Originally Posted by Sejour
No, but I admire your taste in cable & power distribution manufacturers - I am a fan
Beagle's screenshot was not affected by ambient light reflections, and more clearly showed a difference as I noted earlier. The blacks look slightly crushed and the whites blown out in the "popped" version. But the original looks washed out which suggests a calibration issue. It also supported his descriptions of the change, which I felt could not be due to noise reduction alone.
I didn't realise the Flea had a dynamic range enhancer, but would agree with the comment that it is best left off.
I think the challenge here is that the MNR and BNR abilities of the Flea can be hinted at in screenshots, but are likely most notable on moving pictures.
LOL! The Shunyata devices look better in aluminium but the performance is outsatnding regardless of what clothes they are wearing!
Whilst the image is affected by ambient light, this is the scene where most people typically comment on an increase in contrast. They are incorrect in their usage of the term but I understand what they mean.
The scene is taken from Annie Hall which must be one of the worst transfers ever for dyanmic noise. This manifests as light coloured pops and flecks over the entire image. When photographed these specks have a tendency to make the image look washed out (the camera is catching all those white specks rather than the underlying image). This is what you see on the left side of the split screen. The right side which has been processed has almost none of the white flecks in the solid brown background which results in quite a different look when photographed. The set in use is a Pioneer commercial panel and although not greyscaled was accuarately calibrated for all user controls. I can't comment on Beage 5s calibration but the removal of the noise making the picture less washed out can be dramatic, especially if the display is already running a slightly elevated black level.
The dynamic range enhancer function works well at exposing shdow detail on poorly calibrated displays (and seems to work well on many LCD panels) but on a calibrated display is of course not particularly required.
There is no doubt that it is better to see the devices in person rather than relying on photographs to determine the performance of any video device. Although the review from Lyris I think did a good job of illustrating these features.