us understand his points very well and just don't agree with them (based on our experience with the Darblet).
I've thought about this situation for quite some time.
The issue is this reminds too much of consumers spending huge amounts on cables.
It took a decades for digital audio and video technology to advance to where the snake-oil of cables were exposed for what they were.
Because it was such a cash-cow, the high end establishment magazines supported it: Stereo****e T*S etc.
This actually inhibited progress.

From experience, everything can be explained by engineering principles. Correcting (usually unstated) errors always results in higher fidelity.
Our AVS optical engineer, states that JVC can correct the light scatter caused by the wire grid polarizers, which is why the poor ANSI contrast.

The error has been identified and there is no reason why it should not be corrected. Certainly at the $12K range.
Instead we endorse band-aids and incidentally fake 4K.

No true progress, once again.
I apologize for being too discriminating.
post #126 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

No true progress, once again.
I apologize for being too discriminating.

If the darbee was being sold as an alternative to 4k projectors or being used by the projector companies as faux 4k, then I would see your point about impeding progress of the projector evolution of 4k for the HT market. IMO, your argument is apples and oranges. The interest in Darbee does not take away the interest or desire for 4k projectors to be developed for the mid-priced market place (or eventual entry level).

Our desire in this thread is to focus on the darbee as a product...love, hate or meh...but it's tough to poo poo something you've never tried or seen.
post #127 of 194
Who thinks Darbee won't process 4K when needed?
post #128 of 194
Tim better explains the tech aspects than I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VideoGrabber View Post

Hi, Livin. It seems you have a healthy dose of skepticism about the Darblet. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure there are others who share it (myself included). However, I would hope it would be possible to want to see some real-world results and have your questions answered, without becoming confrontational or abrasive.
I have to disagree with you there. I have read the 420 posts, and my sense was completely different than yours. What I saw were fairly detailed comments relating to the specific ways in which it looked better (or worse), dependent on the source material, and the output displays. As well as ranges of settings that impacted those results.
Does your $20 card have the ability to perform USM-type processing, on 8 MBs of image data, in real-time? If so, then you may be correct. smile.gif It's not impossible to perform DarbeeVision-type processing on video data, using PCs. They've been doing so for years with non-realtime rendering farms on some films. The question is what you can do in <17 mS.
True. But I suspect the point that RonF was trying to make was that the DVP was not just another "sharpener", similar to those that came before it, but had some unique capabilities that set it apart, and warranted Patent protection.
I have to agree with you that the WP had a distinctive advertising flavor to it. But I have to cut Paul a bit of slack, because it's not all that easy to try and describe the results of an imaging process in a way that folks can comprehend. He did wax lyrical a bit though. smile.gif
Did you read the Patent filing? There's a significant amount of tech detail there.
Well, as far as the "much more", it's well known that it can do all that. It's even possible that using the GPUs on some video cards, the folks at DarbeeVision could come up with a DirectShow filter that incorporated their processing. I just don't know if it could be done in real-time. [see Addendum below.]
Re: HTPCs,
You're missing the point that not only do not all folks have HTPCs, most don't. They have a collection of independent, outboard components, with interconnects. The DVP-5000 module fits in well in those configurations, while an HTPC would not. People can easily add a DVP-5000 to their system. The same statement cannot be made about HTPCs.
Again, check the Patent filing.
It might be worth looking again. The file does exist, because I just downloaded it. It's really more of a pre-review, from the New Equipment section of the February WSR (a CES report). However, Gary Reber has been provided with a test unit (about 4 weeks ago), and I expect we'll see a full review in WSR in the coming months.
Perhaps that's because Larry is the COO, not the CTO. He's taking his time to communicate with members of the AVS Forum, gather their suggestions and complaints, and provide as much information and answers as he can. I'd say he's doing a good job of it.
?? If what you're referring to are peaking circuits, that boost HF content, then you are incorrect.
With all due respect, that kind of advice is not very valuable. Beyond the many issues inherent in HTPCs that could result in a lot of grief for those unfamiliar with them, "tweaking to their hearts desire" is not really a very effective way to spend one's time. You indicated above that you "have a life", and no time for reading hundreds of comments. Fair enough. But that's completely at odds with your recommendation to spend a lot of time tweaking an HTPC. Many (most?) folks would rather just plug something in, and dial in the best setting.
Paul has spent literally years testing various algorithms and methodologies, in numerous combinations, to come up with a solution that a) provides enhancement capabilities while minimizing negative artifacts (a big win, unique to the Darbee process), and b) uses lightweight carefully-tuned algorithms that are implementable economically in existing real-time silicon. Even if someone stumbled across some tweaks with their HTPC and ffdshow to provide somewhat similar results, the number of hours required would greatly outweigh the costs of the stand-alone processor from DarbeeVision. And my guess is that while similar sharpening results may be obtainable, they would not be without increased artifacting (that the DVn avoids) that would negate the value of the increased detail.
That's cool, but why put yourself in that position in the first place? It's easy enough to ask questions and seek clarification, without making bold proclamations without evidence, and having to eat crow later. wink.gif

Or, you could just order a unit, try it, and then return it for a refund if your suspicions proved to be correct. And then provide some solid information based on real testing, vs. uninformed speculation. Just a thought.
~~ Addendum ~~
I checked the DarbeeVision site, and found that the Darbee transform algorithms WILL run on some NVidia GPUs:
Note however, that it can't maintain real-time with 1080p/60, without frame-dropping. While the DVP-5000 can, because it has a dedicated FPGA.
post #129 of 194
What setting are most using? HD, POP, or video game? Just curious

I've been using HD at 50% with my RS45 at 0 for nr and sharpness and love the results.

thanks
post #130 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbn008 View Post

What setting are most using? HD, POP, or video game? Just curious
I've been using HD at 50% with my RS45 at 0 for nr and sharpness and love the results.
thanks

I've been using HD and normally around 55% but sometimes varying it as the content dictates from 45%-65% with my RS40. I think my RS40 is set at 0 for nr and like 5-10 on sharpness. I think i had sharpness on RS40 at 10 before darblet but then lowered it after getting darblet. Sometimes I find myself taking the darblet for granted but then I turn darblet off then back on and it makes my appreciation for it increase.

Mike
post #131 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbn008 View Post

What setting are most using? HD, POP, or video game? Just curious
I've been using HD at 50% with my RS45 at 0 for nr and sharpness and love the results.
thanks

I seem to be one of the few that like the middle of the road, "gaming" mode, set at 47, with my Epson 6010 SR set at 1.
post #132 of 194
How about Sony 1000 owners? What are you all finding as the best settings?

Mine is on its way! I am one of the few that isnt going to bash it for adding unintended content to the image until I try it. More anxious to see if it helps the image on my 70" Sharp than on the projector but will try it on the pj first just to see if I need two lol.
post #133 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiovideoholic View Post

How about Sony 1000 owners? What are you all finding as the best settings?
Mine is on its way! I am one of the few that isnt going to bash it for adding unintended content to the image until I try it. More anxious to see if it helps the image on my 70" Sharp than on the projector but will try it on the pj first just to see if I need two lol.


I set the Darb to 50% +/-10, HD.

post #134 of 194
Received my darbee today, make a fast setup on my TV (Pioneer Kuro), test some SD and HD channel from my satellite TV.
First impression
not so impress. It did almost nothing to the SD feed, from the demo, I can see it a little sharper bu I fl it's too edgy to my liking even at only 55%

On HD channel, it's better, the picture are more focus and contrast are a little better, however, I don't appreciate th effect on fast moving scene like F1.

Will test it on m Sony HW30 this weekend and check if the larger picture shows better result.
post #135 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpyw View Post

Received my darbee today, make a fast setup on my TV (Pioneer Kuro), test some SD and HD channel from my satellite TV.

First impression
not so impress. It did almost nothing to the SD feed, from the demo, I can see it a little sharper bu I fl it's too edgy to my liking even at only 55%

On HD channel, it's better, the picture are more focus and contrast are a little better, however, I don't appreciate th effect on fast moving scene like F1.

Will test it on m Sony HW30 this weekend and check if the larger picture shows better result.

The darbee is not a scaler like the more expensive lumagen.. it's not going to make a miracle with SD content or heavily compressed satellite TV. Try it on the HW30 with a good quality BD and it will be easier to judge if you like it or not. HD mode ~35-40% is a good starting point.
post #136 of 194
MPYW:

You will want to try various combinations before making a final decision about the Darblet. I was initially QUITE unimpressed but eventually found the most effective combination in my setup (which involved tweaking my HTPC image BEFORE using the Darblet in the chain). Once I optimized (to my eyes) the interaction of HTPC and Darblet, I became a fan (and, in fact, modified my posts on the AVS Darblet thread.)

TO OTHERS:

While I understand that people love to get on forums just to scrap about their particular HT catechism, I've finally concluded that the "director's intentions" assertions are the domain of those who can't come up with a credible argument. First, anyone who uncritically subscribes to the "auteur" theory of film aesthetics doesn't fully understand the film making process. In fact, a film has many authors including the writer(s), production designer(s), director of photography, editor, director, producer(s), studio executives, and even the technicians in the processing lab. In fact, because films are commonly reedited (and even partially reshot) after preview screenings, a bunch of anonymous viewers in the dark could also be considered auteurs.

Further, when you get to the realm of home theater, you're also usually encountering a profoundly non-trivial conversion from one media (film) to another (video at a complete different resolution). And that conversion process has its own chain of auteurs, each of whom influences the outcome in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

Finally, because motion pictures and home video are a commercial enterprise, the almighty buck also is an auteur when the creatives are forced to accept something as "good enough" because a redo would go beyond the budget.

All of this reality gives the lie to the "purity" of the auteur theory. A director IS extremely influential in the look and technique of a film, and the most prestigious directors can command the power and budgets to impose much of their creative intentions. However, simply by the nature of the commercial film workflow, a motion picture cannot represent the unified aesthetic vision of a single person.

Now back to the Darblet...

If you like the impact of the Darblet on your home theater, go for it and enjoy it. (I like it very much on most HD content, and almost not at all on SD content.) If you don't like the Darblet, don't use it. And if you want a pulpit from which to sermonize and evangelize for your home video religion, please create another thread and let those in the Darbee threads talk about Darbee rather than dwell on vague and largely unsupportable artistic platitudes.

And, finally, please accept my apologies for rambling on in the Darbee thread and doing exactly what I criticized in the preceding paragraph. smile.gif

Now let's talk Darbee.
Edited by boblinds - 9/3/12 at 11:43am
post #137 of 194
^^ Very well said.
post #138 of 194
smile.gif Actually we need to discuss the Darblet by Darbeevision.
post #139 of 194
Thanks for clarifying those brand names, Mark. I don't wanna be getting a letter from Paul Darbee's lawyer. wink.gif

biggrin.gif
post #140 of 194
Nothing like that.wink.gif
post #141 of 194
Got the Darblet today and hooked it up to the 70" LCD. Dont really see any of the effects like on their website when use the demo mode on a still image from Direct TV, I'm gonna say the image might be part of the problem. Will test BD later as that should produce a much better image to judge. I am noticing that whites pop more and blacks are darker with it set to HD 55%. Seems like the other options arent quite as sharp/detailed as the HD setting.

Will test with BD and on the projector then post my thoughts again once I get used to it and then remove from the chain.

Oh, thought I would add that right now I'm using a 3' hdmi cable between AVR and TV.
post #142 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

Who thinks Darbee won't process 4K when needed?

I'm curious if anyone with 4k would put the Darblet in the chain.

Like 4k plus.

My guess is not likely.
post #143 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post

I'm curious if anyone with 4k would put the Darblet in the chain.
Like 4k plus.
My guess is not likely.

I believe the Darbee representative has already confirmed in the Video Processors forum that the current version of the Darblet will not pass or process 4k. A future version of the product will be needed for that.
post #144 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post


I'm curious if anyone with 4k would put the Darblet in the chain.
Like 4k plus.
My guess is not likely.


I think several of us Sony1000ES owners use a Darblet.    For me, a Lumagen RadianceMini outputs 1080p to the Darblet, thus 1080p on to the projector, which upconverts and displays it as 4K.    (No 4K sources yet to deal with.)

post #145 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post

I'm curious if anyone with 4k would put the Darblet in the chain.
Like 4k plus.
My guess is not likely.

The Darblet wouldn't be able to process 4K anyways. You need a very specific HDMI port for it to work. Most HDMI 1.4 ports in devices these days aren't the appropriate HDMI port to accept/transfer 4K. There are only a few devices out right now that have the appropriate HDMI ports to do so. Some receivers (newer Onkyo's), desktop graphics cards (only the AMD 7970/50), and a few other devices have them.
Edited by Seegs108 - 9/6/12 at 2:11pm
post #146 of 194
Tested the Darblet on the projector setup

Source (Sony BDP, PS3, Himedia 910B, Dune DUO) --> Onkyo TX-NR808 --> Darblet --> Sony HW30ES

The result are much better than placing the Darblet on the Kuro with satellite TV.

The focus is much better and the picture look like DLP (I have a Sharp DLP previously) with increase sharpness, the color look more vivid too.

Was set at POP @ 50% in the beginning as I really like the wonderful vivid color, however, it did crash some blacks. So I stick with HD@50% now

Overall I would say that it does improve the picture quality to my personal preferences by maybe 5-8%
post #147 of 194
I got the Darblet and am going to put it on an HW30 as yourself. What do you mean by 'crash some blacks'? I read elsewhere that it actually improved the black levels on the Sony to be close to that of JVC. So I take it you are happy with the device?

Thanks.
post #148 of 194
It will crash some black detail if I use the Full POP at 50% compared to HD at 50%.
I am happy with the little thing but if the price is around $100-150, would be just nice for the improvement it contribute
post #149 of 194
AVS are these in stock yet?
post #150 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutlow View Post

AVS are these in stock yet?

Nope. They are getting some in early next week.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Increasing sharpness and contrast on your projector