|Originally posted by mark haflich
To some people, PQ does make a difference. However, one must define PQ. If overly processed sharp and high temperature pictures (brighter) mean PQ than I guess the masses want that. If a dim picture that contains the HF detail means PQ then I would still maintain to the masses (not the video nerds here (you and me)) PQ means little. Look how well early plasmas sold and those LCD flat panel with all that contouring or whatever. Picture quality of plasmas is getting better and better and the manufacturers are traveling all over the country to teach their dealers how to sell a better quality picture. Noah you live in an ivory castle. Make it brighter and sharper and the masses will buy it. Maybe 15% of the market knows what good PQ is and would choose it. But even if the rest, the masses, saw it and knew it was indeed better, they still would buy the brighter and sharper because that's what they want. The job of the market is to fill a need and if there isn't a need or desire, to create it first. That is why ISF runs all those ads. They are trying to create a need for the services of ISFers.
I don't know if you recall, back in the days when the Teranex threads were lively here at the AVS forum, I had tended to make such purist statements myself. Actually, without going so far as lending to "Teranex bashing" my position was that if you totally process, and entirely recalculate, a given image, what you output is NOT the original image, but an ersatz of that image, a synthetic fabrication which, much like a cartoon or special effects, simulates reality but does not remain faithful to it.
In the audio realm, much has been understood about this: many folks prefer a given type of sound that pleases them, and don't care much about whether it is faithful to the original source which was recorded - to the dismay of those who think that Hi-Fi means High Fidelity to the original event.
In the video realm, much is the same as you pointed out eloquently above. However, the Hi-Vi community seems less developed with many folks prefering eye-boggling blasts of oversaturated color sometimes accompanied by butt-kicker vibrations. :eek:
The CASE I am however willing to make for the advent of a low priced widely distributed Realta chip is the following:
When sources are so poor that viewing enjoyment is reduced, then it would be nicer to have a watchable "false" picture processed by its Teranex algorithms than to switch program material.
Sure, it won't be as REAL as a non processed source without cybernetic intervention. Definitely, sizeable chunks of its picture will not be truthful to the original, carrying even the risk of betraying the original source in ways which go against its artistic intent (imagine Hitchcock's dark scenes artificially brightened for clearer viewing of the scary silhouettes = loss of suspense).
This is why, just like for automatic suspension control for sportscars, it is PARAMOUNT that we be able to switch it OFF whenever we want! Otherwise, it wouldn't be a Porsche if it's tail won't spin out in a hairpin, and it wouldn't be true CINEMA if you toy around aimlessly with the Director's artistic intent.
Another reason why it might be necessary to require that it be able to be disactivated, is that using a specific subcarrier code detection system, these chips could be pre-programmed to change or interfere with given images that "whoever" may not want us to see - their technlogical roots are, after all, military - let that signify whatever you choose to interpret it as meaning.
But for cases, like in my thread above, where you are inputting poor quality files off of the internet, or trying to view ageing demagnetized video tapes, then it might just turn the trick, making a case for occasional purpose built FAKE REALITY.