# Darbee Visual Presence: Darblet



## fishinbob

I just ordered one of these. 
http://darbeevision.com/
They have generated quite a bit of interest on some other forums and I'm surprised to see nothing about it here.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
It looks interesting. As AVS is selling it at their Storefront, I am sure there is going to be a great deal of discussion about it over there. Please report back with your impressions as I am sure many will be interested here to read your findings.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## Alan Brown

fishinbob said:


> I just ordered one of these.
> http://darbeevision.com/
> They have generated quite a bit of interest on some other forums and I'm surprised to see nothing about it here.


Utter nonsense! The first example is in the opening paragraph of the product's '_User Guide_:' _"DVP is based on the discovery that fidelity is not the end-point in image science."_

If you want more image authenticity and want to preserve artistic integrity, calibrate your video display system according to the same industry standards and best practices observed by the program authors and mastering technicians. Do they use and recommend this device? If not, why bother? If your objective is more "_pop_," or an altered program that appeals to your personal sense of "_realism_," then, by all means, try this product. You can consider this device as providing an enhancement to the original image or inducing its own sophisticated style of distortion. The truth is, using it alters the original image. You may find it pleasing. The fundamental goal in any mass communication medium is the delivery of the original message unaltered.

It's not really "...._all about the art_," as Joe Kane would say.  It's all about the "pop." This baloney never ends. If a particular kind of signal distortion appeals to focus groups, money can be made off of it. I don't object to anyone making money, or some individual's preference for distortion. Agreement is not required, clarity of communication is. What I object to is such fallacious statements as, _"...fidelity is not the end-point in image science."_ In the context of video program reproduction, it most certainly is. Unfortunately, some engineers seem to have difficulty comprehending the artistic side of program delivery.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## lcaillo

fishinbob said:


> I just ordered one of these.
> http://darbeevision.com/
> They have generated quite a bit of interest on some other forums and I'm surprised to see nothing about it here.


I doubt that there will be much interest on this forum. I think Alan pretty much summed it up.

Embedding depth information? Seriously?


----------



## lcaillo

fishinbob said:


> I just ordered one of these.
> http://darbeevision.com/
> They have generated quite a bit of interest on some other forums and I'm surprised to see nothing about it here.


I doubt that there will be much interest on this forum. I think Alan pretty much summed it up.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
While I too am spurious, I figured as Bob had already ordered one, let him give his impressions. I actually deleted a sentence about just how much profit margin there must be in those little boxes and how that can sometimes create self serving Threads/Posts by those with a financial interest. However, sometimes I somewhat pull my punches especially when a Member has already purchased something.
J


----------



## lcaillo

I would be happy to do a thorough evaluation of the product if they want to send us a sample and discuss in detail the nature of the technology and the science and assumptions behind its operation. The very premise and language of the web site and it promotion indicates to me that there is much room for skepticism, at best.


----------



## Tonto

I think what this boils down to is like I have always said...1080p just can't reproduce enough colors to satisfy the human eye. I wonder if this product is upscaleing like current AVR's do. If it is, it might be onto something with people with older equipment that don't offer this feature. An inline upscaler might not be a bad investment if it converts to 1440p or 4K. I don't think this is what this product is doing...they would extoll its virtures as such. The way the are advertising, it sounds like snake oil. But hey, lets see how it stacks up.


----------



## lcaillo

1080p has nothing to do with the number of colors that can be reproduced. Color gamut does. Wide gamut is possible, and even implemented in some systems, but not in video. I would disagree that the eye cannot be satisfied with current display technology. In fact, for most observers, the current systems are quite adequate. Some may prefer the kind of enhancement that this device provides, just like some prefer the rather distorted reproduction that most sets display out of the box in "vivid" modes. Those of us who prefer a display system or audio system that reproduces the image that was produced as faithfully as possible likely are not going to be impressed.

This is not a scaler. It is an image enhancement system that by its claims makes assumptions about what is salient in the image and attempts to enhance those features. I would make the analogy of an aphex unit in audio processing. It may be useful to get certain effects in a mix, but applying it to a playback system produces some unpredictable and annoying results.


----------



## Alan Brown

lcaillo said:


> 1080p has nothing to do with the number of colors that can be reproduced. Color gamut does. Wide gamut is possible, and even implemented in some systems, but not in video. I would disagree that the eye cannot be satisfied with current display technology. In fact, for most observers, the current systems are quite adequate. Some may prefer the kind of enhancement that this device provides, just like some prefer the rather distorted reproduction that most sets display out of the box in "vivid" modes. Those of us who prefer a display system or audio system that reproduces the image that was produced as faithfully as possible likely are not going to be impressed.
> 
> This is not a scaler. It is an image enhancement system that by its claims makes assumptions about what is salient in the image and attempts to enhance those features. I would make the analogy of an aphex unit in audio processing. It may be useful to get certain effects in a mix, but applying it to a playback system produces some unpredictable and annoying results.


I basically agree with all this. It should also be mentioned that numbers of colors relates to bit depth as well. Consumer video is limited to an 8 bit standardized system and will remain so for now. There are a few exceptions to this in computer gaming, some digital photography/camcorders, and graphics. Broadcasting, cable, online streaming, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, and video games are all 8 bit.

Film and digital cinema use higher bit rates for better color. However, digital video and HDTV still offer superior color to legacy video formats and have impressed the vast majority of consumers with the improvement.

Tonto's appraisal of what the Darblet device may be doing is a bit surreal in my opinion. The company offers a white paper on their site for download that describes in more detail what the device does. It offers some unique and patented processing that has produced a pleasing effect for some viewers. Such effects may even help an inferior display system look more impressive. However, once again, they do not value the principle of fidelity (faithfulness to the original signal) over subjective perception. Most consumers have no idea what a reference video image is supposed to look like. Therefore, consumers can be impressed with a non-reference image. Unfortunately, the same can be said for a wide swath of consumer video professional salesmen, system designers, installers, and marketing types. There are far too many consumer video market vendors and practitioners who have not sufficiently studied video program production, movie production, and video industry standards and best practices. This has resulted in much confusion, misinformation, misconceptions and wrong practice in the home theater arena.


----------



## darbeedr

Hello All,

I am pleased that the Darblet has caught your attention in this group. I join this group to simply make it easy for the users to interact with our company. Your lively discussion is already quite interesting. 

Ultimately, the reason that we embrace your comments and feedback is because it will make our product better. You drive our excellence and we respect that fact. So I thank you in advance for that.

Please understand that we are big fans of fidelity. To capture and display fidelity that is true to the original scene is a wonderful goal. Our mantra includes, "make the best fidelity you possibly can." Beyond that we love to discuss all the many and amazing futures of computational imaging. 

Thank you,
DarbeeDr
aka/Larry Pace, COO, President
DarbeeVision Inc.


----------



## Alan Brown

darbeedr said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I am pleased that the Darblet has caught your attention in this group. I join this group to simply make it easy for the users to interact with our company. Your lively discussion is already quite interesting.
> 
> Ultimately, the reason that we embrace your comments and feedback is because it will make our product better. You drive our excellence and we respect that fact. So I thank you in advance for that.
> 
> Please understand that we are big fans of *fidelity*. To capture and display *fidelity* that is true to the *original scene* is a wonderful goal. Our mantra includes, "make the best *fidelity* you possibly can." Beyond that we love to discuss all the many and amazing futures of computational imaging.
> 
> Thank you,
> DarbeeDr
> aka/Larry Pace, COO, President
> DarbeeVision Inc.


Hi, Larry,

It's good to see you are interested in being a part of the discussion. I'm big on clarity and understanding the definition of terms used in a debate. It's also of value to get as close to the source for information about an issue as possible. Your comments here on "fidelity" seem to conflict with statements in your 'User Guide' and the white paper on your site. What is your concept of "fidelity" and "original scene?"

Are any studios using your processing prior to their post production approval monitors/projectors? How about optical disc labs? Can you provide a list of any directors and/or cinematographers, etc., who use and recommend your processing for consumer use in viewing their work? Did you have any endorsements from the Motion Picture Academy, when they sent out review discs to voting members prior to the Oscars, recommending movies be viewed with your processing? How about in the review and voting process prior to the Emmys? Any other awards shows? Have you presented any papers on your theory and/or processing to SMPTE?

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## lcaillo

Larry,

We would love to get a unit to review. We would also like to know more about the science behind the technology. What are the underlying principles and what research and theoretical perspectives support it?

Understand, the forum welcomes discussion of all products, but be prepared to justify your processing with facts and testing. There is a rather low tolerance for hype, and zero tolerance for manufacturers who simply want to promote their product without providing information that increases the knowledge of our users. If simple promotion is the goal, you are welcome to discuss becoming a forum sponsor.


----------



## hjones4841

He has some reputable dealers, but no reviews on their websites. Kinda looks like it is just coming out - nobody has them in stock; one website shows 6/26/12 availability. Price is $269.


----------



## bobav

Hello everyone. I am not a professional just a like av as a hobby to watch movies with a set up I best can afford. 
Onkyo txnr 3009, JVC HD350pj, rotell 685 power amp used to bi amp my B&W683fronts and run B&W600s center. Use B&W685 surrounds powered by onkyo and polk bipolar rears and 4 small deftech bipols for heights and wides. A velodyne fsr1800 sub and an older ads18" sub. Panny tcp 50in plasma and a daylite 110 High contrast cinems screen with home made masking system. Just mentioned this to show where I am at Use New sony 790 bd player have tosh ax2, and ellite 58av mostly for audio. 

I read about the darbee on another form it piqued my interest. I purchased one and received it last friday. Quickly set it up and found it just gave my picture with my pj more depth and pop. With the demo modes it is easy to compare and I found it very pleasing. There are some inherrent issues reported on another form but they can be worked around. I am sure there are som professionals and purists that will object to this as already stated above. I just know in my unprofessional opinion it is a nice little unit not overly expensive and improves my home theater experience. I watched a 1956 scope film yesterday black and white to be exact and it was amazing how the darblet improved the depth and detail of that standard dvd. I am sure you can find more professional assesments on some other forms and it is a bit new for professional reviews yet. But I would not just blatantly write it off. I also want to thank the company for theyre participation on the forms . 
Will be interested to see some of the opinions of some members as they get to try one out.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
I am very glad you are pleased with it. $269 is certainly not cheap and I do not even want to think of what the Dealer Cost is on the DVP. I look forward to a Professional Review of this device and or having someone like Leonard getting a Review Device as I still remain somewhat spurious personally. Then again, the same can be said of expensive AV Cables, and many other topics. In the end, all that matters is that the Owner is happy with it. However, there is the age old issue of those with a financial interest driving the conversation and stirring the pot.
J


----------



## bobav

Yes $269 is not cheap at all. But in comparison to many video and audio enhancements you mention above it is to me less expensive than many in this category. and usually I am quite skeptical to jump on the bandwagon for gimmicks. I found this one quite pleasing if not I would gladly have returned it. Yes I agree the markup probably is quite generous and I too can be very skeptical of company reps, store owners , and some installers posts or real interest in forms. I also have found many very informative and offering some great advise and products. Of course a few professional reviews would be great and I hope some are comming soon. Especially ones not predjuiced for or against this type of product.


----------



## lcaillo

As I have indicated to Larry, we are happy to review it as well as carefully review the technology and science behind it. We have not seen enough to be any more than skeptical at this point, as the premise seems antithetical to image fidelity. Hopefully we can get a sample and test it under a number of image conditions on calibrated and uncalibrated displays.


----------



## darbeedr

lcaillo said:


> As I have indicated to Larry, we are happy to review it as well as carefully review the technology and science behind it. We have not seen enough to be any more than skeptical at this point, as the premise seems antithetical to image fidelity. Hopefully we can get a sample and test it under a number of image conditions on calibrated and uncalibrated displays.


The Darblet has been reviewed and given a solid thumbs up by these individuals you probably know and trust: Gary Reber, Jeff Meier, Josh Zyber and Japanese Video expert Asakura-san, who are among a growing set of famous video gurus who have tested the Darblet. All video purists, puzzled by our approach, and yet all convinced that a our technology represents a new and valid image enhancement to produce a gratifying result.
The Darblet is currently being reviewed by several of the most prominent Home Theater magazines, with their reviews due out in the near future. Come visit us in person at CEDIA.

-DD


----------



## lcaillo

Our readers don't typically go to Cedia. 

I have seen Jeff's comments about the device, which are tentative and cursory, but seem to indicate some promise. I have not seen Gary's full review, only the blurb about the new product from CES. Josh's review is here:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/darbeevision-darblet/
and like one would expect, he finds some benefit to the device when adjusted properly but found it to look "artificial" when fully engaged.


The patent can be found here, with a pretty good description of the processing involved:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7995835

This looks like it could have some useful applications, but it is hard to parse the hype at this point. My guess is that the device will work best on calibrated displays or those that are set to ISF of THX levels OOB, and on higher quality sources. People who don't want to have their displays professionally calibrated, use high quality sources, and use the THX or ISF modes with lower contrast may find the most value here. I am guessing that displays driven hard out of the box in some "vivid" mode will look worse with this enhancement or there may be clipping in the highlights on some images since there is contrast enhancement going on here. This is all just speculation, however, until we see it in action.

I wonder how it interacts with compression artifacts. The background softening might actually make some artifacts on motion in the periphery look less offensive, while enhancing the more meaningful parts of the image.

Larry, you might meet less skepticism if you actually provided something more than what appears to be an attempt to promote your product. With some digging, it appears that there may be some merit to what you are doing, but it gets lost in the marketing. Forums like this one usually have a mix of people but a much higher number of more technically educated users who are very cautious about claims without science and validated technology to document actual performance.

I fully understand the challenges of marketing a product in the very ugly climate of today's consumer electronics business, but you won't get a pass on hype and name dropping with no substance here. But then, neither will hard core purists who throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even those people, however, are likely to acknowledge that there may be some value, perhaps for many applications if we can cut through the fluff and get to what it really does.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
That is an excellent post Leonard. I suppose my biggest issue is the cost. For $269, this must represent a huge profit margin. So even if I agreed that there was merit in the DVP, I would still find it difficult to recommend due to the price.

I completely understand R&D, Patent Application, Marketing, etc are not cheap. However, I would think pricing it at say $99 would still keep the lights on. After reading Gary's Review, I still have misgivings. 
I suppose it matters not as they appear to be selling like hot cakes. I still question how places like AVS can remain impartial when they sell the DVP at their Storefront. As I wrote in another post, I would imagine they are making a decent amount of money on each unit sold. The DVP does not even include an HDMI Cable and the cost of making the DVP looks to be under $10. Again, not accounting for R&D, Patent Lawyers, etc...
J


----------



## umr

I would not characterize my comments as tentative or cursory. I am personally more excited about this video processor than any other I have worked with. 

I stand by what I said. I would use this device in specific circumstances where it does offer great improvement. I am not advocating it's use beyond those cases. 

The following link has my views on this product. 

http://homecinemaguru.com/?p=1909


----------



## Alan Brown

Alan Brown said:


> Hi, Larry,
> 
> It's good to see you are interested in being a part of the discussion. I'm big on clarity and understanding the definition of terms used in a debate. It's also of value to get as close to the source for information about an issue as possible. Your comments here on "fidelity" seem to conflict with statements in your 'User Guide' and the white paper on your site. What is your concept of "fidelity" and "original scene?"
> 
> Are any studios using your processing prior to their post production approval monitors/projectors? How about optical disc labs? Can you provide a list of any directors and/or cinematographers, etc., who use and recommend your processing for consumer use in viewing their work? Did you have any endorsements from the Motion Picture Academy, when they sent out review discs to voting members prior to the Oscars, recommending movies be viewed with your processing? How about in the review and voting process prior to the Emmys? Any other awards shows? Have you presented any papers on your theory and/or processing to SMPTE?
> 
> Best regards and beautiful pictures,
> Alan Brown, President
> CinemaQuest, Inc.
> A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate
> 
> "Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


Larry,

It would speak well of your sincerity if you would kindly answer my questions from the previous post I have quoted. They were not rhetorical questions. I genuinely would like to understand better your company's approach and purposes in offering this product.


----------



## J&D

Interesting product and look forward to Larry's response to Alan's questions.


----------



## David Mackenzie

I've been asked a couple of times for my opinions on this device.

Alan Brown has said much of it already. As someone involved with reviewing displays, and also doing film cleanup and DVD/BD video encoding and authoring work, I agree with what he's already said.

First of all: I haven't seen one in the flesh. What I'm discussing is the principle behind blanket "enhancement" in a video chain, and also my thoughts on the example images on the Darbeevision site.

The images that have been processed by the algorithm, as seen on the site gallery, are obviously distorted. In particular, the images of the butterfly and the bee don't "read" as well as they did before, to my eyes. The processing looks similar to an Unsharp Mask algorithm, and looks to be more strongly applied in the horizontal direction. And it appears to be frequency adaptive, so it'll leave out of focus areas alone. That's just my observations, I don't know the specifics of how it works.

I've been told though that the images on the site show the device running at full strength. Perhaps it'd be useful for adding gentle sharpening to SD sources?

Speaking purely in terms of HD:
*The resolution of properly-done BD content doesn't need "enhancement".* Resolution is one of the last things wrong with Blu-ray Disc. Right now I'm working on a 2K cleanup and color correction of a 1980s film, which was shot with fairly cheap lenses and equipment. Even it doesn't need this sort of selective sharpening (although myself and the director agreed that adding a bit of controlled linear high frequency sharpening was a good idea).

And frankly, the idea of people using a device like this on discs that have already been carefully mastered and signed off on, well - it makes me more than a little uncomfortable. What goes onto the disc, what the director approved, doesn't need "enhanced" with selective contrast manipulation.

For film transfers that we know are compromised, perhaps the device would have some use. But the idea of plugging it in to the chain and using it indiscriminately is scary and it goes against any ideas of accurate imaging. 

My last point is, that if the algorithm is a good one, why is it being sold to consumers? By that, I mean, why not sell it to professionals (either in hardware or software form) who could use it in a studio environment where DoPs and colorists could use it - carefully - as an artistic tool? That way its usage could be controlled, and its strengths could be employed where necessary.


----------



## Jungle Jack

David,
This is truly a brilliant post. I want to extend my heartiest welcome to HTS. You bring up some very salient points that warrant explanation.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## David Mackenzie

Thanks JJ. I don't wish the makers of this device any ill, but I just hope that it isn't being mis-sold. While I've heard it has no ill effects on colour, grayscale or gamma, nothing about what it's doing is conducive to accurate video.

And, I'm seeing reviews of this pop up in outlets that promote video accuracy. I even saw one review on a blog claim that the device wasn't adding anything that wasn't present in the original signal, and that 'It helps the display to resolve the picture better" which is a misunderstanding of video systems and what these types of video filters do. If your display can't resolve 1080p correctly (pretty much ANY 1080p flat panel display can resolve 1080p properly - at least in 2D) then nothing will help it do so. Although if you have a projector with a poor quality lens, then pre-distorting the signal with a device like this could be beneficial (although again, let's not make any claims about accuracy - that's a kludge).

Edge enhancement and sharpening is a bit of a gray area in terms of accuracy. For example, if the purpose of a home theatre presentation is to mimic the original film as much as possible, then you could easily argue that some amount of sharpening on an SD (or very bad HD) source is MORE accurate than leaving it unprocessed.

But I'm talking there about LINEAR edge enhancement, something that applies constant gain to certain frequencies in the image. What this device seems to be doing is selectively sharpening objects in the image, meaning that the processing borders on artistic re-adjustment. Perhaps the creators can clarify how on-target my observations of the algorithm are.


----------



## mechman

I think we may need to get David a unit to review!  What do you say Larry?


----------



## David Mackenzie

It's been offered before


----------



## zacjones

Wow. There seem to be a lot of firm opinions about this device from people with no first hand experience, even in the face of many seasoned professionals and enthusiasts giving it the thumbs up. $269 is not a lot in terms of image processing. Whatever! I just ordered one for my RS45. I'll keep it even if it only makes a moderate improvement to broadcast sports, but from what other reviewers are saying I'm looking forward to trying it out on blu-rays and TV shows too. A little extra perceived sharpness and contrast would go a long way on a 120" wide 2.35:1 screen from 10' away. Way to go Dr. Darbee!!!


----------



## bobav

I am truly amazed at the postings about this little product. I have posted my opinion above amd I still do enjoy what the darblet does to my displays, especially on my HD350 JVC. I appreciate the opinions of all the more knowledgeable people on this fourm. I understand what they are stateing. But as your average casual user who likes movies and the best he can afford. I really like the darbee. I miss it when it is off. I do have to state on my 110" Daylite High Contrast Screen I see a pleasant improvement in the picture. But on my Smaller Panny plasma not so much. I look forward to read the continuing discussions and reviews from the more experienced people on this thread. But as a casual user I find it just gives me a better viewing experience. 
Thanks for your great site and love the new newsletter.


----------



## Jungle Jack

It has been stated many times by members of staff here at HTS that we would love nothing more than the opportunity to Review the DVP so I am not so sure where you are getting this perception from. So far our requests to get a Review Unit has fallen on deaf ears.

Mr. Mackienzie's Post brought up many points that I do believe warrant explanation. As to why he declined an invitation to Review is unbeknownst to me. Hopefully one of our staff members will be able to get their hands on one...


----------



## bobav

Really is a shame that they cannot get one to your staff, Is kind of silly. I know they are out of stock but I am sure they have some. Hope you get one soon will be very interesting reading.


----------



## tele1962

Jungle Jack said:


> It has been stated many times by members of staff here at HTS that we would love nothing more than the opportunity to Review the DVP so I am not so sure where you are getting this perception from. So far our requests to get a Review Unit has fallen on deaf ears.
> 
> Mr. Mackienzie's Post brought up many points that I do believe warrant explanation. As to why he declined an invitation to Review is unbeknownst to me. Hopefully one of our staff members will be able to get their hands on one...


I think it may be because he understands what the Darblet is doing to PQ.


----------



## David Mackenzie

> Wow. There seem to be a lot of firm opinions about this device from people with no first hand experience


I don't have any first hand experience of the Torch Mode ("Dynamic/Vivid" mode) on most TVs I review either. But I know that they distort the video, so I ignore them. Point is, I know if something in principle is abstracting the image. That's the entire principle behind this device - to abstract the image in a way which makes it subjectively more appealing. Some people might like that, and that's okay, but know what you're getting. It's not a tool conducive to accurate video.

Now, I'm not saying the idea behind the Darblet is as bad as a torch mode. But in a system which already resolves all the detail from a 1920x1080 image, there is simply nothing left to fix. In a system which already resolves this detail, then adding more selective sharpening is an abstraction of the film. 

The one gray area I could think of is really big screens where 1920x1080 isn't enough to provide the impression of a sharp image. Or for badly mastered content. In those cases, I would say sharpening tools are fair game, and without having seen the Darblet, I can only assume that it running on lower settings would be fine in those cases. So would the controls on your projector, though.

What scares me is people using this stuff on flat panel displays with pristine digital intermediate content which is already perfect in terms of resolution (so far as 1080 HD goes). In those cases, it doesn't address a limitation of current telecine, encoding, or display technology because there is no problem in terms of resolution with any of these steps. We now have a video chain (on BD) that can give us full resolution (at least as far as luminance is concerned) from the HD video master stage all the way into the home. If you're watching nearly any Blu-ray Disc on a flat panel display which is set up for accuracy, then there's nothing left to be fixed in terms of resolution. So, this isn't an enhancement from the point of view of users who want to see accurate video, but instead a stylish abstraction.

Some people will like the look of sharpened video, in fact I use similar filters during mastering/encoding work and I know how addictive they can be. That'll be doubly so to people who have never used one before. That's besides the point; many people will also like the look of watching "Saving Private Ryan" with the colour on their TV turned up to make it look less dull, even if the bleak war message is compromised in the process. The difference is that I always, whenever possible, get the director to OK the use of filters like this, and never use them to extremes (the examples shown on the Darbee site are shockingly extreme). Additionally, video professionals are able to look at an image and say, "Okay, that's been compromised by a bad telecine transfer with a defocused spot; the original film shouldn't be that soft, let's apply some sharpening". The average viewer who just wants to enjoy a film doesn't have that luxury (if you can call endlessly scrutinizing images a luxury  ).

One way I could see this segwaying with video accuracy would be if you had a hypothetical projector with a really, really bad lens. The Darblet could pre-distort the signal in a way which would make the end result on screen subjectively better. Even then, the end result wouldn't be as accurate as a better projector, just subjectively less bad. 

What I, and other video professionals commit to disc doesn't need to be "enhanced". Any sharpening or other filtering is done during the mastering stage where it can be controlled and used selectively (and shut off when appropriate).

For badly done transfers (which are pretty scant on BD), okay, using a device like this probably won't do any real harm, and I wouldn't be against that in principle. But - and this is the point that concerns me - all the reviews and feedback I've seen discuss simply plugging one of these things in and turning it on; that is, using it indiscriminately. I've seen forum threads where people play already perfect Hollywood-produced digital intermediate content and use this device to create a perception of greater contrast (using algorithms like this on high settings basically results in localised contrast boosting around edges). Do you not think the colorists and filmmakers adjusted the contrast - and the sharpness - of the image correctly when the film was being made? In fact, color correction tools already have features similar to what the Darblet is doing built into them. If they'd wanted to, the filmmakers would have built that look into their films. They didn't.

Another concern is that people are describing this as a "video processor" in the same way as a VideoEQ or Lumagen Radiance without understanding that they're totally different products. Devices like the VideoEQ and Radiance address limitations in the display (poor greyscale tracking, oversaturated/off-hue colours, etc) and pre-shape the signal going into the display *in a way which results in an accurate end result when the whole system is taken as a whole*. I've even had someone ask, "I want to make an improvement in my TV, should I get it calibrated or buy a Darblet?"

Again, I really don't want to make things difficult for the manufacturers and resellers of this device; I have nothing against them. But people need to understand what this tool is and then decide if it's for them. What I'm saying is, if you want to use a device like this in an objective way, then understand what your display already does correctly, or doesn't do correctly (in the case of "doesn't do correctly", resolution will likely be at the bottom of the list).


----------



## Alan Brown

zacjones said:


> Wow. There seem to be a lot of firm opinions about this device from people with no first hand experience...


Wow. There seem to be a lot of firm opinions about this device from people with little to no understanding of the fundamental nature of image fidelity and how art should be communicated. I have no doubt that this device delivers processed video that some viewers find appealing. That can be considered ample justification for purchasing one and using it at will. I am not so much interested in being pleased by a process as I am in cinematic art delivered via the HDTV system in as unaltered a state as possible. 

There is a pervasive misconception among video consumers that the objective of a video reproduction system is to always emulate what they consider to be "reality." Even some consumer video industry professionals get this wrong. This is not a new problem, either. I suspect this fundamental error may be at the root of why some viewers value what the Darblet process does. Many viewers fail to consider that the content creator likely had specific and deliberate reasons for their program to look the way it does- without additional processing or "enhancement." David Mackenzie has adeptly devoted additional perspective on this basic principle. Unfortunately, I have long ago recognized that some viewers are incapable of understanding the difference between image fidelity and "reality." Humans don't all come from the factory with their brains wired the same.

Live video programs usually aren't so concerned with rendering an artistic intent, but are actually attempting to depict reality as authentically as the technology allows. Perhaps the Darblet processing can improve on such an objective. I believe this forum is largely devoted to "Home Theater," last I checked. In the world of replicating cinematic art in the home, it's the art that is served by the technology- not the other way around. Also, it's the artist that should be allowed to perform, rather than the audience.

Clarity ought to be preferred over agreement in an open forum and free marketplace. It's not necessary to reach agreement in a debate. My challenging the validity of the Darlet process is not based upon whether it has achieved some measure of popularity. It is based upon my "first hand experience" with what motion picture and video industry standards and best practices are, as they pertain to image fidelity and artistic integrity, in a mass communication system generally, and home theater more specifically. Consumers have every right to want more "pop" with their viewing experience, if they prefer. Director/cinematographer collaborations typically approve video transfers with or without said "pop," in suitable proportion, according to their best judgement. Some viewers aren't satisfied with that.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## GoNoles

From my reading, and talking with calibrators who have seen it first is (this is my take), it could serve a person well for cleaning up the likes of Directv/Dish/Cable where some HD channels may have some compression issues. I can't for the life of me see using this on Blu-ray.


----------



## David Mackenzie

Unless there's a secondary feature on there that I'm not aware of, it won't do anything to clear up compression artefacts. In fact, if it's on the severe settings, it'll likely make them worse.

As for lowpass filtering and the overall loss of detail that's caused by too much compression, sharpening can superficially compensate for those, I guess.


----------



## GoNoles

Im just going of what people have said, and the before and after images. It's bringing out of detail seems for sources less then Blu.


----------



## lcaillo

David Mackenzie said:


> Unless there's a secondary feature on there that I'm not aware of, it won't do anything to clear up compression artefacts. In fact, if it's on the severe settings, it'll likely make them worse.
> 
> As for lowpass filtering and the overall loss of detail that's caused by too much compression, sharpening can superficially compensate for those, I guess.


Read the patent in the link I posted. The process is described. It enhances detail and contrast by summing information in duplicate frames where parts of the image that are not salient to perception are softened. This could actually do some good in overly compressed transmissions where mpeg gives up peripheral data and you get garbage. The enhancement in contrast gives the appearance of more detail even if it is really not providing more. There is potential here, though just as many potential pitfalls. 

I would not assume that there are not applications where this device does not produce an acceptable improvement any more than I would assume that it will make everything look better. The real question IMO is how do we quantify when it is a benefit and when it detracts from the image. I do not see the price as being very high if it even improves the pix a small portion of the time.

My issue with the product is that the introduction to our forum has been nothing but hype with virtually no substance. There actually is a case to be made if one wishes to take the time to understand the processing. It is easier to simply stick to the marketing plan and ignore those who ask tough questions.


----------



## David Mackenzie

Lcaillo, thanks for the patent link. I'm very surprised that it tells you how to replicate the effect in Photoshop and that it's actually that simple.



> Read the patent in the link I posted. The process is described. It enhances detail and contrast by summing information in duplicate frames where parts of the image that are not salient to perception are softened. This could actually do some good in overly compressed transmissions where mpeg gives up peripheral data and you get garbage. The enhancement in contrast gives the appearance of more detail even if it is really not providing more. There is potential here, though just as many potential pitfalls.


Maybe it's too early in the morning, but can you point me to where in the patent that's described? I can't find anything relating to temporal processing in there - and this is also the first I've heard of it.

AFAIK, the examples given in the patent discuss processing both views of a stereoscopic image, not processing frames in a sequence. (Actually, what you described would be a Noise Reduction device that I'd potentially be interested in for digital TV signals - although it'd likely have other side effects like scrubbing out film grain and other small changes between frames).

IF the Darblet has noise reduction features, are they used as an intermediate processing step; are the results visible on the output? It'd be the first I've heard of it either way.


----------



## lcaillo

My reading is not that this is temporal processing at all, but they are creating two versions of the frame and combining them. Sort of like dynamic range expansion on areas assumed to be meaningful. The business about 3d cues seems a stretch to me.


----------



## tele1962

After Demoing the Darblet i think that for lesser quality broadcast material, and some Blu's it can have a real impact. But i experienced handshake issues between it and my Samsung D6900 Plasma TV (No Signal/ No Picture). Also it really needs more HDMI connections.

Someone at the very top of there field needs to look at this and see what it is actually doing as we must all be aware that it is adding something to the PQ in the form of artificial processing.


----------



## tele1962

If someone from Darbee is looking in they really need to check the handshake issues before they start shipping to the UK, otherwise there will be an awful lot of very disappointed UK customers.


----------



## GoNoles

Placed my order. 

After the consistent pro reviews of the product, latest being WSR, I decided it was time. 

AVS has a shipment coming in this week, and I made that group.


----------



## lcaillo

Still have not received mine. Still curious to see it work first hand.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
I only hope Leonard gets his DVP with the next shipment.
J


----------



## GoNoles

Im not sure where you ordered from, but the AVS Store is getting in their 100 on 8/1 or 8/2, and only 80 or so are spoken for currently, at least thats what was posted. Guess we would get them next week.


----------



## GoNoles

Kris Deering from Home Theater Mag just posted at the other place and stated he just finished his review. He it appears he went in skeptical and came out with a positive result. 

Can't wait to read about it in HTM.


----------



## popalock

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> That is an excellent post Leonard. I suppose my biggest issue is the cost. For $269, this must represent a huge profit margin. So even if I agreed that there was merit in the DVP, I would still find it difficult to recommend due to the price.


I spoke to a knowledgeable source at AVS and the profit margin AVS makes on the product is really insignifigant when put in the big picture... I won't give speicific figures, but it seems like a making a something like ~$490 off of selling 10 Darblets isn't enough for them to be swimming in the money. I'll delete this post if you guys start flaming and throwing out %'s in relation to sale price, etc... I'll never tell my source, NEVER! lol

Alan, Jungle, Dave... Which one of you want me to send you my Darblet when I get it in next week?

Actually, I'm planning on playing with it for a few days, then I have a few forum member friends locally I want to let demo the unit...but I am more than willing to ship it out to one of you guys to let you run it through its paces. Shoot me a PM if interested...

Seriously... No strings attached. Just don't smash it because your so anti image enhancement!


----------



## GoNoles

I personally don't think $269 is a big deal, considering what most specialty AV stuff costs. I have $100 invested in my HDMI cables.


----------



## popalock

GoNoles said:


> I personally don't think $269 is a big deal, considering what most specialty AV stuff costs. I have $100 invested in my HDMI cables.


True...

I have about $250 invested on my Monoprice cables. I sure it would have cost well over $1K if I would have shopped a BB retailer.


----------



## Jungle Jack

popalock said:


> I spoke to a knowledgeable source at AVS and the profit margin AVS makes on the product is really insignifigant when put in the big picture... I won't give speicific figures, but it seems like a making a something like ~$490 off of selling 10 Darblets isn't enough for them to be swimming in the money. I'll delete this post if you guys start flaming and throwing out %'s in relation to sale price, etc... I'll never tell my source, NEVER! lol
> 
> Alan, Jungle, Dave... Which one of you want me to send you my Darblet when I get it in next week?
> 
> Actually, I'm planning on playing with it for a few days, then I have a few forum member friends locally I want to let demo the unit...but I am more than willing to ship it out to one of you guys to let you run it through its paces. Shoot me a PM if interested...
> 
> Seriously... No strings attached. Just don't smash it because your so anti image enhancement!


Hello,
No worries about being attacked as we as a Staff will not stand for that. With Leonard having ordered a DVP, I think we are good at HTS. That being said, I would certainly hook it up and give it a try. I really wish David Mackenzie would have Reviewed the DVP as well as I am quite fond of his writing over at HDTV Test as well.

As for profit margins, I just do not see how there are not some pretty strong margins to be had. Under $50 per unit profit would be somewhat surprising as Dealer Cost is usually much better than that. It is usually only with things like the initial launch of Sony's PS3 and truly most Gaming Consoles where retailers are making hardly anything. Then again, the original 60gb PS3 cost Sony $840 wholesale just to build and they lost billions.

I really do not think there is a great deal of anger here about the DVP. There is certainly some questions, but I think that is to be expected. I honestly do look forward to reading Leonard insights about the DVP and reading Home Theater Magazine's Review as well. In addition to WSR and all of the others that have already been released.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tele1962

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> No worries about being attacked as we as a Staff will not stand for that. With Leonard having ordered a DVP, I think we are good at HTS. That being said, I would certainly hook it up and give it a try. I really wish David Mackenzie would have Reviewed the DVP as well as I am quite fond of his writing over at HDTV Test as well.
> 
> As for profit margins, I just do not see how there are not some pretty strong margins to be had. Under $50 per unit profit would be somewhat surprising as Dealer Cost is usually much better than that. It is usually only with things like the initial launch of Sony's PS3 and truly most Gaming Consoles where retailers are making hardly anything. Then again, the original 60gb PS3 cost Sony $840 wholesale just to build and they lost billions.
> 
> I really do not think there is a great deal of anger here about the DVP. There is certainly some questions, but I think that is to be expected. I honestly do look forward to reading Leonard insights about the DVP and reading Home Theater Magazine's Review as well. In addition to WSR and all of the others that have already been released.
> Cheers,
> JJ


Yeah my friend he certainly knows his stuff.............in fact i would go as far to say i ain't seen any better.:gulp:


----------



## lcaillo

Good questions and reasonable skepticism is what we have here on this issue. Some reject the idea outright, some are quick to jump on the bandwagon. My approach is to understand the processing and look for potential benefits, while at the same time evaluate it critically as we would anything else. 

There are lots of people with much more experience, knowledge and time than I have. I'll make my evaluation and pass it on to others. There is no magic number that will allow a conclusion that it is good or bad. Better descriptions of the effect that it has on a variety of sources should help to inform our users regarding its efficacy for their applications and priorities.


----------



## popalock

lcaillo said:


> Better descriptions of the effect that it has on a variety of sources should help to inform our users regarding its efficacy for their applications and priorities.


I know your short on time, but I've read through all 1375 posts on the AVS Forum over the past week. Wading through all of the emotionally charged responses, there seems to be an array of opinions from both layman and experienced users. 

I've read impressions from all types of PJ owners (DLP, LCD,etc...) and Plasma and LCD flat panels as well. Not sure if anyone has tried it with LED tech. I don't recall reading one negative review.

I guess you are looking for opinions and reviews within the HTS "circle of trust."

I took the plunge because there is a solid return policy if "I" don't like what it does for "me."


----------



## lcaillo

There is no HTS circle of trust. Whether reviews are positive or negative is not really useful. If you are looking for a thumbs up or thumbs down, don't wait, because that is not my purpose. I already said that it is like anything else, if you like what it does you should own it. From the initial analysis of the patent and based upon what others have said, there are likely times when it is useful and times when those of us interested in image fidelity will not want to use it. There are caveats to every technology. My purpose (can't speak to anyone else's) is to identify what types of signals it might best be applied to as well as what its limitations are. I have been around this business for 30 years and never found a technology that did not have some limitations.

Realistic assessment and application analysis...that's what I'll be looking to provide, and what I will continue to encourage here. Please do not imply that there is some HTS clique that has to bless a product. That might be the way other sites work, but we welcome all opinions and challenge them openly. All of them get the same scrutiny.


----------



## tele1962

lcaillo said:


> There is no HTS circle of trust. Whether reviews are positive or negative is not really useful. If you are looking for a thumbs up or thumbs down, don't wait, because that is not my purpose. I already said that it is like anything else, if you like what it does you should own it. From the initial analysis of the patent and based upon what others have said, there are likely times when it is useful and times when those of us interested in image fidelity will not want to use it. There are caveats to every technology. My purpose (can't speak to anyone else's) is to identify what types of signals it might best be applied to as well as what its limitations are. I have been around this business for 30 years and never found a technology that did not have some limitations.
> 
> Realistic assessment and application analysis...that's what I'll be looking to provide, and what I will continue to encourage here. Please do not imply that there is some HTS clique that has to bless a product. That might be the way other sites work, but we welcome all opinions and challenge them openly. All of them get the same scrutiny.


Excellent post.:T


----------



## GoNoles

I see two options for me. I intend on hooking it up, with it set to HD and around 45% (just my consensus after reading), and will use a battery of test disc patterns to see what its doing. Then Ill check it out on my HD provider and Blu. If I like it on both Blu and HDTV, I'll use it for both, if not we will see. If I dont like it on either, I will send it back. All of that is very very simple, and Im using a calibrated display so I care about PQ. I generally turn off all enhancements like black level and dynamic contrast because it's easy to see how they can trash an image as well as affecting calibration.

If this is able to add some depth without harming anything (it's already been stated it does not affect calibration), then Im all for it. The only problem I see right now here, and another thread at another forum, is you have folks running around offering a judgement without zero product experience. Thats a little ridiculous, regardless of your resume...

Pony up, get a review model, then offer some factual input. I'm sorry if this sounds a little rough, but non owners consistently downing a product (on multiple forums) for assumptions could be consider trolling IMO.


----------



## Jungle Jack

HTS Circle of Trust! I think that should be used for all Reviews we do henceforth and perhaps retroactively. I suppose it would work better for the folks at AudioCircle, but I am going to try to get a trademark now.


----------



## GoNoles

Here is a question to folks who have been paying attention since the beginning. Has it ever been stated if the Darblet prefers a ycbcr 422 or 444 input? reason I ask is I can do either from my Blu player, but of course have no control over the HDDVR.


----------



## mechman

GoNoles said:


> Here is a question to folks who have been paying attention since the beginning. Has it ever been stated if the Darblet prefers a ycbcr 422 or 444 input? reason I ask is I can do either from my Blu player, but of course have no control over the HDDVR.


Good question. If it were me I'd send it 4:4:4. Did you check out the user guide? I think they have one online.


----------



## GoNoles

No, I'll check that now. I read some of the super long thread at the other place, but it takes awhile.

I do usually use 444, Ive found it sometimes gives a worse result on a blu-ray chroma test patter, but I see more banding with 422 in content. Stuff like Roku and HDDVR is always ycbcr/rgb 444.


----------



## GoNoles

That was easy, 



> YCbCr or RGB (internal processing is YCbCr)
> 8, 10, 12 bit (internal processing is 10-bit)
> 4:4:4 sampling or less (internal processing is 4:4:4)
> All-digital real time processing using 800 KB on-chip memory, 80K gates
> Video clock taken directly from incoming HDMI signal


So, ycbcr 444 from the Blu player


----------



## lcaillo

GoNoles said:


> I see two options for me. I intend on hooking it up, with it set to HD and around 45% (just my consensus after reading), and will use a battery of test disc patterns to see what its doing. Then Ill check it out on my HD provider and Blu. If I like it on both Blu and HDTV, I'll use it for both, if not we will see. If I dont like it on either, I will send it back. All of that is very very simple, and Im using a calibrated display so I care about PQ. I generally turn off all enhancements like black level and dynamic contrast because it's easy to see how they can trash an image as well as affecting calibration.
> 
> If this is able to add some depth without harming anything (it's already been stated it does not affect calibration), then Im all for it. The only problem I see right now here, and another thread at another forum, is you have folks running around offering a judgement without zero product experience. Thats a little ridiculous, regardless of your resume...
> 
> Pony up, get a review model, then offer some factual input. I'm sorry if this sounds a little rough, but non owners consistently downing a product (on multiple forums) for assumptions could be consider trolling IMO.


Uhh, we offered to do a review if they would send a sample and have ordered one since that did not happen. I have stated that it will be available to others once I review it. Please be careful with accusations of trolling. If you have specific posts you think admin and mods should review please report them.

People have offered opinions and will continue to do so. We are doing everything we can to get hands on experience with the unit. I posted a link to the patent which has very detailed descriptions of the processing. This is a public discussion forum and will have a variety of perspectives, some more informed than others. I don't see how we could do more than we have to be fair at this point. There are some serious questions that are valid with respect to the effects of this product. Like it or not, they will be discussed, but in a respectful manner.


----------



## GoNoles

It wasn't a criticism of you or HTS, it's of those I've seen elsewhere doing the same thing they are doing here. This is not a good course for the discussion, so I'll move on from it.

I just don't think it's good form to pass judgement on a product without having it in front of you and properly evaluating it. Opinion of what may be happening is fine, but "I don't need to see it because I already know what the result will be" is a ridiculous stance for any reviewer that expects to be taken seriously.


----------



## popalock

Agreed.


----------



## GoNoles

Thanks. The most curious for me are the Avatar images. If Brightness was set properly in the non Darbee image, there is a lot of detail coming out of the shadows when Darbee is in effect.

In the second underworld pic, look at the upper right corner of the image, lot more detail in the dark area in the second.


----------



## Jungle Jack

GoNoles said:


> It wasn't a criticism of you or HTS, it's of those I've seen elsewhere doing the same thing they are doing here. This is not a good course for the discussion, so I'll move on from it.
> 
> I just don't think it's good form to pass judgement on a product without having it in front of you and properly evaluating it. Opinion of what may be happening is fine, but "I don't need to see it because I already know what the result will be" is a ridiculous stance for any reviewer that expects to be taken seriously.



Hello,
That's just it. I honestly do not think any of us have outright denounced it, bashed it, or anything of the kind. Rather, there is just is certain amount of skepticism as it is a relatively new product. However, Leonard has purchased a DVP with his own money to provide his impressions of the DVP. Thus, I really think the general tone on this thread has been quite positive.

David Mackenzie does bring up an interesting point about why Darbee did not choose to market this technology to the professional market. From his post: "My last point is, that if the algorithm is a good one, why is it being sold to consumers? By that, I mean, why not sell it to professionals (either in hardware or software form) who could use it in a studio environment where DoPs and colorists could use it - carefully - as an artistic tool? That way its usage could be controlled, and its strengths could be employed where necessary."
J


----------



## popalock

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> That's just it. I honestly do not think any of us have outright denounced it, bashed it, or anything of the kind. Rather, there is just is certain amount of skepticism as it is a relatively new product. However, Leonard has purchased a DVP with his own money to provide his impressions of the DVP. Thus, I really think the general tone on this thread has been quite positive.
> 
> David Mackenzie does bring up an interesting point about why Darbee did not choose to market this technology to the professional market. From his post: "My last point is, that if the algorithm is a good one, why is it being sold to consumers? By that, I mean, why not sell it to professionals (either in hardware or software form) who could use it in a studio environment where DoPs and colorists could use it - carefully - as an artistic tool? That way its usage could be controlled, and its strengths could be employed where necessary."
> J


I don't even deserve to be sitting in on the same conversation with David... With that said, this is the internet so I have a voice!!! lol

I think it's nice that there is a easy to use consumer product available that can do this...whatever "this" might be. 

I sit 11ft away from my 130" Scope screen. I'm loking forward to seeing a noticable increase in detail... In other words, I'm looking forward to what those pics are showing.


----------



## Jungle Jack

What is interesting is that 7 pages on, I do not remember seeing another post from Fishinbob who started this thread. Hopefully, he will chime in with his impressions as well as I am guessing he has received his.


----------



## mechman

lcaillo said:


> I have stated that it will be available to others once I review it. Please be careful with accusations of trolling.


You may have to forward it on to me when you are done. While I think you're more qualified than I to take a look at it, I'm intrigued by if it would improve my signal from DirecTV. If it does improve it, I'd get one in a heartbeat.


----------



## lcaillo

I'll consider it, but every time I look at that picture of you...


----------



## GoNoles

Well, I didnt make todays cut, so mine should be shipping tomorrow.


----------



## ALMFamily

I am with Mech - if it would improve my pic from Charter, I would also do it in a heartbeat........


----------



## mechman

lcaillo said:


> I'll consider it, but every time I look at that picture of you...


It makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. I know, I know.



ALMFamily said:


> I am with Mech - if it would improve my pic from Charter, I would also do it in a heartbeat........


In my experience, anything would improve Charter's image quality. They are the reason I have DirecTV. Although they just ran a long thick line up to the cable box on my property line. I wonder what that's about? I'd guess it's some sort of fiber optic line. :scratch: I do use them for phone and internet.


----------



## lcaillo

I was trying to figure out how to pass it through the processor to see if it helps.


----------



## ALMFamily

mechman said:


> In my experience, anything would improve Charter's image quality. They are the reason I have DirecTV. Although they just ran a long thick line up to the cable box on my property line. I wonder what that's about? I'd guess it's some sort of fiber optic line. :scratch: I do use them for phone and internet.


I know - if another cable provider ever comes to my area, I will be switching so fast Speedy Gonzales would be impressed.......


----------



## lcaillo

My unit is on the way and hopefully will make it by the weekend.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Outstanding. I was hoping yours was going to be included on the DVP's that came in. Really am looking forward to reading your insights about it.


----------



## lcaillo

Don't build up too much expectation for what I have to say. I am just another opinion, with as much bias and personal preference as anyone. This is not an effect that we can quantify, so it is a qualitative assessment. I hope to throw an assortment of different quality images and conditions at it to see what results. I firmly believe that the best service we can provide to our readers is to gather a variety of examples of how it behaves with different sources and displays under many conditions.

While it is widely understood that I abhor screen shots for demonstrations of display performance, this is probably a case where they can be very useful. I don't have anything but PDPs here to test on, but if I can find the time I may be able to get by the dealer I worked for to play with it on some of their sets. I am open to suggestions on how to best document the effect.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
It is just with your background you are very well suited to provide your thoughts on the DVP. I hope I am not raising folks expectations by my personal thoughts on the matter. It does seem in certain applications that the DVP might provide a pleasing effect and it will be interesting to see which. 

And as I just purchased a Panasonic TC-P60GT50, your only having PDP's makes this only of more interest to me. I have had it for 6 days and it seems each day it looks that much more amazing.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## GoNoles

I'll be testing mine on Directv and a GT30.


----------



## Jungle Jack

GoNoles said:


> I'll be testing mine on Directv and a GT30.


Outstanding. I have gotten around to reading about every review I can find online. That being said, I am so pleased with the PQ of my HT as it is, I cannot imagine the DVP taking it to 11. Then again, I would love nothing more than to be wrong about this.


----------



## GoNoles

The GT series is a sharp set. Ive done testing on THX mode, and mine was really good out of the box as far as color and grayscale go. I've got Jeff Meier coming in Oct to do my video and audio though.

Im not as concerned about Blu-ray, but I hope to see some improvements on Directv. Direc looks good, but on 65" at 11 feet, the compression issues can show on certain channels. I'd be happy if it could sharpen the image a hair.


----------



## lcaillo

I have the 50ST50 with cox cable.


----------



## tele1962

I wonder if DNice, Kevin Miller, have any opinions on the Darblet? It would be good to here from them and if they will be using it at this years forthcoming Shootout part 2?


----------



## phreak

lcaillo said:


> Don't build up too much expectation for what I have to say. I am just another opinion, with as much bias and personal preference as anyone.


When anyone understands and admits their bias and preference, I wait expectantly to consider their opinion. Those who claim to be unbiased I find to be most biased of all.


----------



## GoNoles

Ive come to realize that some "pro" reviews just aren't as accurate as you'd hope. I do not know if it's lack of time with the product, loyalties, etc..., but Ive purchased several AV products and disagreed with what I read in certain reviews. Video performance is a tough one anyways, once you get past measurements with patterns, then you have "reference vs preference" that always gets thrown around.

I find the best info to come out of the good ol owner's thread, where folks spent their hard earned money on something and tend to be less forgiving. Granted many owner's can't see any wrong in the product they purchased, and others hate it from day one. It's the folks in the middle that realize nothing is perfect, and actually spend time examining the pro's and cons. To me that's the only way I can give a fair assessment to a potential owner, because once you know the good and bad it's make a simple decision on whether to buy or not. I'd prefer they go in knowing as much info as possible, lord knows I've wasted enough money buying junk that just was not worth it. But hey, there is always eBay.


----------



## mechman

lcaillo said:


> I was trying to figure out how to pass it through the processor to see if it helps.


No extra processing needed for that picture perfect specimen! 



GoNoles said:


> I'll be testing mine on Directv and a GT30.


Ecxellent! I look forward to your opinion! :T



phreak said:


> When anyone understands and admits their bias and preference, I wait expectantly to consider their opinion. Those who claim to be unbiased I find to be most biased of all.


I don't think I could have stated it better myself.


----------



## GoNoles

I've been charged, so I should be getting tracking info soon.


----------



## Jungle Jack

GoNoles said:


> I've been charged, so I should be getting tracking info soon.


Outstanding. I hope it provides you with years of enjoyment and provides even better PQ.


----------



## GoNoles

We shall see. The one reliable thing I know right now is the 30 day return policy!


----------



## GoNoles

Update. I should be able to do some testing on Monday. Item is on the way, and I ordered two short HDMI cables to splice it between my AVR and display.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Excellent. I truly do hope it works gangbusters for you and look forward to what you have to say about the DVP.


----------



## David Mackenzie

> Seriously... No strings attached. Just don't smash it because your so anti image enhancement!


I'm not anti image enhancement at all  I use image enhancement extensively in content production. I'll send you a PM.


----------



## lcaillo

I received my unit and have been using it with the signal from my Cox STB. I find that I do not want to turn it up more than about 60%. I like what it does on areas of the image that are not high detail, as it brings out some of that. I do not like what it does to grain and artifacts. It seems to make them more annoying. I find it does not seem to alter near and peak whites and blacks, but has more impact in the middle luminance ranges. I can see virtually no effect on most test patterns, likely because of the element size it looks for to do its processing.

Unfortunately, my DVR is not working properly so I cannot do still frames to take pictures. I should be able to do so on the Blu Ray and will play with that later.

Personally, I think I might like it for some casual television watching, particularly when I watch from the kitchen. I find that it makes anything that is already enhanced or noisy look worse, but is most useful for high quality HD images that are not enhanced but that have areas that lack some detail. My guess is that people who like the look of film will not like the processing, as it makes it look more like video. Areas of the image that are out of the lens depth of field get enhanced noticeably. While detail that is there becomes more apparent, those who want to stay true to the director or cinematographer's vision will probably not care for this.


----------



## tele1962

lcaillo said:


> I received my unit and have been using it with the signal from my Cox STB. I find that I do not want to turn it up more than about 60%. I like what it does on areas of the image that are not high detail, as it brings out some of that. I do not like what it does to grain and artifacts. It seems to make them more annoying. I find it does not seem to alter near and peak whites and blacks, but has more impact in the middle luminance ranges. I can see virtually no effect on most test patterns, likely because of the element size it looks for to do its processing.
> 
> Unfortunately, my DVR is not working properly so I cannot do still frames to take pictures. I should be able to do so on the Blu Ray and will play with that later.
> 
> Personally, I think I might like it for some casual television watching, particularly when I watch from the kitchen. I find that it makes anything that is already enhanced or noisy look worse, but is most useful for high quality HD images that are not enhanced but that have areas that lack some detail. My guess is that people who like the look of film will not like the processing, as it makes it look more like video. Areas of the image that are out of the lens depth of field get enhanced noticeably. While detail that is there becomes more apparent, those who want to stay true to the director or cinematographer's vision will probably not care for this.


Thanks Icaillo, pretty much my thoughts on it as well.


----------



## Jungle Jack

lcaillo said:


> I received my unit and have been using it with the signal from my Cox STB. I find that I do not want to turn it up more than about 60%. I like what it does on areas of the image that are not high detail, as it brings out some of that. I do not like what it does to grain and artifacts. It seems to make them more annoying. I find it does not seem to alter near and peak whites and blacks, but has more impact in the middle luminance ranges. I can see virtually no effect on most test patterns, likely because of the element size it looks for to do its processing.
> 
> Unfortunately, my DVR is not working properly so I cannot do still frames to take pictures. I should be able to do so on the Blu Ray and will play with that later.
> 
> Personally, I think I might like it for some casual television watching, particularly when I watch from the kitchen. I find that it makes anything that is already enhanced or noisy look worse, but is most useful for high quality HD images that are not enhanced but that have areas that lack some detail. My guess is that people who like the look of film will not like the processing, as it makes it look more like video. Areas of the image that are out of the lens depth of field get enhanced noticeably. While detail that is there becomes more apparent, those who want to stay true to the director or cinematographer's vision will probably not care for this.


From what it appears, it seems like the DVP is smoothing out the Grain from Films. I would imagine some would find this to be pleasing, but I do not fall into this group. It is disappointing to read that it appears to exacerbate noise and artifacts. I look forward to seeing the images.


----------



## lcaillo

Actually, it seems to make grain worse. My hope that it would soften compression artifacts was incorrect. It actually makes it more noticeable. Any softening must be negated by pulling the "detail" out and enhancing it. I am finding that I am pushing the Darbee level lower, now down to 50%. I was trying to watch it as high as 70% for the Men's 10KM Olympic final but did not like the effect. 

For video that is soft, or for displays that need some "pop" it does what it advertises. It's like any other processing, however, there are trade-offs. In the 10K race, I kept feeling I did not like the artifacts and went to watching it in the demo split screen mode. I ended up watching the pack more than the leaders when the leaders were processed. Pushed it back down to 50% and watched the end of the race that way and it was OK, but at that level it does not have very much benefit.

If I end up keeping one, I would probably leave it off most of the time and just use it on video that I found to be soft or muted. I can certainly see some things benefiting from some of what it does, but over all it is not something I would use all the time, based upon just a few hours of playing with it.


----------



## David Mackenzie

Leonard, thanks for your very level headed observations.



> I ended up watching the pack more than the leaders when the leaders were processed. Pushed it back down to 50% and watched the end of the race that way and it was OK, but at that level it does not have very much benefit.


This is what I've been arguing. Sharpening processing - however novel - is going to alter the video, that's the point of it. And backing it off to avoid artefacts is also going to make the effect more subtle.

It'd be nice to check one out, but I already made my fundamental opinions on this sort of tinkering clear.


----------



## Jungle Jack

I took the comment about it making film look more like video out of context I suppose. Either way, if not planning on using it the majority of the time, are you planning on keeping it?


----------



## tele1962

lcaillo said:


> Actually, it seems to make grain worse. My hope that it would soften compression artifacts was incorrect. It actually makes it more noticeable. Any softening must be negated by pulling the "detail" out and enhancing it. I am finding that I am pushing the Darbee level lower, now down to 50%. I was trying to watch it as high as 70% for the Men's 10KM Olympic final but did not like the effect.
> 
> For video that is soft, or for displays that need some "pop" it does what it advertises. It's like any other processing, however, there are trade-offs. In the 10K race, I kept feeling I did not like the artifacts and went to watching it in the demo split screen mode. I ended up watching the pack more than the leaders when the leaders were processed. Pushed it back down to 50% and watched the end of the race that way and it was OK, but at that level it does not have very much benefit.
> 
> If I end up keeping one, I would probably leave it off most of the time and just use it on video that I found to be soft or muted. I can certainly see some things benefiting from some of what it does, but over all it is not something I would use all the time, based upon just a few hours of playing with it.


A member on AVS makes a few interesting points, but hey he is happy with it so maybe we need to look a lot closer as to what it is doing.


----------



## lcaillo

One of the best examples of what the processing does can be seen on the S&M test disc on the corn field. The glistening of the sun on the leaves and the head is really enhanced, with a corresponding change in the brightness of the color of the head in particular. It is a luminance change, not so much a shift in color.

In scenes that are obscured or smoky, the processing will make items more distinct. Whether that is appropriate or not is a matter of opinion. For movies, probably not, aside from any softening from age or poor transfers.

Watching the news I find that I want it turned off, as most of that video is already overly enhanced and contrasty. If I watch from the kitchen, another 8-10 feet away it is fine. 

If you want your video to look like post cards, you will like the effect. If you want your leaves and trees to really glisten and the surf in beach scenes to jump out of the screen at you, it does do that to some degree. I can see how some people will perceive a closer to 3d effect with the enhanced contrast and "pop".

As I watch it more, I find myself wanting it off more. It is kind of like getting used to a calibrated set. If you go back to OOB settings it does "pop" but it is tiring and somewhat frustrating to watch most of the time. I would keep the unit, however, just for really soft source material that shows up sometimes. Its sharpening works better than most detail or sharpness controls and one could turn the controls down a bit more on the display and turn up the Darbee on really soft sources and get a pretty good effect.

One thing that I had hoped it would do well is lower resolution and noisy video. If it is really soft, the processing is useful. If it is noisy or has any scaling or interlace artifacts, it makes those more annoying.


----------



## lcaillo

Jungle Jack said:


> I took the comment about it making film look more like video out of context I suppose. Either way, if not planning on using it the majority of the time, are you planning on keeping it?


If not for passing it around to let others experience it, I would keep it. If it makes its way back to me there are surely times when it would be nice to use, and I would program the controls into my remote.

I'll probably send it to Mechman next. I am curious to see what he thinks on his projector. Anyone who wants to get in line to try it please PM me your shipping info. We'll see who has a serious interest and decide who is appropriate to send it to and when. I do have a standing offer for a couple of HD engineers to look at it, but have not heard back yet.


----------



## Bwiz

Is this thing legit? I was reading the AVS thread today and "DarbeeDr" was posting mumbo jumbo like "We come from left field and tore up text books" and "Some don't fully understand the ramifications of what it means to be able to treat digital images as a technology" and "Your brain thanks you for preconditioning the image with some of what it was expecting, phase information"

I don't know about you but it's starting to set off my you-know-what detector.


----------



## lcaillo

After watching some blu ray video it seems that to get enhancement on higher quality video you need to run it higher. It does seem to work more on the softer areas. This really is a double edged sword. It looks really good on some scenes and not so good on others. The remote control and having it easily switchable is a big plus compared to many other processing schemes. It is easy to use and could even be programmed into remote macros for specific viewing situations.

I wish I had the time to play with it on the systems at the local dealers but I won't. I will probably be heading back to Baton Rouge because of family issues this week. I'll get it out to someone else on Monday. Mech, can I assume you want to try it?

I really have tried to find reasons to like this device and have on some types of images. I cannot, however, say that I am buying that it is appropriate for everything. I remain agnostic with regard to this deity and skeptical of the purveyors of this religion. No kneeling and praying to the oracle here. I do suggest that anyone who looks at what it does and likes it should feel perfectly good about buying one. It certainly is a reasonable value if you like this effect. 

For someone more interested in image fidelity, however, I just don't see how this fits. It is altering the contrast ratio and enhancing detail that is subdued in the source. It clearly alters the source to emphasize information in a different manner than the original. For many films, where cinematography is part of the art, I think most directors would suggest minimal use if you want to experience what was intended visually.

This processing could be a very useful production tool and useful for large scale presentations. For many large video displays for events it could be quite nice where one is trying to display to a very large audience and impact is more important than fidelity.


----------



## lcaillo

David Mackenzie said:


> Leonard, thanks for your very level headed observations.
> 
> This is what I've been arguing. Sharpening processing - however novel - is going to alter the video, that's the point of it. And backing it off to avoid artefacts is also going to make the effect more subtle.
> 
> It'd be nice to check one out, but I already made my fundamental opinions on this sort of tinkering clear.


It would seem that many do not share your idea of level headed. Most seem to be quick to swallow the hook on this one. From what I have seen, our assumptions based upon a great deal of experience with video technology and the science behind it are not seriously challenged by this product. Novel processing, yes. Adds "pop," yes again. Fun to watch, well, sometimes. More for some people than for others. True to the original content, no, it is not. 

Once again, the correct answer to whether this is good or bad is the usual, "it depends." When the rest of the industry gets over then hysteria and hyperbole we will eventually gather better information about when it should be used and when not in relation to the user's goals.


----------



## lcaillo

Bwiz said:


> Is this thing legit? I was reading the AVS thread today and "DarbeeDr" was posting mumbo jumbo like "We come from left field and tore up text books" and "Some don't fully understand the ramifications of what it means to be able to treat digital images as a technology" and "Your brain thanks you for preconditioning the image with some of what it was expecting, phase information"
> 
> I don't know about you but it's starting to set off my you-know-what detector.


Those detectors went off right away for us, as can be seen from the early posts in this thread. There are legitimate concerns as well as benefits to this just like most processing. If you want a thumbs up or thumbs down, you can find that elsewhere. We would prefer to focus on what it does and when it might be most useful. At the same time we will be unapologetic about calling foul when someone tries to sell the idea that it makes everything better.


----------



## GoNoles

I like it so far. I watched about 3 hours of Directv today with it on 50%, and chose several scenes to pause and check out the affect. Im def keeping it, will experiment with some blu tomorrow.

As far as Directv HD goes, its obvious when flipping on to off, and I was able to find several instances where it really helped detail on a person/clothing. Thats one of the cool things about the device, pause a scene, cut on/off as much as you like and examine the affect. I'd chalk this up to something like frame interpolation. One man's trash is another man's treasure.


----------



## tele1962

lcaillo said:


> Those detectors went off right away for us, as can be seen from the early posts in this thread. There are legitimate concerns as well as benefits to this just like most processing. If you want a thumbs up or thumbs down, you can find that elsewhere. We would prefer to focus on what it does and when it might be most useful. At the same time we will be unapologetic about calling foul when someone tries to sell the idea that it makes everything better.


Yours are the best posts i have seen on the subject and you have put into words something i never could achieve. I agree with your sentiments exactly.
I have shown pictures of what i hope is a correctly set up display all be it a budget one, but it did show what can be achieved without image processing being introduced into the chain, and tried to argue my case (maybe to often) as best i could. I am still being called a Troll over there and i have been insulted and called laughable, but hey sticks and stones.
I know now which forums now i will be visiting more often than others.


----------



## GoNoles

When you get into the lovely and overplayed "reference vs preference" discussion, I say live and let live. 
I used to be much more picky about it but calibrators can't even agree with each other on some things! 

So I'm not going to sweat it anymore.


----------



## lcaillo

GoNoles said:


> When you get into the lovely and overplayed "reference vs preference" discussion, I say live and let live.
> I used to be much more picky about it but calibrators can't even agree with each other on some things!
> 
> So I'm not going to sweat it anymore.


The reference vs preference discussion can't be overplayed. It is exactly what people need to understand. They need to understand that there ARE references that are the basis for much of what we do in the field and that they are very useful. It should also be understood that the entire field exists mostly for entertainment and people have very different priorities for their entertainment systems. There is nothing wrong from deviating from standards if one chooses to do so.

Our job is to promote civil discussion where people can share experiences in a safe environment that promotes a sense of community. It is not to push one view over another in such a debate. I have been calibrating displays and tweaking systems to extract the best from them for clients since before there was an ISF or even a Video Essentials laserdisk. The discussion is still really the same. Some will take the hard line that one should never deviate from standards and others will argue that their flavor of the day is all anyone ever needs. Most of us are in the middle, just trying to start as close to standards as practical and find the most pleasing result to live with.

We will offer the discussion. If I make Allan mad on the one hand by being somewhat ambivalent about purity or Larry livid because I won't bow at the alter and point out the limitations of his product and call him on his marketing tactics, then so be it. Someone along the way finds value in it and the way we do things or we would not still be here.

You should always take these discussions for what they are worth to you. Participate if it is helpful and don't if not. We would hope that while here everyone shares their perspective and experience so that others can be informed.

Live and let live is exactly how we play here. As long as you accept the ground rules for participation, all views that contribute in a positive way are welcome. It seems like in other forums these days you get labelled a troll or an idiot if you don't tow the currently fashionable line.


----------



## Ken Ross

Alan Brown said:


> Hi, Larry,
> 
> It's good to see you are interested in being a part of the discussion. I'm big on clarity and understanding the definition of terms used in a debate. It's also of value to get as close to the source for information about an issue as possible. Your comments here on "fidelity" seem to conflict with statements in your 'User Guide' and the white paper on your site. What is your concept of "fidelity" and "original scene?"
> 
> Are any studios using your processing prior to their post production approval monitors/projectors? How about optical disc labs? Can you provide a list of any directors and/or cinematographers, etc., who use and recommend your processing for consumer use in viewing their work? Did you have any endorsements from the Motion Picture Academy, when they sent out review discs to voting members prior to the Oscars, recommending movies be viewed with your processing? How about in the review and voting process prior to the Emmys? Any other awards shows? Have you presented any papers on your theory and/or processing to SMPTE?
> 
> Best regards and beautiful pictures,
> Alan Brown, President
> CinemaQuest, Inc.
> A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate
> 
> "Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


IMHO this kind of post drives the manufacturers away from joining these forums. I don't dispute many of the things that Alan has said, but the tone is obviously confrontational and not at all useful to the beginning of a discussion on the product.

A review of this product was extremely favorable in the current issue of Widescreen Review.


----------



## Ken Ross

zacjones said:


> Wow. There seem to be a lot of firm opinions about this device from people with no first hand experience, even in the face of many seasoned professionals and enthusiasts giving it the thumbs up. $269 is not a lot in terms of image processing. Whatever! I just ordered one for my RS45. I'll keep it even if it only makes a moderate improvement to broadcast sports, but from what other reviewers are saying I'm looking forward to trying it out on blu-rays and TV shows too. A little extra perceived sharpness and contrast would go a long way on a 120" wide 2.35:1 screen from 10' away. Way to go Dr. Darbee!!!


I couldn't agree with this post more. I'm just now going through this thread and I'm just amazed at how negative and 'set' most posters are without actually having seen it in action. It's really shocking to see such negativity rather than basing this negativity on actual experience with the product!

After reading the Widescreen Review critique on the product, I too ordered to see what it did. I'm going to make the very 'odd' conclusion that I can't judge the product until I actually use it. Nuts right?

As to price, anyone that thinks this unit is expensive, has no idea how some manufacturers price their 'enhancers'. In the world of signal processors, this is very cheap IMO.


----------



## Ken Ross

GoNoles said:


> Im not sure where you ordered from, but the AVS Store is getting in their 100 on 8/1 or 8/2, and only 80 or so are spoken for currently, at least thats what was posted. Guess we would get them next week.


Smarthome.com has them in stock. That's where I ordered mine from. I'll report back on my findings once I receive mine...if there still is anyone interested.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Ken Ross said:


> I couldn't agree with this post more. I'm just now going through this thread and I'm just amazed at how negative and 'set' most posters are without actually having seen it in action. It's really shocking to see such negativity rather than basing this negativity on actual experience with the product!
> 
> After reading the Widescreen Review critique on the product, I too ordered to see what it did. I'm going to make the very 'odd' conclusion that I can't judge the product until I actually use it. Nuts right?
> 
> As to price, anyone that thinks this unit is expensive, has no idea how some manufacturers price their 'enhancers'. In the world of signal processors, this is very cheap IMO.



It seems unless this item is universally praised, all is negative. Well all I can say is there are certainly other Forums where you will not find much in the way of your perceived negativity. 

Leonard purchased a Darblet with his own money. Considering his credentials, I do believe he is plenty qualified to give his impressions. And indeed most signal processors are quite expensive, but they are almost universally an offshoot of Professional Video.


----------



## Ken Ross

Jungle Jack said:


> It seems unless this item is universally praised, all is negative. Well all I can say is there are certainly other Forums where you will not find much in the way of your perceived negativity.
> 
> Leonard purchased a Darblet with his own money. Considering his credentials, I do believe he is plenty qualified to give his impressions. And indeed most signal processors are quite expensive, but they are almost universally an offshoot of Professional Video.


No, that's not what I said. If I had encountered universal praise in the first 3 pages from people that had not actually used the product, I would have been just as skeptical. My point was that there were several posters that were obviously negative and without saying as much, condemning the product before even having seen it or its effects. If we are inviting manufacturers to participate in discussions here, I would not say Alan's initial post was what I would call 'inviting'. It was challenging and confrontational IMO. There is a time and place for that kind of inquisition, but hell, not in the first post to the manufacturer!

Additionally, although it certainly is science to abide by accepted standards, I also find it to be 'bad science' to condemn a product before actually trying it. I can't think of a less scientific approach to be very honest. To have come to a conclusion before seeing what a product can do is just bad science and a very closed-minded approach to this hobby.

I have all my displays ISF'd and my Sharp Elite and Pioneer Kuros were all ISF'd by Kevin Miller, so I know what an ISF'd image looks like. With that in mind I'm still curious to see the impact of this device in a variety of sources given the favorable reviews from some of the professional reviewers. If I don't like the effect, I return it, but at least I will have made the assessment after using the product, not before.


----------



## Ken Ross

lcaillo said:


> I find that it makes anything that is already enhanced or noisy look worse, but is most useful for high quality HD images that are not enhanced but that have areas that lack some detail. My guess is that people who like the look of film will not like the processing, as it makes it look more like video. Areas of the image that are out of the lens depth of field get enhanced noticeably. While detail that is there becomes more apparent, those who want to stay true to the director or cinematographer's vision will probably not care for this.


That's a great description Len and gives some valuable insight into the impact the device can have. Thanks!


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Perhaps there was more skepticism in the first few pages, but I do not think that to be a bad thing. It was a relatively new product and there was a great deal of hype. However, we have been quite complimentary of Members who decided to purchased the Darblet and I just do not think the tone is truly that negative throughout.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## lcaillo

Ken Ross said:


> No, that's not what I said. If I had encountered universal praise in the first 3 pages from people that had not actually used the product, I would have been just as skeptical. My point was that there were several posters that were obviously negative and without saying as much, condemning the product before even having seen it or its effects. If we are inviting manufacturers to participate in discussions here, I would not say Alan's initial post was what I would call 'inviting'. It was challenging and confrontational IMO. There is a time and place for that kind of inquisition, but hell, not in the first post to the manufacturer!
> 
> Additionally, although it certainly is science to abide by accepted standards, I also find it to be 'bad science' to condemn a product before actually trying it. I can't think of a less scientific approach to be very honest. To have come to a conclusion before seeing what a product can do is just bad science and a very closed-minded approach to this hobby.
> 
> I have all my displays ISF'd and my Sharp Elite and Pioneer Kuros were all ISF'd by Kevin Miller, so I know what an ISF'd image looks like. With that in mind I'm still curious to see the impact of this device in a variety of sources given the favorable reviews from some of the professional reviewers. If I don't like the effect, I return it, but at least I will have made the assessment after using the product, not before.


The questions raised early in the thread were largely a response to claims that were also not backed up by any serious attempt to explain the technology. Alan challenged some very misleading, if not false statements, and I challenged Larry to give us some real technical discussion and a sample. It is not impossible to form an opinion on a product before seeing it. The premise is, as Alan correctly asserts, simply inconsistent with image fidelity in display systems. For Larry to claim reverence for fidelity lacks credibility when one observes how he promotes using the product. Now whether image fidelity is the goal for any particular system is another matter, and one that I have debated with folks like Allan for years. 

We will discuss technologies and products and allow for a variety of perspectives, opinions and facts. We will do so with respect for the forum rules and for others. Some of those views may be controversial or dead wrong, or some may just not like them. Everyone's views are valued. We will not, however, allow manufacturers to use the forum to push their products and not allow them to be challenged, nor will we stifle debate simply to be kind to vendors. No one is bashing this product. Nor is it getting a free pass.


----------



## lcaillo

umr said:


> I would not characterize my comments as tentative or cursory. I am personally more excited about this video processor than any other I have worked with.
> 
> I stand by what I said. I would use this device in specific circumstances where it does offer great improvement. I am not advocating it's use beyond those cases.
> 
> The following link has my views on this product.
> 
> http://homecinemaguru.com/?p=1909


Jeff, I apologize if I did not characterize your comments as you meant them. I would be curious to know if you have reviewed the unit further and have more input regarding where you see it as most useful. The tendency seems to be to treat this as all or nothing good or bad. You had some specific examples of where you thought it might be useful. Any more thoughts? Would you use it 100% of the time?


----------



## mechman

lcaillo said:


> AI'll get it out to someone else on Monday. Mech, can I assume you want to try it?


Yep. I'll pm you my address. I should be able to get some pictures with it.


----------



## lcaillo

Good. The family is on the road and they have my camera.


----------



## Alan Brown

Ken Ross said:


> No, that's not what I said. If I had encountered universal praise in the first 3 pages from people that had not actually used the product, I would have been just as skeptical. My point was that there were several posters that were obviously negative and without saying as much, condemning the product before even having seen it or its effects. If we are inviting manufacturers to participate in discussions here, I would not say Alan's initial post was what I would call 'inviting'. It was challenging and confrontational IMO. There is a time and place for that kind of inquisition, but hell, not in the first post to the manufacturer!
> 
> Additionally, although it certainly is science to abide by accepted standards, I also find it to be 'bad science' to condemn a product before actually trying it. I can't think of a less scientific approach to be very honest. To have come to a conclusion before seeing what a product can do is just bad science and a very closed-minded approach to this hobby.
> 
> I have all my displays ISF'd and my Sharp Elite and Pioneer Kuros were all ISF'd by Kevin Miller, so I know what an ISF'd image looks like. With that in mind I'm still curious to see the impact of this device in a variety of sources given the favorable reviews from some of the professional reviewers. If I don't like the effect, I return it, but at least I will have made the assessment after using the product, not before.


As long as I am tolerated here, I will honestly speak my mind when invited to, or I encounter statements counterproductive to audio/video best practices. Agreement is not required in an open discussion. Bias is not bad as long as it is clearly understood. Everyone is biased to some degree. My bias in this context is to advocate for image fidelity as defined in motion imaging industry terms. 

I judged the product being discussed according to the manufacturer's declarations and descriptions, and after reading the vast majority of discussions in other forums. Evaluating their statements at face value revealed their bias. I found their fundamental premise to appear faulty and challenged them to further clarify their definition of terms. If a product is described by its maker to be fundamentally intended to alter image fidelity, I will not give them my money, nor will I be inclined to devote my time to experimenting with it. I don't view my home entertainment electronics as toys to be played with, but rather, tools for conveying the audio and video programs I enjoy. For me, it's ultimately and primarily about the art and the artists, not the delivery mechanisms. If the delivery mechanism alters the original performance, I consider it intrusive, distracting, and undesirable. It does not matter to me if some perceive the alteration as an enhancement, or a distortion. I simply want the original performance as near to the artist's intent as possible. If my considering the alteration of the performance to be utter nonsense, or baloney, offends anyone- tough noogies. 

Popularity and quality are not mutually inclusive terms or conditions. Anyone entering the consumer electronics marketplace with a product ought to be mature enough to anticipate that their device will encounter challenges and competition. How they respond to the challenges will affect their success in one degree or another. I'm still waiting for answers to my questions. I could be persuaded to spend my hard earned money on this device, if I become convinced it will provide value to me. 

Thus far, comments from people who's experience and understanding I regard highly lead me to doubt its suitability for my viewing habits. When I am just engaged in casual viewing, reference performance is not required, nor would I consider spending the money on additional video processing. It does not sound as if this device would be acceptable for critical viewing sessions, either. I have been studying cinematography for years and don't value what this device claims to do in that context.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## tele1962

Well AVS have decied to pull the plug on my posting their after i asked if Larry would answer the questions that had been put to him by Alan, which he is still refusing to do. Never mind i am cool with that.


----------



## GoNoles

I've spoken with Jeff (UMR) a lot via email on a few things, and I really like his input (which I why Im hiring him).

After more time and more mixed content with the Darbee, I see it's uses, and do like them, but it's vary's from show to show, movie to movie. This is too much of a variation for me, especially when my calibrated display looks good before I turn it on. The problem is, some things do improve IMO, but some things get worse, depending on the amount of compression.

I kinda get a little more of what many folks with projectors are saying, and how this and e-shift fix an inherent problem for them. Before I even started Jeff warned me that with a plasma, there may be no effect, or I may not like it. If I had the patience to make a decision at the beginning of every program whether to use it, it'd be fine, but I'm lazy :gulp: and like to get all my junk setup so I can turn it on and not frack with it.

So, it does work, it does make a difference, but it depends on what you watch and your setup. I'd recommend anyone try it and see what they thought, but don't go in expecting to either like or dislike it until you can watch a good 10-20 hours of content.


----------



## lcaillo

tele1962 said:


> Well AVS have decied to pull the plug on my posting their after i asked if Larry would answer the questions that had been put to him by Alan, which he is still refusing to do. Never mind i am cool with that.


I don't think he can answer the questions. He is working from a completely different set of starting assumptions. His "science" appears to be his understanding of how we perceive visual information, which is actually not as simple as one my make it out to be. His assumptions about "fidelity" are clearly different based upon his comments here. The idea that one can "make" fidelity is simply faulty. Now if the processing is desirable in some cases and you apply it to the image in production it might become part of the original signal. Then the effect should be faithfully recreated by the distribution and display chain. You get out an honest representation of what goes in...that is my take on fidelity. Making it "better" or different is not fidelity. It might be desirable, it might be pleasing, but it is not a place of reference for anything and the results can be somewhat hard to predict.

This product is simply not about image fidelity at all. It is about making more pleasing images for the user. If it accomplishes that one should use it. For some things I certainly would.


----------



## mechman

Hmmmmm? I had to go take a peek at avs.

I see now where Larry is saying that we banned him?!?! I don't know if I would ever do business with a company that blatantly spreads falsehoods. 

I'm thinking one of two things have happened here. One, that the COO of a technology company is technology deficient enough to not be able to log into a forum. Or two, someone's avoiding the questions as they may be selling snake oil.

I've seen several screen shots of the Darbee in action. One set I saw from Jason Whiddon at HDJ showed no perceivable change whatsoever. The other set was from the avs forum and it showed very little difference except to have added noise to some background animated grass in How to Train Your Dragon. This was when the Darbee was at 100%. At 50% there seemed to be no difference at all.

Here are the shots from avs - Darbee at 100% : Darbee at 50% : Darbee at 0%:










My hunch is that that noise should not be there and that area should be as blurry as it is with the Darbee off. Does it look different? Yes. Does it look right? No. I do see a little bit of some image 

Here are Jason's at various zoom levels (50, 80, 100 and 250%:






































I just don't see it in these shots at all. :huh:


----------



## GoNoles

I tried so many shots, only have a $400 Canon digital, and could not get it to show the change. The shrimp actually did look nicer with it on, but as you said, seeing it in the image is hopless. On the flip side, watching an episde of The Glades on Directv (has a slight softness to it I feel is due to compression), the darbee did not improve anything, it made peoples faces look much worse. It reminded me of looking normal vs looking super tight and edgy after using too many steriods LOL

I do find it disheartening he is claiming you banned him, when you did not. Sad.


----------



## tele1962

Mechman, are you saying he wasn't banned?


----------



## GoNoles

FYI to anyone that wants to try and is hesitant about the $$$. Mine sold on eBay in about 30 mins.


----------



## mechman

GoNoles said:


> I kinda get a little more of what many folks with projectors are saying, and how this and e-shift fix an inherent problem for them. Before I even started Jeff warned me that with a plasma, there may be no effect, or I may not like it. If I had the patience to make a decision at the beginning of every program whether to use it, it'd be fine, but I'm lazy :gulp: and like to get all my junk setup so I can turn it on and not frack with it.


I'll be giving it a good workout on my projector! :T



lcaillo said:


> I don't think he can answer the questions. He is working from a completely different set of starting assumptions. His "science" appears to be his understanding of how we perceive visual information, which is actually not as simple as one my make it out to be. His assumptions about "fidelity" are clearly different based upon his comments here. The idea that one can "make" fidelity is simply faulty. Now if the processing is desirable in some cases and you apply it to the image in production it might become part of the original signal. Then the effect should be faithfully recreated by the distribution and display chain. You get out an honest representation of what goes in...that is my take on fidelity. Making it "better" or different is not fidelity. It might be desirable, it might be pleasing, but it is not a place of reference for anything and the results can be somewhat hard to predict.
> 
> This product is simply not about image fidelity at all. It is about making more pleasing images for the user. If it accomplishes that one should use it. For some things I certainly would.


One would think that this could be done in post production if it needed it. You can see fairly clearly in the avs shots the difference between 0 and 100%. The question then is whether or not the end user wants the image as the studio intended or if they want it 'enhanced'. The graininess aside you can see the changes around and in the eye and the darker areas of the scales/skin.



GoNoles said:


> I do find it disheartening he is claiming you banned him, when you did not. Sad.


That may very well be the straw that broke the camel's back with me. :foottap:


----------



## mechman

tele1962 said:


> Mechman, are you saying he wasn't banned?


He was *not* banned. Never was and isn't now. But his statements may lead to it.


----------



## lcaillo

I made a simple statement on the other forum informing that his statement is false and that his account is active, and that he was never banned.

I made one other post clarifying my position on the product. I will not engage further in the discussion there, but I could not let that pass.


----------



## phreak

lcaillo said:


> The reference vs preference discussion can't be overplayed. It is exactly what people need to understand. They need to understand that there ARE references that are the basis for much of what we do in the field and that they are very useful. It should also be understood that the entire field exists mostly for entertainment and people have very different priorities for their entertainment systems. There is nothing wrong from deviating from standards if one chooses to do so.
> 
> Our job is to promote civil discussion where people can share experiences in a safe environment that promotes a sense of community. It is not to push one view over another in such a debate. I have been calibrating displays and tweaking systems to extract the best from them for clients since before there was an ISF or even a Video Essentials laserdisk. The discussion is still really the same. Some will take the hard line that one should never deviate from standards and others will argue that their flavor of the day is all anyone ever needs. Most of us are in the middle, just trying to start as close to standards as practical and find the most pleasing result to live with.
> 
> We will offer the discussion. If I make Allan mad on the one hand by being somewhat ambivalent about purity or Larry livid because I won't bow at the alter and point out the limitations of his product and call him on his marketing tactics, then so be it. Someone along the way finds value in it and the way we do things or we would not still be here.
> 
> You should always take these discussions for what they are worth to you. Participate if it is helpful and don't if not. We would hope that while here everyone shares their perspective and experience so that others can be informed.
> 
> Live and let live is exactly how we play here. As long as you accept the ground rules for participation, all views that contribute in a positive way are welcome. It seems like in other forums these days you get labelled a troll or an idiot if you don't tow the currently fashionable line.


lcaillo has a reference level perspective on the reference vs preference debate. That post should be required reading for all members of the forum. Additionally, I think that the best way for someone to describe their preferences is in relation to an established reference. When it comes to video I highly recommend that everyone run the S&M disc, but I would never insist that others keep those settings (although myself and many others do). Tweak away to your hearts content. You may find after all your tweaking that you preferred the reference picture. Or you may find you own version of visual nirvana. Either way, enjoy the show.


----------



## GoNoles

I prefer reference, which I why I own Spears and Munsil, AVS709, DVE and my own meter and generator. My statement was more for the average joe. Preference always win, and you get type A and type B discussing reference, there is a big ol disconnect. 

Now, I dont mind things like frame interpolation, because I feel if done mildy and correctly, it improves the source, and Im glad to see 48fps coming. As with all things, you still have folks complaining about that as well. I think preferring reference doesn't lock out all these things, I for one thing you can prefer reference, as long as you set some simple boundaries on how far you are willing to go. The Darbee worked well on some things, and if it would offer that affect on everything, I woulda kept it, but it does not. Im not willing to take anything on that worsens PQ, and some would feel that way about frame interpolation, but not myself.

I guess for me, gamut/grayscale/gamma/brightness/sharpness have one setting, correct and thats easily determined with all the tools we have. Things like black level control, dynamic contrast, NR features are all things I cut off on a display generally. Those two groups are black and white for me (no pun intended), but tweaks like FI, 24hz modes, the Darbee, etc... are a gray area. Im always willing to give them a chance, and if I feel they help, Ill use them without some sense of shame the Director will show up and strangle me 

I know a lot of folks stand by the fact you calibrate the display to the set terms, and everything else is to be left alone always. While I understand the strict stance, I do not personally agree with it. There are some things that allow for the basis of the calibration to stay in tact and "improve" the image. We also have to realize that people spend money on their gear, and it's our place to educate but not preach when it comes to the "rules". A lot of posts by guys knowledgeable in the field come off a little preachy, folks like us get it, but others not so much. 

You take a person, who's not all up on the standard, and tell them something they are enjoying is a bad thing and actually harming they image, they may generally get offended when they do not understand. It's a tough debate and I've seen it press a lot of buttons. I prefer to just give my opinion/experience as a hobbyist, hoping I can help the average person learn something and maybe enjoy their gear a little more. I prefer to stay out of a lot of the back and forth, because I kinda end up in the middle. It's still easy for me to relate, 5 years ago I did not even know what a colorimeter was 

I've found modes on my plasmas that just completely mess up the image, and have given folks advice. When they come back and say it was too brown, too dim, etc and they went to "POP" mode, I just am glad I tried to help and that they enjoy the display they purchased.


----------



## Alan Brown

I'm surprised lcaillo thinks he could make me mad for suggesting a deviation from "purity." I'll state it again- agreement is not required. Clarity is to be desired over agreement. I have endeavored to be painstakingly clear about my advocacy for reference standards and best practices. 

Unfortunately, a common flaw in human nature is to ignore clear statements if they are perceived to threaten or contradict one's personal beliefs or opinions. My position is this: there is a reference for quality in the video world. That reference is defined by international motion imaging standards bodies. Content creators and distributors generally abide by such reference standards and best practices. IF a consumer wants to experience a video program as it was approved by the content creator, his display system MUST emulate a professional monitor and viewing conditions. that's the only reliable method. The result is image fidelity as best can be determined by the technology at hand.

Now what can be construed as offensive about that? It's not rigid dogmatism, but the logical process to achieve a specific goal. I don't believe I have ever stated that a person is wrong to desire a different goal. That is every viewer's choice. However, choosing different viewing criteria will typically not result in an authentic image intended by the artists who composed the program. THAT is preference over reference. Got it?

Purity is used somewhat as a pejorative in some forum discussions. Purity is the end point on a scale of quality or uncontamination. Absolute perfection is understood by most as unobtainable. Life is usually a continuous scale of compromise and shifting priorities. It helps to have a goal and clearly defined terminology. Mine is defined by video industry standards and best practices. It also helps to understand the difference between a standard, an engineering guideline, and a recommended practice, as published by organizations such as SMPTE and the ITU. Do you understand the differences?

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## tele1962

mechman said:


> He was *not* banned. Never was and isn't now. But his statements may lead to it.


Unbelievable, something just doesn't seem right here.:huh:


----------



## lcaillo

Alan Brown said:


> I'm surprised lcaillo thinks


Just for the record, I know that Alan does not get mad over my remarks nor anyone else's priorities. I do poke at him a bit, and he at me, and we debate sometimes. It is all from a place of respect even when we differ in perspective. As he says, a passionate debate and significant distance can still provide clarity, and it is not necessary to share the same views. 

While we agree on the importance of standards, what we have disagreed upon most is how communication style serves one's position. Alan can be a bit terse and challenging sometimes for purpose of discussion and to drive toward logical evaluation of an issue. Logic requires clarity and agreement on terminology, as well as examination of ones own assumptions and reasoning. Alan is completely comfortable with anyone challenging his positions because he has already challenged them himself. For people who come to discussion forums with points and arguments based mostly on emotion and preference, he may seem hard to get. The reason is the same as why Alan and Larry are unlikely to get to answers of the questions posed here. Larry starts from completely different assumptions and with a bias for protecting the marketing of his product. Alan starts with the current state of imaging science and industry standard as the basis for his questions. Those questions really are irrelevant to marketing this product. They just don't matter in that world. They don't matter for most of the users at some other forums and they don't matter for many "experts" and "reviewers" who are getting their name in lights on the wave of a new product.

Those questions should matter to anyone who is interested in having the best video possible, IMO. Their answers do not have to lead to a conclusion that one should not buy the product. The could help inform understanding about what it does and help those of us who are not willing to assume its efficacy without more knowledge sort out where it might be useful, or not. Those questions could inform where the processing should fit in the current state science.

Intellectual honesty is about being willing to challenge one's own assumptions and bias. It is ironic that the very people who have been willing to state our starting positions and test them have been accused of lacking such.


----------



## Ken Ross

So I have a question for the group. If we have two displays, both having been ISF'd, but one having a dynamic range significantly superior to the other, is one correct per standards (or artist's intent) and the other not? 

As a result of its greater dynamic range, one of those displays is capable of achieving a significantly brighter white without clipping. Is it thus more or less conforming to standards than the other display...or are they both 'on target'?

How about motion enhancements? What happens when we have two similarly ISF'd displays, but one has 'film mode' engaged and the other not. Is one in conformance and the other not?

Where I'm going with this (and perhaps my examples were poor ones), I can envision image parameters that are not addressed in our standards, but are available in our display's toolbox. If we begin tinkering with a picture parameter not spec'd out by a current standard on a display that has been correctly ISF'd, does it no longer conform?

More importantly, to go back to my example of dynamic range, what about artist's intent? Does the display with the greater dynamic range no longer correctly depict the artist's intent or does it do it better? Is there even a particular dynamic range that was envisioned by the artist or is this a moving target that, in reality, is more a function of the engineering of the display itself?

Certainly when we go to the movie theater we're no longer seeing true black given all the ambient theater lighting (exit lights, aisle lights etc.). So I would guess that no theater presentation meets the criteria of 'artist's intent' since I doubt the artist had poor black levels in mind for a cinema presentation. Yes I know that some theaters do a better job with this than others, but I've yet to see a theater that can match black levels at home on a good display given safety standards that any theater must meet

OK, I'm probably rambling at this point, but I'm trying to understand the image parameters that are not addressed by current standards and thus become the viewer's choice on a perfectly calibrated display. Certainly there must be some image parameters that were not thought of when these standards came about and yet we now have control over at home. Or am I wrong? What can be tinkered with and still meet the 'artist's intent'? Do we even know what the artist's intent was for these 'new' parameters? Does the artist? Was the dreaded SOE (soap opera effect) discussed when standards were drawn up?

Anyway, I think you get my point. Maybe I'm crazy (don't answer that) or maybe I don't have a full understanding of all that goes in to our standards.


----------



## GoNoles

lcaillo said:


> I made a simple statement on the other forum informing that his statement is false and that his account is active, and that he was never banned.
> 
> I made one other post clarifying my position on the product. I will not engage further in the discussion there, but I could not let that pass.


The fact no one acknowledged it is pretty telling to me.


----------



## mechman

tele1962 said:


> Unbelievable, something just doesn't seem right here.:huh:





GoNoles said:


> The fact no one acknowledged it is pretty telling to me.


Very telling. Especially since he has replied several times since. 

I think everyone will know my bias going into looking at this product.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Truth be told, they have not responded to either of Leonard's posts there. The first one was brilliant and no one would even touch it.


----------



## tele1962

I have to say and this might just be me but some of his replies to posts over there just seem to be gibberish and make no sense. I really hope that there is nothing more, how shall i put it.................... sinister going on because people are investing a lot of hard earned into this product:dontknow:


----------



## mechman

tele1962 said:


> I have to say and this might just be me but some of his replies to posts over there just seem to be gibberish and make no sense.


That is what I was thinking! 



tele1962 said:


> I really hope that there is nothing more, how shall i put it.................... sinister going on because people are investing a lot of hard earned into this product:dontknow:


I hope not as well. 

What's being said across the pond?


----------



## tele1962

mechman said:


> That is what I was thinking!
> 
> What's being said across the pond?


Not much really as i don't think it has had the publicity that AVS have given it............David i think if he gets time is going to review one also AVForums are doing a review. I kept banging on over on AVS because i could sense something wasn't right in the hope that someone might pick up on this also. When he said he (the CEO) had been banned from HTS and he had not, for me was the last straw and that is when the alarm bells really started ringing...........and they ain't stopped.


----------



## tele1962

Just seen this post from Bumptious over on AVForums:

Had a chance to really test one of these during the calibration of Andyz1 Panasonic VT50.

These are my observations.

Before we started we looked at what this unit did.

Using a Quantum Data 780 reference signal generator, I fed the output from that directly into the Derbee and the output into the TV. Firstly was a sharpness test pattern. The TV’s sharpness control was set to off and I moved the TV’s sharpness control from 0 to 10 and it added edge white haloing (artificial edge enhancement). Then set that back to 0 and turned the Darbee on and moved its control from 0 to 120. The pattern did not alter one jot. Wow clever.

I have a number of reference bit map test cards on the 780. Test Card W is the wide screen version of the famous one with the girl playing noughts and crosses with a clown, the second one used is a widescreen version of a Philips 5644. Adjusting the Darbee through its range with the Philips test card again changed nothing, but things got interesting using test card W. All the patterns did not alter in any way, but the picture inside the circle changed substantially.

Basically AVI is right in what this unit is doing. It’s NOT adding sharpness, it’s shifting black shading, and the effect depends on the brightness levels of that shading. It makes the darker shading darker and raises the lighter parts.
It seems to be engaging in the mid IRE levels of the image say between 30 and 80 IRE.

Establishing that I then took out of box measurements of the TV’s greyscale, gamma, and gamut without the Darbee engaged and then set at its maximum. Both sets of readings were identical.

Having established what the Darbee was doing, I then calibrated the set without the Darbee engaged.

Once the set was calibrated to reference I then put Sky through the Derbee and tweaked the TV’s saturation and sharpness control (+2) and then engaged the Darbee. 

Now I’m going to try and explain simply as articulately as I can what I observed.

This unit is NOT ADDING anything, but it is shifting things. It’s certainly NOT adding or bringing out any more detail. YOU CANT ADD IN WHAT IS NOT THERE. As stated it’s shifting black levels. It acts like a dynamic range expander but only with certain elements of the picture.

I have racked my brain how to articulate the effect, try this. Imagine a grid of 100 squares. (pixels) and you place 100 sheets of paper lined up on the grid (1:1 pixel mapping). Now take 20 of these perfectly flat and lined up sheets and screw them up into a ball. Then unravel them and place them back on the grid. They will stand out BUT won’t quite line up into their box (pixel).

Now because these pixels are being subjecting to some processing and others are not I was seeing a slight drop in resolution in these areas, even though your eyes appear to being tricked into seeing more detail. The more you add the more SD and unmapped it looks.

The Lumagen has a contrast expander but it works over the whole picture, many TV’s do too. The Darbee is different as it gives the illusion of more detail as it only lifts some of the image. BUT IT IS AN ILLUSION I had my Lumagen with me and tried it on a frozen frame of a football match. The Darbee lifted the crowd out and other black shading including black content in the grass so it looked like its lifting detail, but remember it is not adding detail, it is shifting elements of the image. The Lumagen lifted the whole image, for me, neither is desirable, but many of you will like it. The Lumagen retains the detail but makes the image too contrasty, certainly on this plasma, however I seeing working well on budget level projectors.

I can clarify that it DOES NOT have any adverse effects on a calibration; you should calibrate the panel without it then add it in after.

It’s not adding colour or taking it away, it doesn’t really shift colour it but can look like it does. That is with HD content; it makes a mess of SD content and makes it look seriously processed and nasty. 

With Blu Ray it has the same effect as HD but because IT IS playing with perfect pixel mapping of some of the information for me it make things look to contrasty in places where it shouldn’t be. But some of you will like that. Just like Pioneers DRE, when I completed one of these I gave people the opportunity of choosing to have it set to off, or low. The mix of people who wanted it on was 50-50

To sum up, it’s clever, but it’s not for everyone. It’s like Marmite, you either love it or hate it. 

AVI has it right, so does David McKenzie.

Would I recommend it, some will like it so YES, would I have one, NO. 

My advice, tries one, and if you don’t like it send it back under distance selling


----------



## mechman

Would you happen to be AVI over there? :scratch:


----------



## tele1962

mechman said:


> Would you happen to be AVI over there? :scratch:


Sorry Mechman sadly i am not, the likes of yourself , AVI, David, Bumtious are in a different league to me.:gulp:


----------



## Jungle Jack

If that post from AV Forums was reposted at AVS, it would be a light fuse, get away moment.


----------



## tele1962

Jungle Jack said:


> If that post from AV Forums was reposted at AVS, it would be a light fuse, get away moment.


Sa

Unfortunatly i can not as i have been banned from posting what seems to be the truth. But i am sure there will be lots of true experts willing to post as soon as they have seen it as we must stick to the facts.


----------



## Jungle Jack

tele1962 said:


> Sa
> 
> Unfortunatly i can not as i have been banned from posting what seems to be the truth. But i am sure there will be lots of true experts willing to post as soon as they have seen it as we must stick to the facts.


What was the reason the admins gave for your banishment? It does not read below your Avatar that you have been banned at AVS last I looked.


----------



## tele1962

Jungle Jack said:


> What was the reason the admins gave for your banishment? It does not read below your Avatar that you have been banned at AVS last I looked.


Simply that i would not be allowed to post in that thread until the HDTVTest review has been done as they think i am adding nothing to the thread in question.


----------



## GoNoles

They tend to ban from a single thread at AVS, often. 

I've stopped reading that thread and moved on. The few of us that actually used it have said just about the same thing, no need for me to waste my time. On to my subwoofer.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Tele,
In a sense, you are better served by not trying to defend your position when the groupthink is so decidedly the other direction. Obviously, this should be a decision not forced upon you. After Leonard's posts went unanswered, I too stopped bothering to read the thread. Moreover, I had not even bothered to look at this tread until you linked to it. That is certainly the thread to go to if you wish to get the maximum amount of positive reinforcement should you be considering purchasing a DVP or having already purchased one.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tele1962

Jungle Jack said:


> Tele,
> In a sense, you are better served by not trying to defend your position when the groupthink is so decidedly the other direction. Obviously, this should be a decision not forced upon you. After Leonard's posts went unanswered, I too stopped bothering to read the thread. Moreover, I had not even bothered to look at this tread until you linked to it. That is certainly the thread to go to if you wish to get the maximum amount of positive reinforcement should you be considering purchasing a DVP or having already purchased one.
> Cheers,
> JJ


I am with you on that.:T


----------



## dmiller

I am a new member and must say this forum is as negative as the other is positive. Like most things the truth most likely lies somewhere in between. 

Apparently I am one of the few that have this unit here. I am using it on a calibrated Pioneer Elite Pro151 and do like the effect on Direct tv content. At HD50% it it gives the appearance of more depth to the image to me. I have not tried it on my Oppo yet.

I do not find the effect to be dramatic on my display. It may be more pronounced on larger displays or projectors.


----------



## David Mackenzie

> I am a new member and must say this forum is as negative as the other is positive. Like most things the truth most likely lies somewhere in between.


It's not really about the "truth". Anyone who understands the concept of fidelity (which has been discussed earlier) will know that there's really no need for a debate.


----------



## dmiller

David Mackenzie said:


> It's not really about the "truth". Anyone who understands the concept of fidelity (which has been discussed earlier) will know that there's really no need for a debate.


My reference to truth did not refer to the fidelity discussion. If you read there the Darblet is the next great thing in Home Theater. Here it is worthless. In reality (Truth) it is probably neither. 

I respect your stance on fidelity. It is your profession afterall. I am not qualified to enter the fidelity discussion. I only find its effect to be positive for my 69 year old eyes. They no longer discern the nuances anyway so fidelity is not a real issue for me.


I would love to see you guys evaluate it at the next shootout at Value Electronics. The combination of industry experts and interested observers should provide for interesting opinions.


----------



## Jungle Jack

dmiller said:


> I am a new member and must say this forum is as negative as the other is positive. Like most things the truth most likely lies somewhere in between.
> 
> Apparently I am one of the few that have this unit here. I am using it on a calibrated Pioneer Elite Pro151 and do like the effect on Direct tv content. At HD50% it it gives the appearance of more depth to the image to me. I have not tried it on my Oppo yet.
> 
> I do not find the effect to be dramatic on my display. It may be more pronounced on larger displays or projectors.


Don,
Welcome to HTS. This thread is an aberration in respect to the general tone of 99.9999% of threads here. In addition, a member of Staff used his own money to purchase a Darblet and found applications where he enjoyed it. Better still, another member of staff is about to receive the Darblet to further expand our knowledge base about the Darblet.

I regret that you perceive this thread as negative. To me however it has been the discussion of ideas. Both positive and perhaps negative about what the DVP does, Better still, there have been contributions on this subject from some very well qualified Members.

I hope you spend some time checking out some other threads and other Subforums. The DVP is just one of those products that there has been seemingly hyperbolic levels of praise. As a result, to even be somewhat neutral can be perceived as being negative.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## dmiller

Thanks Jack

I do not understand why the polarization on this product. I do understand the experts stances on fidelity. I would expect nothing less from someone who is actively in a related profession. However the experts have also said it may have its place for some people in certain circumstances. I think it will take some time and proper evaluation before we know its place.

I have been a member of several hometheater and satellite forums for a number of years. However I rarely post anywhere anymore. There are too many out there ready to pounce and argue over every little thing. 

I am heartened by seeing several people who disappeared elsewhere are partipating here. I intend to spend more time looking over this forum.


----------



## lcaillo

This thread is about the Darblet processor. We need to focus on that product and not continue the discussions about what is going on at other forums. Please limit the discussion to the product. Observations, opinions, analysis of the relationship of the processing to perception, and discussing it in the context of industry standards and consumer preferences are all fine. Discussions about what is going on at other forums has distracted from the topic. Any further posts that are off topic will be removed. 

As for whether the thread is positive or not with respect to the product, this is irrelevant. The tenor of the discussion will, however, need to become consistent with what we have all come to expect from HTS. Debate and discussion about a product do not have to lead to agreement, nor to consensus, nor do the views of posters need to be popular. We will respect the views of others and post in a spirit of cooperation and sharing to expand the knowledge of all involved.

For the record, HTS would welcome someone from the manufacturer, Larry or others, participating to explain the product, the science behind it, and answer the questions of our members.


----------



## GoNoles

The couple of guys here that have used it have not deemed it "useless". I for one felt it did a great job on some programs, especially when I was watching Aliens on Cinemax. BUT, on programs that were not so great of feeds, it made things worse (I have a 65" GT30 and Directv). For me, I was not willing to turn it on and off as needed, but for someone that is, it could serve them well. I also understand the why and how projector guys are really liking it.


----------



## lcaillo

dmiller said:


> Thanks Jack
> 
> I do not understand why the polarization on this product. I do understand the experts stances on fidelity. I would expect nothing less from someone who is actively in a related profession. However the experts have also said it may have its place for some people in certain circumstances. I think it will take some time and proper evaluation before we know its place.
> 
> I have been a member of several hometheater and satellite forums for a number of years. However I rarely post anywhere anymore. There are too many out there ready to pounce and argue over every little thing.
> 
> I am heartened by seeing several people who disappeared elsewhere are partipating here. I intend to spend more time looking over this forum.


Even the greatest proponents of video standards and image fidelity here have not suggested that others should not buy and use the product. What has been stated is that the processing renders the image different than the source by design and that the descriptions of the manufacturer seem to be inconsistent with their own statements. For some that is itself enough to reduce interest. Others have been more interested in determining when it might have desirable effects and when it might not. No one has said that it is wrong to use it, to like it, or to want to buy it. Even Allen said "Consumers have every right to want more "pop" with their viewing experience, if they prefer." 

It is perfectly OK to want a processor that makes images look more like one prefers. It is not OK to call that fidelity nor fair to assume that those changes will always be desirable. Clearly, the processing has limits. If it was always good, everyone would be running it full tilt. Virtually no one, even the biggest fans are suggesting that.

The post from Bumptious on AVForums is a good articulation of the effect. It takes certain luminance difference information in middle ranges in small picture elements and expands the range of contrast local to that element. That accomplishes the same thing that increasing contrast overall does to make one think that the image looks "sharper" without changing overall contrast. This can be a good thing in some video. It does NOT do the same thing as raising contrast or lowering brightness settings overall. It only affects the middle ranges, thus not affecting calibration settings for peak white and black level. It can take background detail and make it more striking, crisper, and more snappy looking. Again, that can be good or it can do the opposite of what a cinematographer does with depth of field.

Discussing the limits of a technology certainly may sound negative to its uncritical fans....


----------



## Ken Ross

dmiller said:


> I am a new member and must say this forum is as negative as the other is positive.


That was exactly what I was thinking. I proposed some questions earlier in which I attempted to find what members here thought about what was and wasn't 'artist's intent', but nobody seemed to want to address it.

At any rate, the bottom line is if the device works for you, then it's right. Don't worry about what others think.


----------



## lcaillo

The point is that one can never know what an artist's intent might have been unless the material is displayed in the same way that the artist would have judged it. The best we can do to get there is to adhere to industry standards as best we can.

I can tell you for certain that a film artist's intent is rarely to display detail more prominently in areas that are clearly less well focused. Whether that is what you want to watch or not is preference. Seeing it without alteration is fidelity. Whether you like fidelity or not is perfectly fine. It is perfectly OK to want to make things more "real," but the idea of creating "better fidelity" is a contradiction. 

The point here is not to be positive or negative, but to better inform and to share and learn.


----------



## Alan Brown

dmiller said:


> My reference to truth did not refer to the fidelity discussion. If you read there the Darblet is the next great thing in Home Theater. *Here it is worthless.* In reality (Truth) it is probably neither.
> 
> I respect your stance on fidelity. It is your profession afterall. I am not qualified to enter the fidelity discussion. I only find its effect to be positive for my 69 year old eyes. They no longer discern the nuances anyway so fidelity is not a real issue for me.
> 
> 
> I would love to see you guys evaluate it at the next shootout at Value Electronics. The combination of industry experts and interested observers should provide for interesting opinions.


Please exercise more discipline when making your points. I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude from even a casual review of this discussion here that anyone considers it "worthless." The device very likely can fill a variety of roles in people's systems. The fidelity issue is simple a choice of what governs the design decisions in choosing equipment for a video reproduction system. Most consumer video hobbyists and even some professionals don't consider image fidelity to be their dominant priority. They find other imaging characteristics more personally appealing. 

My objections to the theory stated by the manufacturer does not imply it cannot have utility or value in any system at all, just not mine. I find certain statements made by the manufacturer to be contrary to my understanding of imaging science and the program production side of the motion imaging industry at large. It is also troubling to me that their representative on this and the other forum has avoided answering certain tough questions.

I value no one's opinion in analyzing what the device does to a video image other than content creators. If the artists who approve video transfers or masters recommend that their audiences use this kind of processing while viewing their work, I'll honor that set of opinions. They are the only authorities or "experts" I consider of importance in the context of image fidelity. It's not about the gear, it's about the art. If the "look" of the art is altered from what the artist deems a correct representation of their work, I wouldn't consider the process to be an enhancement, only a distortion. 

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## Alan Brown

Ken Ross said:


> So I have a question for the group. If we have two displays, both having been ISF'd, but one having a dynamic range significantly superior to the other, is one correct per standards (or artist's intent) and the other not?
> 
> As a result of its greater dynamic range, one of those displays is capable of achieving a significantly brighter white without clipping. Is it thus more or less conforming to standards than the other display...or are they both 'on target'?
> 
> How about motion enhancements? What happens when we have two similarly ISF'd displays, but one has 'film mode' engaged and the other not. Is one in conformance and the other not?
> 
> Where I'm going with this (and perhaps my examples were poor ones), I can envision image parameters that are not addressed in our standards, but are available in our display's toolbox. If we begin tinkering with a picture parameter not spec'd out by a current standard on a display that has been correctly ISF'd, does it no longer conform?
> 
> More importantly, to go back to my example of dynamic range, what about artist's intent? Does the display with the greater dynamic range no longer correctly depict the artist's intent or does it do it better? Is there even a particular dynamic range that was envisioned by the artist or is this a moving target that, in reality, is more a function of the engineering of the display itself?
> 
> Certainly when we go to the movie theater we're no longer seeing true black given all the ambient theater lighting (exit lights, aisle lights etc.). So I would guess that no theater presentation meets the criteria of 'artist's intent' since I doubt the artist had poor black levels in mind for a cinema presentation. Yes I know that some theaters do a better job with this than others, but I've yet to see a theater that can match black levels at home on a good display given safety standards that any theater must meet
> 
> OK, I'm probably rambling at this point, but I'm trying to understand the image parameters that are not addressed by current standards and thus become the viewer's choice on a perfectly calibrated display. Certainly there must be some image parameters that were not thought of when these standards came about and yet we now have control over at home. Or am I wrong? What can be tinkered with and still meet the 'artist's intent'? Do we even know what the artist's intent was for these 'new' parameters? Does the artist? Was the dreaded SOE (soap opera effect) discussed when standards were drawn up?
> 
> Anyway, I think you get my point. Maybe I'm crazy (don't answer that) or maybe I don't have a full understanding of all that goes in to our standards.


I like all these questions you have posed. They show you are thinking in greater depth and are serious about understanding video reproduction better. I have not responded to your post until now because it will require a considerable amount of time to address. How some of us answer forum posts takes a lot more time in thought than is reflected by how long it takes to read what is written. I want to be honest, informative, and precise in deconstructing the issues you have raised. However, I'll have to do it later. Others may respond as well.


----------



## dsskid

Ken Ross said:


> So I have a question for the group. If we have two displays, both having been ISF'd, but one having a dynamic range significantly superior to the other, is one correct per standards (or artist's intent) and the other not?
> 
> As a result of its greater dynamic range, one of those displays is capable of achieving a significantly brighter white without clipping. Is it thus more or less conforming to standards than the other display...or are they both 'on target'?
> 
> How about motion enhancements? What happens when we have two similarly ISF'd displays, but one has 'film mode' engaged and the other not. Is one in conformance and the other not?
> 
> Where I'm going with this (and perhaps my examples were poor ones), I can envision image parameters that are not addressed in our standards, but are available in our display's toolbox. If we begin tinkering with a picture parameter not spec'd out by a current standard on a display that has been correctly ISF'd, does it no longer conform?
> 
> More importantly, to go back to my example of dynamic range, what about artist's intent? Does the display with the greater dynamic range no longer correctly depict the artist's intent or does it do it better? Is there even a particular dynamic range that was envisioned by the artist or is this a moving target that, in reality, is more a function of the engineering of the display itself?
> 
> Certainly when we go to the movie theater we're no longer seeing true black given all the ambient theater lighting (exit lights, aisle lights etc.). So I would guess that no theater presentation meets the criteria of 'artist's intent' since I doubt the artist had poor black levels in mind for a cinema presentation. Yes I know that some theaters do a better job with this than others, but I've yet to see a theater that can match black levels at home on a good display given safety standards that any theater must meet
> 
> OK, I'm probably rambling at this point, but I'm trying to understand the image parameters that are not addressed by current standards and thus become the viewer's choice on a perfectly calibrated display. Certainly there must be some image parameters that were not thought of when these standards came about and yet we now have control over at home. Or am I wrong? What can be tinkered with and still meet the 'artist's intent'? Do we even know what the artist's intent was for these 'new' parameters? Does the artist? Was the dreaded SOE (soap opera effect) discussed when standards were drawn up?
> 
> Anyway, I think you get my point. Maybe I'm crazy (don't answer that) or maybe I don't have a full understanding of all that goes in to our standards.





Alan Brown said:


> I like all these questions you have posed. They show you are thinking in greater depth and are serious about understanding video reproduction better. I have not responded to your post until now because it will require a considerable amount of time to address. How some of us answer forum posts takes a lot more time in thought than is reflected by how long it takes to read what is written. I want to be honest, informative, and precise in deconstructing the issues you have raised. However, I'll have to do it later. Others may respond as well.


You may find this an interesting read....
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3320.pdf


----------



## tele1962

dsskid said:


> You may find this an interesting read....
> http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3320.pdf


Thanks for that, i think it David Mackenzie also posted from this white paper especialy the Sharpness control and " No Other Enhancements " extract.


----------



## dsskid

tele1962 said:


> Thanks for that, i think it David Mackenzie also posted from this white paper especialy the Sharpness control and " No Other Enhancements " extract.


Dave is a wealth of information.

The paper also goes mentions black level, luminance, gamma and contrast ratio. Just wanted to offer some information that I came across that might help Ken with some of his questions regarding conformance.


----------



## tele1962

dsskid said:


> Dave is a wealth of information.
> 
> The paper also goes mentions black level, luminance, gamma and contrast ratio. Just wanted to offer some information that I came across that might help Ken with some of his questions regarding conformance.


PS
Love the sig.:T


----------



## tele1962

Hope this is OK:

AVI if your looking in can you PM me please.


----------



## Ken Ross

dsskid said:


> You may find this an interesting read....
> http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3320.pdf


Thanks for that! But I still am left with questions. First, these are standards developed by EBU and I'm not sure about their applicability in the U.S. Any clarification on that point?

Second, although the different 'grades' of monitors are spelled out as it relates to luminance ranges, I somehow get the impression that the lower luminance ranges of Class 1 monitors are really there because of the controlled lighting environment that they're generally located in. Looking at the 'consumer' level 3 monitor, seems to spell out that point as they 'allow' for 400 cd/m2 in 'adverse' lighting conditions.

So this still leaves me to question whether or not the better 'consumer' displays of today, that are capable of much greater dynamic ranges than prior technologies, are still meeting the 'director's intent' or are they deviating from same? It's interesting to see that they Grade 1 displays are spec'd out at higher CRs than lower grades. I still have never seen anything spelled out as to what constitutes the director's intent for dynamic range. 

I know that to me, the greater dynamic range of the better displays presents a more 'believable' image (let's forget about movies for the moment) as witness the presentation of bright outdoor scenes. A brightly lit sky is more 'believable' to me in a display that's capable of showing both the highlights (without clipping whites) and very low black levels. Of course no display can match what our eyes see in the real world, but it does seem to me that a display with a greater dynamic range comes closer to that reality.

Now whether that greater dynamic range benefits a movie presentation is probably another question. I think I would again prefer the greater dynamic range for the very same reason I'd prefer it for a live sporting event. However whether or not that 'violates' the director's intent is totally unknown to me.

It's far easier for me to wrap my head around Rec709 and deviations from that than it is to the issue of dynamic range.

Now section 5.9 pertaining to motion artifacts was a bit clearer to me. I think motion 'enhancements', provided by many of today's displays that result in the SOE, at least as specified by EBU, would be frowned upon...and for good reason IMO. But again, is there any such standard generated by a U.S. standards committee?

So again, thanks for that, but it still leaves with me some questions.


----------



## dsskid

Ken Ross said:


> Thanks for that! But I still am left with questions. First, these are standards developed by EBU and I'm not sure about their applicability in the U.S. Any clarification on that point?
> 
> Second, although the different 'grades' of monitors are spelled out as it relates to luminance ranges, I somehow get the impression that the lower luminance ranges of Class 1 monitors are really there because of the controlled lighting environment that they're generally located in. Looking at the 'consumer' level 3 monitor, seems to spell out that point as they 'allow' for 400 cd/m2 in 'adverse' lighting conditions.
> 
> So this still leaves me to question whether or not the better 'consumer' displays of today, that are capable of much greater dynamic ranges than prior technologies, are still meeting the 'director's intent' or are they deviating from same? It's interesting to see that they Grade 1 displays are spec'd out at higher CRs than lower grades. I still have never seen anything spelled out as to what constitutes the director's intent for dynamic range.
> 
> I know that to me, the greater dynamic range of the better displays presents a more 'believable' image (let's forget about movies for the moment) as witness the presentation of bright outdoor scenes. A brightly lit sky is more 'believable' to me in a display that's capable of showing both the highlights (without clipping whites) and very low black levels. Of course no display can match what our eyes see in the real world, but it does seem to me that a display with a greater dynamic range comes closer to that reality.
> 
> Now whether that greater dynamic range benefits a movie presentation is probably another question. I think I would again prefer the greater dynamic range for the very same reason I'd prefer it for a live sporting event. However whether or not that 'violates' the director's intent is totally unknown to me.
> 
> It's far easier for me to wrap my head around Rec709 and deviations from that than it is to the issue of dynamic range.
> 
> Now section 5.9 pertaining to motion artifacts was a bit clearer to me. I think motion 'enhancements', provided by many of today's displays that result in the SOE, at least as specified by EBU, would be frowned upon...and for good reason IMO. But again, is there any such standard generated by a U.S. standards committee?
> 
> So again, thanks for that, but it still leaves with me some questions.


To achieve the director's intent, you must set up your environment and display to match as closely to the that of the screening room.

Director's intent and reality are not always one in the same. 

Ken, I don't pretend to have answers to all your questions, which is why I presented the attachment in one of my previous emails. In my brief search, that is what I found. You are welcome to google further.


----------



## tele1962

The AVForums review is here:

http://www.avforums.com/reviews/Dar...deo-Enhancement-Device-Review_352/Review.html


----------



## dsskid

tele1962 said:


> The AVForums review is here:
> 
> http://www.avforums.com/reviews/Dar...deo-Enhancement-Device-Review_352/Review.html


Thanks for the link tele.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
I thought DarbeeVision did not and would not provide units for review? This has been brought up several times by them not willing to do this. Especially for Home Theater Websites.
From the AV Forums Review:
"The unit supplied to us for review also came with a UK 3 pin power lead in a separate box. The Tweener – surely they could come up with a better name than that? - is basically a transparent, bluey-grey enclosure with a single HDMI 1.4a compliant input and output. There’s also a jack for the 5V DV power lead and a terminal for the optional Infra-Red extender but, essentially, it’s a one in/one out device so if you’re not possessed of an AV Receiver, Video Processor or HDMI switching unit, you’ll be chopping and changing HDMI leads a fair amount, if you have as many sources as we do."

Perhaps they were willing to do so because it is for the European Market? All the same, I am somewhat surprised they provided one.
Cheers,
Jack


----------



## avi

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> I thought DarbeeVision did not and would not provide units for review? This has been brought up several times by them not willing to do this. Especially for Home Theater Websites.
> From the AV Forums Review:
> "The unit supplied to us for review also came with a UK 3 pin power lead in a separate box. The Tweener – surely they could come up with a better name than that? - is basically a transparent, bluey-grey enclosure with a single HDMI 1.4a compliant input and output. There’s also a jack for the 5V DV power lead and a terminal for the optional Infra-Red extender but, essentially, it’s a one in/one out device so if you’re not possessed of an AV Receiver, Video Processor or HDMI switching unit, you’ll be chopping and changing HDMI leads a fair amount, if you have as many sources as we do."
> 
> Perhaps they were willing to do so because it is for the European Market? All the same, I am somewhat surprised they provided one.
> Cheers,
> Jack



I suspect the unit was provided by a UK reseller that is likely an assured advertiser on AVF.

I was also offered a unit to assess by a UK reseller.


----------



## mechman

tele1962 said:


> Hope this is OK:
> 
> AVI if your looking in can you PM me please.


Keep in mind that pms will not work until avi has 5 posts.


----------



## tele1962

mechman said:


> Keep in mind that pms will not work until avi has 5 posts.


Thanks Mechman.....i didn't know.:doh:


----------



## Jungle Jack

avi said:


> I suspect the unit was provided by a UK reseller that is likely an assured advertiser on AVF.
> 
> I was also offered a unit to assess by a UK reseller.


Hello,
That makes a great deal more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
All the best,
Jack


----------



## blb1215

I have the Darbee in my setup and am pleased with the results so far. I have always considered myself if not a videophile I certainly do care about PQ and appreciate a calibrated image. I also have always been more of a traditionalist in regards to what I see as maintaining the director's intent. I prefer to watch movies in the original aspect ratio, I don't like colorized black and white movies, and I want my display to have accurate color.

If to accurately display the image as the director intended based on what I am reading you would need to replicate what the image looks like in the screening room. This would be based on the CR of the projector in the screening room, image size, lighting, seating distance, ect. How possible can this not vary at least to some extent when view in any other situation such as a movie theater, home theater, or your living room. Every different display technology will vary somewhat. 

I can see the augument to maintain the "director's intent" as much as possible and not introduce something intentionlly that changes that. If you wish to optimize your viewing experience to the end goal of maintaining the "director's intent" then this device is most likely not for you.

My viewing includes various tv shows, sports, movies both on fios and bluray. The beauty of this device IMO is to set the level of effect or off completely. There are times when the effect is desired and appreciated and you can dial in the amount of Darbee you want. It is especially great with football IMO and I don't thing the director would be offended.:sn:

Thanks,
Barry


----------



## dmiller

Interesting that you mentioned football. I see the best effect on sports in particular and video in general. The effect on film seems less and more variable. My opinion is it seems to work best on clean material. It actual worsens some poor material.


----------



## blb1215

I agree altough animated films can look spectacular.

barry


----------



## Jungle Jack

blb1215 said:


> I have the Darbee in my setup and am pleased with the results so far. I have always considered myself if not a videophile I certainly do care about PQ and appreciate a calibrated image. I also have always been more of a traditionalist in regards to what I see as maintaining the director's intent. I prefer to watch movies in the original aspect ratio, I don't like colorized black and white movies, and I want my display to have accurate color.
> 
> If to accurately display the image as the director intended based on what I am reading you would need to replicate what the image looks like in the screening room. This would be based on the CR of the projector in the screening room, image size, lighting, seating distance, ect. How possible can this not vary at least to some extent when view in any other situation such as a movie theater, home theater, or your living room. Every different display technology will vary somewhat.
> 
> I can see the augument to maintain the "director's intent" as much as possible and not introduce something intentionlly that changes that. If you wish to optimize your viewing experience to the end goal of maintaining the "director's intent" then this device is most likely not for you.
> 
> My viewing includes various tv shows, sports, movies both on fios and bluray. The beauty of this device IMO is to set the level of effect or off completely. There are times when the effect is desired and appreciated and you can dial in the amount of Darbee you want. It is especially great with football IMO and I don't thing the director would be offended.:sn:
> 
> Thanks,
> Barry


Barry,
I am so glad that the Darblet has at least met your expectations and sounds more like has exceeded your expectations. Indeed, this is most certainly the type of processing where you can try it on a given source, adjust the levels and see if it provides a more pleasing picture and if not simply turn it off.

What was important to me in regards to the Darblet was to gain an understanding of what the DVP actually does and then to reconcile it with the claims made by the manufacturer. This reconciliation is a personal one and we certainly have not judged those who have decided to purchase a DVP and to speak positively of its effects. While I remain mystified that the HTS Darbee Thread has been deemed negative in some quarters, I hope upon further examination that this is not the case.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## PE06MCG

I do not have a Darbee in fact I do not have a 3D display however I do calibrate in my amateur fashion using a good meter and proprietery software together with an external VP.

I am however interested in all 'effects'.

I just wonder how much compromise went into the production of original films that we now have as BD's?
Surely there were areas that the film producers / directors wished they could reproduce but were restricted by technology of the day?
Here I show my lack of technical knowledge but first of all 3D to 2D must have its problems as one example.

Is it possible some effects, including Darbee, could be a help to achieving more reality?

Recent Displays are majoring on 3D or even simulated 3D from original 2D material. Is the technology capable of this or is it distorting the original?

Is any Display not perfectly calibrated to be put in the 'distortion' category? 
Seemingly, hardware manufacturers can deliver to us equipment 'out of the box' that is unlikely to be accurately calibrated so is most new hardware a 'distortion'?

I suppose what I am asking is whether the process of reality to personal viewing is already flawed by compromise, technical difficulties, technical guesses, and hardware manufacturers indifference?. 
In other words is the thing that we call correct on our Displays the best we can do with todays equipment but really just an approximation of the original reality despite all our attempts to improve it?.


----------



## Ken Ross

Some of your points are not unlike some of those that I made. 

Here's an interesting thought. As display technology improves and brings us superior dynamic ranges, what if we determine that this greater dynamic range moves us further away from the 'artist's intent'? 

Since the bulk of technological improvement in consumer displays is precisely in this area, dynamic range (better black levels while still maintaining great shadow detail and the ability to display brighter whites without clipping), then what's the incentive to improve displays as it relates to 'artist's intent'. 

If we say, given our current standards, that today's displays come as close to matching what the artist had in mind as is practical, then aren't we done? Sure, tweaks can be made in color fidelity so that the display matches Rec709 at all points and at all luminance levels, which most do not (all?), but is that it?

If that's true, I find that pretty depressing. As someone that's always looking for improvements (and I actually believe improved dynamic range is such an improvement), it would seem sad that there's no reason for manufacturers to step up the bar. I personally think that tweaks to color rendering generally go largely unnoticed since these tweaks are generally only seen when a 'reference display' is sitting alongside. 

So it brings us back to the original question, what is the artist's intent as defined by ALL the picture parameters that define what our eyes see, including the very important (at least IMO) parameter of dynamic range.


----------



## PE06MCG

Good points Ken, sorry if I was repeating some of your posts in mine.


----------



## dmiller

Jungle Jack said:


> While I remain mystified that the HTS Darbee Thread has been deemed negative in some quarters, I hope upon further examination that this is not the case.
> Cheers,
> JJ


I have reread the thread and will say the thread is not negative to be fair only the posts of a few that seemed to dominate for a while. I also made a poor choice of a word in one post. Sorry Alan. Since then the thread has become interesting with a good review posted and a few good questions for the experts. I hope they see fit to reply.

I joined here because it has become difficult to learn elsewhere. I do not consider myself an expert. However I was a beta tester on 4 models for a video processor manufacturer. This started out more on the audio side but over time I gained more knowledge on the video side. At the start of this experience I started having my displays calibrated by a couple of Alans compatriots.

The net effect is I have always left all extra processing off in my system. This is partially due to me not seeing the effects that well but also because it made little sense to calibrate the display then to go away from spec by adding additional processing. That is why I bought the Darblet. Its effects are visible and actually good in some cases. I leave it on in the HD mode at 50% most of the time. It seems to be a good compromise for me.

Sorry if I rambled


----------



## Ken Ross

PE06MCG said:


> Good points Ken, sorry if I was repeating some of your posts in mine.


Not at all PE06MCG, I just think it's good food for thought.


----------



## lcaillo

I think the artist intent arguments quickly become non sequitors when one assumes that we can know define it completely and that reproducing it is all that standards are about. I believe that the point is that a reference level display (and environment) is desirable as a starting point. If I have a display that I know reproduces color without adding or changing what is in the source signal, when I watch some material that has an intentional departure from reality in the color, I know what was intended. I can then make a decision regarding whether I want to watch it that way. I probably will, but maybe not. Not all art is beauty, some is garbage. But at least I know and I can decide for myself with that knowledge. I also have a starting point to judge from and to return to.

Now some things are pretty well understood about the arts of film making and cinematography. In the case of the darblet, it clearly emphasizes information that would be in areas that are often intentionally less well defined as part of the art. It might look good, you or I might like it, but it is clearly a departure from the content of the source. For me, for film, I would never start with it on. I might decide to watch with it, and might not. My choice. But I also want a reference to KNOW what is most likely intended by the artist. To do so I have to calibrate my display and room as best possible to standards AND not have any processing in the system that is altering the source. It is the same as the concept of transparency in an audio system.

Reference is desirable, preference is unavoidable. Recognizing the value of a reference system and recognizing that everyone has their biases and those are just as valid as references for any individual is to be repectful and realistic. Recognizing that references serve a useful purpose and our own preferences may have no value to others is a good start toward civil discourse and sharing knowledge. There seems to be a tendency in the discussion of this product to assume that ones preferences are universally useful, i.e. if I like the effect, then anyone arguing otherwise is wrong.

The only preference that might be valid and useful for everyone, in my opinion, is that for having a reference system. That does not mean that everyone should watch it set to reference levels. But if everyone did have one, we would know that they had the ability to get correct color, etc. There is no other starting point that is valid and useful, IMO. Starting with the assumption that any particular processing that alters the signal is good and that it can be used all the time to benefit the image is faulty reasoning in my view. When a product does something to alter the original signal that is not part of the imaging standards, the only possible argument for it being good is that I think it is good, personally. References, however, are agreed upon and have a basis in the application of the technology that many people have weighed in on and agreed upon as useful. They can be still turn out to be dumb decisions, but they are a starting point.

Good/bad arguments about this device are simply pointless. Like/dislike is the real question, and to me, not sufficient, nor satisfying. Better understanding of the effect and how it makes various types of programming look is what is useful and meaningful to me. If the unit makes it back to my system, I will leave it off and would like to understand how to recognize material that would most benefit from it (and how) so I don't end up tweaking it so much when I decide to use it. It will be my preference to start with my system as close to reference as I can get it, however.


----------



## blb1215

lcaillo said:


> I think the artist intent arguments quickly become non sequitors when one assumes that we can know define it completely and that reproducing it is all that standards are about. I believe that the point is that a reference level display (and environment) is desirable as a starting point. If I have a display that I know reproduces color without adding or changing what is in the source signal, when I watch some material that has an intentional departure from reality in the color, I know what was intended. I can then make a decision regarding whether I want to watch it that way. I probably will, but maybe not. Not all art is beauty, some is garbage. But at least I know and I can decide for myself with that knowledge. I also have a starting point to judge from and to return to.
> 
> Now some things are pretty well understood about the arts of film making and cinematography. In the case of the darblet, it clearly emphasizes information that would be in areas that are often intentionally less well defined as part of the art. It might look good, you or I might like it, but it is clearly a departure from the content of the source. For me, for film, I would never start with it on. I might decide to watch with it, and might not. My choice. But I also want a reference to KNOW what is most likely intended by the artist. To do so I have to calibrate my display and room as best possible to standards AND not have any processing in the system that is altering the source. It is the same as the concept of transparency in an audio system.
> 
> Reference is desirable, preference is unavoidable. Recognizing the value of a reference system and recognizing that everyone has their biases and those are just as valid as references for any individual is to be repectful and realistic. Recognizing that references serve a useful purpose and our own preferences may have no value to others is a good start toward civil discourse and sharing knowledge. There seems to be a tendency in the discussion of this product to assume that ones preferences are universally useful, i.e. if I like the effect, then anyone arguing otherwise is wrong.
> 
> The only preference that might be valid and useful for everyone, in my opinion, is that for having a reference system. That does not mean that everyone should watch it set to reference levels. But if everyone did have one, we would know that they had the ability to get correct color, etc. There is no other starting point that is valid and useful, IMO. Starting with the assumption that any particular processing that alters the signal is good and that it can be used all the time to benefit the image is faulty reasoning in my view. When a product does something to alter the original signal that is not part of the imaging standards, the only possible argument for it being good is that I think it is good, personally. References, however, are agreed upon and have a basis in the application of the technology that many people have weighed in on and agreed upon as useful. They can be still turn out to be dumb decisions, but they are a starting point.
> 
> Good/bad arguments about this device are simply pointless. Like/dislike is the real question, and to me, not sufficient, nor satisfying. Better understanding of the effect and how it makes various types of programming look is what is useful and meaningful to me. If the unit makes it back to my system, I will leave it off and would like to understand how to recognize material that would most benefit from it (and how) so I don't end up tweaking it so much when I decide to use it. It will be my preference to start with my system as close to reference as I can get it, however.


What is your opinion using this device on content other than films? How about sports? 

Thanks,
Barry


----------



## lcaillo

blb1215 said:


> What is your opinion using this device on content other than films? How about sports?
> 
> Thanks,
> Barry


I find it distracting on areas where motion hits the limits of the compression codecs. The artifacts get enhanced. For things that are not at that limit I like it. For instance, watching tennis, the "pop" is good on the lines as it makes it easier to see them on close shots. On the track competition for the Olympics I found it a distraction. For instance the runners legs crossing the stuff around the track created some rather odd artifacts as the camera followed them. Those artifacts were annoying without the processor and worse with it. Panning crowds waving flags and stuff also gets annoying, and also is made worse with the processing. I liked it for fencing but did not like it for swimming where it made reflections off the water and splashes too much exaggerated. Football may be good with it to better see the lines and numbers on players on long lens shots.


----------



## blb1215

lcaillo said:


> I find it distracting on areas where motion hits the limits of the compression codecs. The artifacts get enhanced. For things that are not at that limit I like it. For instance, watching tennis, the "pop" is good on the lines as it makes it easier to see them on close shots. On the track competition for the Olympics I found it a distraction. For instance the runners legs crossing the stuff around the track created some rather odd artifacts as the camera followed them. Those artifacts were annoying without the processor and worse with it. Panning crowds waving flags and stuff also gets annoying, and also is made worse with the processing. I liked it for fencing but did not like it for swimming where it made reflections off the water and splashes too much exaggerated. Football may be good with it to better see the lines and numbers on players on long lens shots.


I also notice during the Olympics the artifacts were enhanced and I did toggle a few times between different settings and off to see which I preferred. I settled for around HD 35% as I found the enhanced PQ outweighted the distractions for me.

I think that is the great design of the device, you can dial in the amount of "effect" you want or are one button press away from setting to off when the effect is not desired. I am still experimenting to see which settings to use depending on various material.

Thanks,
Barry


----------



## dmiller

While I can leave the Darblet on at reduced levels, it appears those with trained eyes would have to pick and choose. I can then see why they would be less excited. While I do "play" at times, I am not a tweeker and would probably remove the Darblet if I saw all the nuances.

Its amazing how quickly we visually adjust. To me NCIS always appears soft and almost out of focus however within 30 seconds I accept it and go on to enjoy the show.


----------



## dsskid

lcaillo said:


> I think the artist intent arguments quickly become non sequitors when one assumes that we can know define it completely and that reproducing it is all that standards are about. I believe that the point is that a reference level display (and environment) is desirable as a starting point. If I have a display that I know reproduces color without adding or changing what is in the source signal, when I watch some material that has an intentional departure from reality in the color, I know what was intended. I can then make a decision regarding whether I want to watch it that way. I probably will, but maybe not. Not all art is beauty, some is garbage. But at least I know and I can decide for myself with that knowledge. I also have a starting point to judge from and to return to.
> 
> Now some things are pretty well understood about the arts of film making and cinematography. In the case of the darblet, it clearly emphasizes information that would be in areas that are often intentionally less well defined as part of the art. It might look good, you or I might like it, but it is clearly a departure from the content of the source. For me, for film, I would never start with it on. I might decide to watch with it, and might not. My choice. But I also want a reference to KNOW what is most likely intended by the artist. To do so I have to calibrate my display and room as best possible to standards AND not have any processing in the system that is altering the source. It is the same as the concept of transparency in an audio system.
> 
> Reference is desirable, preference is unavoidable. Recognizing the value of a reference system and recognizing that everyone has their biases and those are just as valid as references for any individual is to be repectful and realistic. Recognizing that references serve a useful purpose and our own preferences may have no value to others is a good start toward civil discourse and sharing knowledge. There seems to be a tendency in the discussion of this product to assume that ones preferences are universally useful, i.e. if I like the effect, then anyone arguing otherwise is wrong.
> 
> The only preference that might be valid and useful for everyone, in my opinion, is that for having a reference system. That does not mean that everyone should watch it set to reference levels. But if everyone did have one, we would know that they had the ability to get correct color, etc. There is no other starting point that is valid and useful, IMO. Starting with the assumption that any particular processing that alters the signal is good and that it can be used all the time to benefit the image is faulty reasoning in my view. When a product does something to alter the original signal that is not part of the imaging standards, the only possible argument for it being good is that I think it is good, personally. References, however, are agreed upon and have a basis in the application of the technology that many people have weighed in on and agreed upon as useful. They can be still turn out to be dumb decisions, but they are a starting point.
> 
> Good/bad arguments about this device are simply pointless. Like/dislike is the real question, and to me, not sufficient, nor satisfying. Better understanding of the effect and how it makes various types of programming look is what is useful and meaningful to me. If the unit makes it back to my system, I will leave it off and would like to understand how to recognize material that would most benefit from it (and how) so I don't end up tweaking it so much when I decide to use it. It will be my preference to start with my system as close to reference as I can get it, however.


Excellent post! :clap:


----------



## Ken Ross

dmiller said:


> To me NCIS always appears soft and almost out of focus however within 30 seconds I accept it and go on to enjoy the show.


NCIS is a classic example of 'artistic intent' that I absolutely hate. It's not my preference to watch TV shows on an expensive display that the 'artist' feels look better when shooting with a camera that looks as if Vaseline was smeared all over the lens.

I don't know if it's to appease aging actors, but when HD looks like soft SD, that's one area where I'd say if I could change it, I'd do it in a second and the hell with the 'artist's intent'! The over-use (IMO) of colorized films is another example of artistic intent that I don't get and feel is terribly over-used.

Each to his own I guess.


----------



## Jungle Jack

I would imagine given Mark Harmon's sway at NCIS (got Series Creator Donald Bellisario axed from being Show Runner) and age might and could dictate how the Cinematographer shoots him and former Actors like Lauren Holly.

Harmon now has a full Producers Credit, large chunk of the back end from Syndication and other Residuals, and literally is king of the show. Bellisario did manage to sneak in his Stepson Sean Murray in a plum role playing Special Agent McGee before Shane Brennan became the Showrunner. (hand picked by Harmon)


----------



## mechman

lcaillo said:


> AI'll get it out to someone else on Monday. Mech, can I assume you want to try it?


It showed up today. :T


----------



## Jungle Jack

Mech,
That is great that you received it. What Display Sources are you going to be testing the Darblet on?
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## mechman

Jungle Jack said:


> Mech,
> That is great that you received it. What Display Sources are you going to be testing the Darblet on?
> Cheers,
> JJ


Sony LED, Epson 3010, my el cheapo Hannspree LCD and maybe a plasma or two. I may need a couple weeks to get through them all and get pictures.

Time to unbox it and check it out. :T


----------



## jd371

I have a Panasonic PT-AE900U and can't upgrade until this one dies, but this thing is a tank and keeps going and going....like the Energizer bunny. Although I'd like to upgrade to 1080p this unit still works fine and has a great picture. My question is...this projector produces a soft picture, will the Darblet help? Want to hear some replys first before I decide if I should get one.


----------



## mechman

I could not get this unit to work with my DirecTV HR20-700 at all. I tried several different cables but it failed to give me an image. I'll be checking it later with my other DirecTV receivers.

Initial impression using a Cars2 DVD with my Sony BDP-S370 and my Sony LED is impressive.


----------



## dmiller

Its working with my HR34 via HDMI however its a diferent animal than the HR2x series. There appears to be HDMI compatability issues with various combinations of gear. Not a surprise these days


----------



## mechman

Works fine with my HR24s.


----------



## mechman




----------



## Jungle Jack

dmiller said:


> Its working with my HR34 via HDMI however its a diferent animal than the HR2x series. There appears to be HDMI compatability issues with various combinations of gear. Not a surprise these days


Hello,
HDMI Handshaking issues have been pointed out on both this thread and the other one. It seems certain Cable Boxes and Satellite Boxes are the most prone. I am glad you are experiencing a positive effect with your Sony Mech.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tele1962

Back on topic, anyone else in the UK seen it up and running are there anymore FW issues still and has anyone tried it with the Samsung 59"D6900 Plasma as it just would not work with mine?:dontknow:


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Posts above deleted. Please do stay on topic. What happens elsewhere is not germane to here.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## dmiller

tele1962 said:


> Back on topic, anyone else in the UK seen it up and running are there anymore FW issues still and has anyone tried it with the Samsung 59"D6900 Plasma as it just would not work with mine?:dontknow:


Problems seem to be more with input devices than with displays. There also are some problems with a video processor added to the chain. Could there be a 50/60HZ issue?


----------



## tele1962

tele1962 said:


> Back on topic, anyone else in the UK seen it up and running are there anymore FW issues still and has anyone tried it with the Samsung 59"D6900 Plasma as it just would not work with mine?:dontknow:


Not sure really, i supose it might have been specific to this tv as others in the UK are not reporting any problems.:dontknow:


----------



## dmiller

I asked because it seems have many problems with select cable and satellite set top boxes.
Good luck finding the cause-HDMI compatability problems are maddening.


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> I asked because it seems have many problems with select cable and satellite set top boxes.
> Good luck finding the cause-HDMI compatability problems are maddening.


Who was it who said HDMI was any good :rofl:

Hope to get my hands on another in the future as the sample i had i think was the first in the UK and maybe it was faulted?


----------



## dmiller

For those who read the posts regarding NCIS. I stumbled onto the end of an episode and tried the Darblet on a few frames. I definitely does not remove the vasoline. In fact whatever was done to the original image to create the soft effect seemed to lessen the Darblet effect as well.

Way beyond my comprehension but interesting


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
HDMI is very much a 4 letter word to me. I have probably written this 300 times, but HDMI was foisted upon the consumer not to greatly simplify hooking up components. Rather, it was rolled out to ensure that Copyright Controls are in place. Both CD and DVD's encryption is like Swiss Cheese and is why Component Video, Coaxial and Optical Digital Outputs are going the way of the Dodo Bird.


----------



## GoNoles

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> Posts above deleted. Please do stay on topic. What happens elsewhere is not germane to here.
> Cheers,
> JJ


"The blank Germans got nothin' to do with it!"











As far as NCIS goes, we have watched every episode from day one, it has always looked terrible to me, even on great CBS feeds. Fuzzy, red, ...


----------



## Jungle Jack

GoNoles said:


> "The blank Germans got nothin' to do with it!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as NCIS goes, we have watched every episode from day one, it has always looked terrible to me, even on great CBS feeds. Fuzzy, red, ...


Indeed. That picture is hilarious. I remember when HDTV entered the general consciousness of the masses all of the concerns Actors and Actresses had due to the much higher resolution of the format. Especially older TV thespians abhor it. I also remember many magazines doing before and after Still Pictures showing some often quite unsettling differences.


----------



## mechman

More initial impressions...

I spent a little bit of time last night watching various DirecTV shows with the Darblet - various Olympic events, Twins baseball game, American Guns, and some SD content. If I were looking for something to clean up the image of a compressed satellite signal, I would look elsewhere for now. If it were $50 then maybe. It definitely adds to the compression artifacts of a DirecTV signal when set to a higher number - I'll get pictures of this later next week sometime. And to get the noise back to where it's not showing up in the image puts the number down to less than 40 which does little to the image anyways. Pausing the content and switching the Darblet on and off, you can see a subtle difference. But doing so with the content playing, you notice very little. Also, as Leonard stated earlier: 



> Areas of the image that are out of the lens depth of field get enhanced noticeably


Watching Olympic soccer, the Darblet had little to no effect upon the field and players, yet the crowd was enhanced. :scratch: And this was anywhere from 38-75. Why you would pay $270 for something that enhances the part of the image that you don't watch? Watching American Guns at the non-noisy level of 38, there was no noticeable effect. At higher levels you could see the Darblet effect start to occur but the noise enhancement came along with it. The only way I could find a way to remove the magnification of the compression artifacts was to set it back to a point where it added very little to the overall image.

Ok, so that's my impression of how it handles satellite TV. 90+% of this viewing was done using my Epson 3010 Projector onto my 100" screen. As I stated previously, I will get pictures of this later and maybe even some HD video as well.

I have yet to look at over the air broadcasts but plan to do so. This will have to be done on my Sony LED as that is the only display I have setup for over the air. I also have to view more blu-ray content as that is what really intrigued me and caused me to shoot that initial video. It actually seemed to do a very good job with this in my brief look at it.

More to come later this next week. :T


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Very nice write up. It will be interesting to read your thoughts on OTA with the Darblet as the amount of compression used by Cable/Sat is quite heinous. Granted it is the only current way to provide 100s of channels. It somewhat appears from what you and Leonard have written that it keys in on parts of a image where normally little emphasis is placed to accentuate the effect.
Cheers,
J


----------



## tele1962

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> Very nice write up. It will be interesting to read your thoughts on OTA with the Darblet as the amount of compression used by Cable/Sat is quite heinous. Granted it is the only current way to provide 100s of channels. It somewhat appears from what you and Leonard have written that it keys in on parts of a image where normally little emphasis is placed to accentuate the effect.
> Cheers,
> J


+1 agreed, excellent ,:clap:


----------



## Alan Brown

*For Ken Ross & Others: Standards/Fidelity/Intent, Etc.*

Ken,

I have been dwelling upon your questions in this thread for days. To answer each one in detail would be too tedious for this format. Here is my attempt to generally corral the major issues into some semblance of order and theme. Handling all the potential details in a manner that attempts to avoid further questions would more appropriately be a thread all its own. The root of this challenge has to do with not knowing what fundamental principles of motion imaging reproduction you already understand. That's a problem encountered in hobbyist forums regularly. The average videophile consumer simply has not had formal, structured training, but all too often a sparse or random mishmash of familiarity with essential fundamentals.

You have asked about "standards." Strictly speaking, motion imaging industry standards bodies publish standards documents, engineering guidelines, recommended practices, and registered disclosure documents to guide the industry in how to do what they do in a unified way. Here is a link to the complete index of SMPTE publications: https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/files/Standards-Index_07-09-2012.pdf . You may gain some degree of understanding of how all these publications differ by type from reading the titles. If you see a topic that interests you, perhaps you would want to purchase the document from SMPTE for personal study.

Contrast ratio, or dynamic range, is not specified in any standard that I know of. There is discussion of minimum specifications and tolerances in certain recommended practice publications. Here are some examples I located from my limited library:

*Recommendation ITU-R BT.710-4, 'Subjective Assessment Methods For Image Quality In High-Definition Television'*

Ratio of the luminance of the screen when displaying only black level in a completely dark room, to that corresponding to peak white- ~ 0.01 [100:1]


*'Color Processing for Digital Cinema 4: Measurements and Tolerances' SMPTE Journal, July 2007, based upon SMPTE Engineering Guideline 432-1* (also in _'Digital Cinema System Specification'_ version 1.2, Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC, March 7, 2008)

Sequential Contrast:

Theoretical Reference: 2000:1 Minimum
Review Room Tolerances: 1500:1 Minimum
Theater Tolerances: 1200:1 Minimum

Intra-frame Contrast:

Theoretical Reference: 150:1 Minimum
Review Room Tolerances: 100:1 Minimum
Theater Tolerances: 100:1 Minimum


*EBU-Tech 3320, 'User Requirements For Video Monitors In Television Production' May, 2008*

Full screen (1% patch) contrast ratio shall be [1% white window on a black screen?]:
Grade 1 Monitor: above 1000 to 1

Simultaneous contrast ratio (with EBU box pattern) should be [similar to ANSI checkerboard?]:
Grade 1 Monitor: above 200 to 1


*'Picture Rendering, Image State, And BT.709' Charles Poynton, April 29, 2009 *

"Today’s studio reference displays have gamma very close to 2.4, reference white luminance of between 80 and 120 cd·m-2, and a contrast ratio of about 100:1. They are viewed with a dim surround, illuminated such that the surround luminance is about 5% of the reference white luminance." 


Essentially, content producers expect there to be some variation in contrast when viewing their work, depending on the type of display system being used. It is understood in the professional imaging world that contrast should be maximized where possible. There are limits to how much brightness the human visual system can tolerate, so the preferred method for optimizing contrast is to lower the black level. The ideal would be black at zero luminance, which would mean a contrast ratio of infinity, independent of peak luminance achieved.

Regarding "artist's intent" versus "reality" in electronic imaging, here is a pertinent quote from a leading industry expert:

_*"The goal of video production is not to reproduce, at the viewer’s premises, an accurate representation of the scene in front of the camera. Rather, the goal is to reproduce an accurate representation of what the director saw on his studio display upon approving the final product of post-production. Image data modifications are imposed for creative purposes at various stages of professional video production. Whatever image processing operations were used to create the final image – whether physically meaningful or not – are fair game."*_ _'Picture Rendering, Image State, And BT.709'_ Charles Poynton, April 29.2009 

Regarding the so-called "soap opera effect" resulting from certain frame interpolation schemes: it is an unintended consequence of attempting to solve or mitigate motion rendering deficiencies inherent in LCD display technology. It is simply a new type of image distortion that can dramatically alter the "look" of video programs. 

Film-based programs offer their own unique characteristics that may not translate fully to the video domain. Horizontal pans are a good example. The 3:2 pull down motion artifact evident in 30/60Hz video frame conversion drives film people crazy to watch. Using even multiples of 24fps solves this problem but doesn't produce unintended consequences if implemented cleanly. Digital Cinema programs can be produced with 24fps digital cameras, higher bit rates, and wider color gamut. Converting such motion picture programs to consumer video is understood by the artist to require changes to the "look" of the program. It is difficult for an average videophile consumer to be aware of the nature of what potential changes may be tolerated and what ones are not by the cinematic artist community. I don't have an answer to that, other than seeking the guidance of someone trained and skilled in reference imaging.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## Ken Ross

Alan, thanks much for the thoughtful reply, much appreciated!

I suspected there might not be any defining parameter for dynamic range. I'm not sure if that was the result of the tools available at the time that had relatively limited dynamic range or it simply wasn't though of as something that would alter the artistic intent. Either way it's good information.

Although it's certainly true that one can achieve an 'infinite' dynamic range with a black level of zero, in my mind it doesn't begin to express the perceived dynamic range that can be afforded by some of today's displays that, although not achieving a zero measured black level, still can attain very high luminance levels without clipping.

The concept of 'infinite CR' as the result of zero black levels doesn't (IMO) really express the tremendous variation that can occur in real-world displays with near zero black levels. Considering that we can have two displays with a zero measured black level yet one display can achieve double the peak luminance value of the other, kind of shows the limitations of this value. Does one have 'double infinite' CR? It gets a bit hairy. 

I have to admit I struggled and am still struggling with this: "Whatever image processing operations were used to create the final image – whether physically meaningful or not – are fair game." It seems to me this can be interpreted in many ways. Are we saying that since an image is created with almost countless 'image processing operations", that all of those operations are 'fair game'? Does that mean they can be tinkered with? I'm just not sure I understand the writer's meaning there.

It's interesting that the unintended consequence of the 'soap opera effect' was also not contemplated. However here, I feel it's almost intuitive that this effect truly was not the artist's intent. He created his message in film and I'm sure he meant to stay in that 'surreal' domain and not the more 'you are there' live look of video.

At any rate it's all interesting to me and I do appreciate your input.


----------



## Alan Brown

Ken Ross said:


> Alan, thanks much for the thoughtful reply, much appreciated!
> 
> I suspected there might not be any defining parameter for dynamic range. I'm not sure if that was the result of the tools available at the time that had relatively limited dynamic range or it simply wasn't though[t] of as something that would alter the artistic intent. Either way it's good information.
> 
> Although it's certainly true that one can achieve an 'infinite' dynamic range with a black level of zero, *in my mind it doesn't begin to express the perceived dynamic range* that can be afforded by some of today's displays that, although not achieving a zero measured black level, still can attain very high luminance levels without clipping.
> 
> The concept of 'infinite CR' as the result of zero black levels doesn't (IMO) really express the tremendous variation that can occur in real-world displays with near zero black levels. Considering that we can have two displays with a zero measured black level yet one display can achieve double the peak luminance value of the other, kind of shows the limitations of this value. *Does one have 'double infinite' CR?* It gets a bit hairy.
> 
> I have to admit I struggled and am still struggling with this: "Whatever image processing operations were used to create the final image – whether physically meaningful or not – are fair game." *It seems to me this can be interpreted in many ways.* Are we saying that since an image is created with almost countless 'image processing operations", that all of those operations are 'fair game'? *Does that mean they can be tinkered with?* I'm just not sure I understand the writer's meaning there.
> 
> It's interesting that the unintended consequence of the 'soap opera effect' was also not contemplated. However here, I feel it's almost intuitive that this effect truly was not the artist's intent. He created his message in film and I'm sure he meant to stay in that 'surreal' domain and not the more 'you are there' live look of video.
> 
> At any rate it's all interesting to me and I do appreciate your input.


Where there is even the slightest bit of ambient light in a viewing environment, a display black level of zero would be compromised.

"Double infinity" is, of course, a nonsensical concept. Where increased light output in a display pays off is in competing with ambient light levels in a viewing environment....up to a point. Bright rooms kill darker scenes in a program.

Interpretation and application of any statement must be according to the context in which it occurs. The reader must limit potential possibilities accordingly if confusion is to be avoided.

Any "tinkering" is limited to pre-"final image." Once a program is approved by the producer, the objective of a mass communication system is to convey the message faithfully, without alteration. Sensible audience members don't endeavor to spray paint the screen at the movie theater to suit their personal taste. Neither would you see serious art museum attendees wearing tinted or faceted glasses. In my deluded hippie days such options could have been considered enhancements.:rubeyes:


----------



## PE06MCG

I am so grateful to Alan Brown for his post.

I am certainly in the non educated category and appreciate all references that may help me understand the process.

I am sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of making a film because I always assumed the makers were trying to reproduce what they saw, liked and approved of. Perhaps I have been influenced too much by how many 'takes' the film makers seem to do for one reason or another? 
So do they start off with just a 'base clip' in mind knowing that they can use 'effects' on them later or are they uncertain how the clips will turn out anyway?
I thank you for highlighting this important quotation.

Live Outside Sports Broadcasts don't have the luxury of an editing room reappraisal of their work so presumably must literally cover all the angles. Some of the work is fantastic as is some of the films we watch.

I wonder, is the work of Live TV broadcasting seen as art?


----------



## Alan Brown

PE06MCG said:


> I am so grateful to Alan Brown for his post.
> 
> I am certainly in the non educated category and *appreciate all references that may help me understand the process.*
> 
> I am sorry that I misunderstood the purpose of making a film *because I always assumed* the makers were trying to reproduce what they saw, liked and approved of. Perhaps I have been influenced too much by how many 'takes' the film makers seem to do for one reason or another?
> *So do they start off with just a 'base clip' in mind knowing that they can use 'effects' on them later or are they uncertain how the clips will turn out anyway?*
> I thank you for highlighting this important quotation.
> 
> Live Outside Sports Broadcasts don't have the luxury of an editing room reappraisal of their work so presumably must literally cover all the angles. Some of the work is fantastic as is some of the films we watch.
> 
> I wonder, *is the work of Live TV broadcasting seen as art?*


Great learning of how motion pictures are made is offered on many optical disc programs in the form of extra features. These can include: director interviews, commentaries, "making of" documentaries, alternate endings, etc.

Assume nothing. Get the facts. Avoid confusion and suspicion.

Directors can visualize what their goal is because they have experience, skill, and talent that qualifies them to guide the production process. Some experimentation is involved, but that burns up time, time is money, movie making is both an art and a business. Changes can be made in the digital intermediate (DI) stage of post production.

Some artistic decisions can be involved in live broadcasting. Like most things in life- it depends.


----------



## PE06MCG

Alan Brown said:


> Great learning of how motion pictures are made is offered on many optical disc programs in the form of extra features. These can include: director interviews, commentaries, "making of" documentaries, alternate endings, etc.
> 
> Assume nothing. Get the facts. Avoid confusion and suspicion.
> 
> Directors can visualize what their goal is because they have experience, skill, and talent that qualifies them to guide the production process. Some experimentation is involved, but that burns up time, time is money, movie making is both an art and a business. Changes can be made in the digital intermediate (DI) stage of post production.
> 
> Some artistic decisions can be involved in live broadcasting. Like most things in life- it depends.


Thanks for pointers.

It is difficult when one is a non expert to avoid some assumptions. Perhaps when corrected by recognised experts it can short circuit things if time is money in a different direction?
But I know what you mean.

Perhaps it also depends whether all films can be assessed as art or am I misunderstanding the term 'Art'?


----------



## Ken Ross

Alan Brown said:


> Where there is even the slightest bit of ambient light in a viewing environment, a display black level of zero would be compromised.


Absolutely



Alan Brown said:


> "Double infinity" is, of course, a nonsensical concept.


Of course, that's why I mentioned it.


Alan Brown said:


> Where increased light output in a display pays off is in competing with ambient light levels in a viewing environment....up to a point. Bright rooms kill darker scenes in a program.


I would contend that increased light output also increases the 'realism' of certain scenes such as bright outdoor footage. Scenes like this take on a heightened sense of reality with displays capable of greater light output IMO.


----------



## Alan Brown

Ken Ross said:


> Absolutely
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that's why I mentioned it.
> 
> 
> *I would contend that increased light output also increases the 'realism' of certain scenes such as bright outdoor footage. Scenes like this take on a heightened sense of reality with displays capable of greater light output IMO.*


This perceptual effect is also of varying effectiveness, subject to ambient light level in the room.


----------



## PE06MCG

It would seem that film producers / directors have been given full encouragement by their Leaders to make a film as close or as far from reality as they wish.
Upon release, the film then assumes an untouchable status.

Is there the remotest possibilty that a personal viewing 'menu of effects' can actually be helpful to a final film?

I can visualise the Producer / Director having to decide between two effects they had used for the final version despite liking them both equally.
Would he / she be too outraged if their alternative choice could somehow be reproduced by a 'home effects' menu on a Display?


----------



## dmiller

The following link may prove interesting to those trying to figur out this device:

see post below


----------



## mechman

Here's a cut and paste. No need to send people to avs when the Darbee folks can post here if they wanted to,



> Some thoughts to address the noise/grain comments.
> 
> Signal to Noise...
> When "noise" has enough structure, it might fool DVP's "don't look at noise" detectors.
> Artifacts of compression and even grain can all become "interesting" structure.
> The movie 300, might be best left alone for this reason (highly stylized artistic intent reason too).
> Hi Def mode has detection that does the best job of causing the DVP algorithm to ignore "noise" structure.
> The vast majority of video frames where there is nothing of interest in part of the frame: sky, wall, flat smooth surface, etc. DVP will not process that area at all. You can pause and A/B most frames and see this to be true (pretty fancy AI goes into selectively NOT processing the entire frame). That being said, there will be pathological cases and we apologize for not being perfect...yet.
> 
> Low Quality, Low Resolution Video...
> Bad video contains artificial structure in areas that you would NOT normally be looking at, which can be tempting for the DVP algorithm, as Full Pop mode does not have the detection mode engaged. So Full Pop Mode will sometimes attempt to process "interesting noise." The issue of that happening will come and go depending upon the content.
> On the other hand, bad video contains so many problems already, that the eye/brain will accept some of the DVP errors, because the content needs so much help. DVP artifacts are often trivial compared to what the eye/brain has to deal with given the artifacts of compression. Also, DVP artifacts are often hidden in low quality material, due to all the other artifacts.
> Full Pop Mode is the best mode to use on low quality low resolution material because it forces DVP into the image strongly enough that you often get a change that your eyes/brain notice and thank you for.
> 
> High Quality, Hi Resolution Video...
> Very clean video (CGI and end to end HD with good encoding bit rate for playback media) will absorb an amazing amount of DVP Full Pop, particularly if it is hi fidelity with organic structure content. Round shapes and textures of all sizes, object separated in many depth planes. Avatar is a good example of all that mix.
> Higher levels (60-90) of Hi Def mode will be tolerated and the virtually artifact free result can be seen to its fullest.
> The greatest example I have witnessed is uncompressed D5 tape (DVP post processed on movie frames then encoded to uncompressed video) of a feature movie test segments (A Knights Tale) on a studio reference monitor at FotoKem. Astonishing!, and too bad we all cannot have that quality in our homes.
> 
> Medium/High Quality, Hi Resolution Video...
> This is where many are in their living rooms, families sitting around and wondering why you won't stop A/B'ing the image or why you won't turn that sliding line off.. Use judicious amounts of DVP, Full Pop in low 30-60 settings or Hi Def or Gaming Mode 40-80. Hi Def and Gaming Modes you have noise/artifact detectors engaged and you will have a wide range of settings to play with, or set and forget just below a level that you feel causes some artifacts to creep through.
> 
> High quality compression codecs are appreciated by DVP and with enough success maybe DVP will contribute its own.
> 
> -DD


----------



## mechman

More comments...

I did a bit of viewing last night with the Spears & Munsil disc. I've seen what Gary Reber described in his Widescreen Review article and I've also seen the issues pointed at AVforums. This, as well as the Darbee statement above, all add to what folks have said that this box is intended for quality content as opposed to helping out with lessor quality or overly-compressed content.

Tonight the family and I will be watching 'The Lorax' with the Darblet. This will be the first animated content with the darblet that I have viewed. 

I"ll be getting pictures and videos later this week.


----------



## mechman

And some comments on the Darbee statement at avs today. Keep in mind this is my experience, we all understand that your experience may be different. :T



> Some thoughts to address the noise/grain comments.
> 
> Signal to Noise...
> When "noise" has enough structure, it might fool DVP's "don't look at noise" detectors.
> Artifacts of compression and even grain can all become "interesting" structure.
> The movie 300, might be best left alone for this reason (highly stylized artistic intent reason too).
> Hi Def mode has detection that does the best job of causing the DVP algorithm to ignore "noise" structure.
> The vast majority of video frames where there is nothing of interest in part of the frame: sky, wall, flat smooth surface, etc. DVP will not process that area at all. You can pause and A/B most frames and see this to be true (pretty fancy AI goes into selectively NOT processing the entire frame). That being said, there will be pathological cases and we apologize for not being perfect...yet.


I will have to check this out as I have 300 in my collection.



> Low Quality, Low Resolution Video...
> Bad video contains artificial structure in areas that you would NOT normally be looking at, which can be tempting for the DVP algorithm, as Full Pop mode does not have the detection mode engaged. So Full Pop Mode will sometimes attempt to process "interesting noise." The issue of that happening will come and go depending upon the content.
> On the other hand, bad video contains so many problems already, that the eye/brain will accept some of the DVP errors, because the content needs so much help. DVP artifacts are often trivial compared to what the eye/brain has to deal with given the artifacts of compression. Also, DVP artifacts are often hidden in low quality material, due to all the other artifacts.
> Full Pop Mode is the best mode to use on low quality low resolution material because it forces DVP into the image strongly enough that you often get a change that your eyes/brain notice and thank you for.


There is no mode that will fix anything low quality or low resolution. This statement is a pipe dream at best as the Darblet does nothing outside of adding/enhancing noise.



> High Quality, Hi Resolution Video...
> Very clean video (CGI and end to end HD with good encoding bit rate for playback media) will absorb an amazing amount of DVP Full Pop, particularly if it is hi fidelity with organic structure content. Round shapes and textures of all sizes, object separated in many depth planes. Avatar is a good example of all that mix.
> Higher levels (60-90) of Hi Def mode will be tolerated and the virtually artifact free result can be seen to its fullest.
> The greatest example I have witnessed is uncompressed D5 tape (DVP post processed on movie frames then encoded to uncompressed video) of a feature movie test segments (A Knights Tale) on a studio reference monitor at FotoKem. Astonishing!, and too bad we all cannot have that quality in our homes.


I haven't done a lot of high quality high res viewing yet. But from what I have seen, I've been impressed. :T



> Medium/High Quality, Hi Resolution Video...
> This is where many are in their living rooms, families sitting around and wondering why you won't stop A/B'ing the image or why you won't turn that sliding line off.. Use judicious amounts of DVP, Full Pop in low 30-60 settings or Hi Def or Gaming Mode 40-80. Hi Def and Gaming Modes you have noise/artifact detectors engaged and you will have a wide range of settings to play with, or set and forget just below a level that you feel causes some artifacts to creep through.
> 
> High quality compression codecs are appreciated by DVP and with enough success maybe DVP will contribute its own.
> 
> -DD


The last time I looked into it, DirecTV supposedly uses high quality codecs. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. And the problem I've found with this statement is that I think you will have to set it low enough so that the darblet is basically shut off. When viewing the baseball game I had to go all the way down to 38 before the enhancement of artifacts disappeared. And then it seemed to have little, if any, effect upon the image. :huh:


----------



## Alan Brown

PE06MCG said:


> It would seem that film producers / directors have been given full encouragement by their Leaders to make a film as close or as far from reality as they wish.
> Upon release, the film then assumes an untouchable status.
> 
> Is there the remotest possibilty that a personal viewing 'menu of effects' can actually be helpful to a final film?
> 
> I can visualise the Producer / Director having to decide between two effects they had used for the final version despite liking them both equally.
> Would he / she be too outraged if their alternative choice could somehow be reproduced by a 'home effects' menu on a Display?


How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Speculations can be endless. Study the fundamentals of motion imaging production and distribution and you will be able to eliminate most wild speculation at its source. The artist is in charge of his own workmanship, in some cases in cooperation with who hired him to do the work. Most art galleries and displays ask you not to touch the work being shown. Why is this a difficult concept for many people?

If you have a compelling urge to use some video process to alter a Francis Coppola movie, you don't need anyone's permission to endeavor to ask him if he minds. What the Darblet does has little appeal to me, and I will not be spending the money on one. You may do what you wish. If your dominant goal is to view in your home cinematic art as near as possible to its appearance when final approval was given, your TV will need to behave like a calibrated professional video monitor or projection system. How is it such a simple concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend? If you have differing viewing priorities or preferences, no one is trying to prevent you from exercising them at will. However, your results will differ from the intended appearance of the original program. 

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## dmiller

If your dominant goal is to view in your home cinematic art as near as possible to its appearance when final approval was given, your TV will need to behave like a calibrated professional video monitor or projection system. How is it such a simple concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend? 

I don't think its difficult for most of us to comprehend at all. It simply is not always our priority. I consider film to be an art like painting, music, dance etc. The problem is defining good art or bad art is a personal thing. There are plenty of films, paintings and music not worth preserving in my opinion. The film makers intent may have been only to make money on a story or idea. 

We do not buy or listen to music we do not like. I do the same with many films. Its easy to record them and delete these days. My biggest priority with a film is the story line. I want to be entertained. Poor images can detract from a good story and vice versa. I can not change the story but I can change the image. Its my choice. I do have a well calibrated high quality display so I can maintain the image fidelity if I choose. Most of the time that is my choice too. 

As a professional in the field I expect your priorities to be no less than they are. If they were not I would not hire you to perform services for me. Its your job to deal with specifications, good industry practices etc but its my job to choose how to view once you have given me the opportunity.

Keep up the good work


----------



## Alan Brown

dmiller said:


> If your dominant goal is to view in your home cinematic art as near as possible to its appearance when final approval was given, your TV will need to behave like a calibrated professional video monitor or projection system. How is it such a simple concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend?
> 
> I don't think its difficult for most of us to comprehend at all. It simply is not always our priority. I consider film to be an art like painting, music, dance etc. The problem is defining good art or bad art is a personal thing. There are plenty of films, paintings and music not worth preserving in my opinion. The film makers intent may have been only to make money on a story or idea.
> 
> We do not buy or listen to music we do not like. I do the same with many films. Its easy to record them and delete these days. My biggest priority with a film is the story line. I want to be entertained. Poor images can detract from a good story and vice versa. I can not change the story but I can change the image. Its my choice. I do have a well calibrated high quality display so I can maintain the image fidelity if I choose. Most of the time that is my choice too.
> 
> As a professional in the field I expect your priorities to be no less than they are. If they were not I would not hire you to perform services for me. Its your job to deal with specifications, good industry practices etc but its my job to choose how to view once you have given me the opportunity.
> 
> Keep up the good work


My priorities were the same before I ever entered the profession. This was due to my early fascination with movies growing up, then my exposure to the writings of Joe Kane, after his chairmanship of the SMPTE Professional Monitor Working Group in the 1980s. I also acquired and studied the laserdisc he produced with Reference Recordings, titled: 'A Video Standard.' It was the first optical disc program intended for consumers to have reference test signals for properly adjusting their displays, sound equipment, and viewing environments. As a long time audiophile, it was of interest to me that I could have a tool that would allow me to also tweak my video components for better performance. Unlike audio reproduction, the video world was much more clearly defined and unified on technical standards and best practices.

Prior to SMPTE's work in the '80s, the NTSC video used in the U.S. was not nearly as unified or committed to faithfully following industry standards. The system was cynically referred to as 'Never The Same Color." This was not because of a lack of standards in the industry, but a lack of understanding and discipline to adhere to them in both the broadcast world and among consumer TV manufacturers. Video tape and disc formats for the home were in their infancy. The birth of "home theater" coincided with the broadening of advocacy for following reference standards. THX began influencing the consumer market after making its positive impact in the professional motion picture industry. The Imaging Science Foundation was formed to give Joe Kane a more effective voice in advocating for higher video quality to professionals, consumers, and the consumer video media voices. 

It was not until 1997 that I became professionally involved in the home entertainment arena. Since then, I have only deepened my resolve to learn about and advocate for excellence in video quality. In the video world, the term "quality" has very specifically defined criteria based upon video industry standards and best practices. In the consumer world, the term "quality" can mean anything imagined in the space between the ears of the viewer. Have no doubt, if the video world was managed by consumers, it would soon devolve back to "Never The Same Color." Consistency of quality in program reproduction would just be a crapshoot.


----------



## PE06MCG

Alan Brown said:


> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Speculations can be endless. Study the fundamentals of motion imaging production and distribution and you will be able to eliminate most wild speculation at its source. The artist is in charge of his own workmanship, in some cases in cooperation with who hired him to do the work. Most art galleries and displays ask you not to touch the work being shown. Why is this a difficult concept for many people?
> 
> If you have a compelling urge to use some video process to alter a Francis Coppola movie, you don't need anyone's permission to endeavor to ask him if he minds. What the Darblet does has little appeal to me, and I will not be spending the money on one. You may do what you wish. If your dominant goal is to view in your home cinematic art as near as possible to its appearance when final approval was given, your TV will need to behave like a calibrated professional video monitor or projection system. How is it such a simple concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend? If you have differing viewing priorities or preferences, no one is trying to prevent you from exercising them at will. However, your results will differ from the intended appearance of the original program.
> 
> Best regards and beautiful pictures,
> Alan Brown, President
> CinemaQuest, Inc.
> A Lion AV Consultants affiliate
> 
> "Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


I don't mean to be provocative merely trying to understand why any suggestion that a viewer can use effects as well as Film Producers should be such a big deal.

The Film has been made and I bought a copy.
The same film has been allowed to be shown on all types of television, for a fee to its makers.

If preserving its complete original display status is so important perhaps this should be made more obvious to the buyers who generate its revenue stream with perhaps as much prominence as that given to the copy prohibition warnings? 

Hardware manufacturers cannot even give us correct calibration 'out of the box' so they must not think that it is so important.

To be fair it is unlikely I would want to change anything having bought it in the first place but having the option should and I presume is part of my rights after purchase.
Also, if I did change things presumably I would get an inferior product to the one the Professionals make so I would certainly change it back to the original anyway would I not?


----------



## Alan Brown

PE06MCG said:


> I don't mean to be provocative merely trying to understand why any suggestion that a viewer can use effects as well as Film Producers should be such a big deal.
> 
> The Film has been made and I bought a copy.
> The same film has been allowed to be shown on all types of television, for a fee to its makers.
> 
> If preserving its complete original display status is so important perhaps this should be made more obvious to the buyers who generate its revenue stream with perhaps as much prominence as that given to the copy prohibition warnings?
> 
> Hardware manufacturers cannot even give us correct calibration 'out of the box' so they must not think that it is so important.
> 
> To be fair it is unlikely I would want to change anything having bought it in the first place but having the option should and I presume is part of my rights after purchase.
> Also, if I did change things presumably I would get an inferior product to the one the Professionals make so I would certainly change it back to the original anyway would I not?


It is much more difficult to get professional video quality in the home. Those of us who value image fidelity want the real deal, not some diminished or distorted version of it. Compromises must be made for the consumer market due to the costs involved. Consumers usually aren't willing to spend that kind of money and manufacturers know this. It's OK if you just don't "get it." Most consumers don't. You are in the majority. Excellence in any endeavor typically takes more work and costs more. My favorite video monitor is made by Dolby Labs. It's a 42" LCD that is 13 inches thick, weighs 150 lb. and costs $30,000.00. Oh, and it still needs to be calibrated out of the box.


----------



## dmiller

Some have been running the Darblet through many tests and apparently it does not affect most areas that are calibrated in a consumer display. It appears to be maybe processing in a way not covered by standard terms. To me it is an interesting little box. 

Since it is billed as a video processor too many are expecting it to "clean up" poor images from various sources. I do not think this is a something it does well as it often makes them worse. It appears to me to improve the image at times and other times it harms it. My frustration is liking to set it and ignore it which has proven hard to do. My expereience so far is with Direct TV and streaming Amazon from a Roku. Now that the Olympics are over I will crank up my Oppo and check Avatar for sure.

I have a feeling that the Darblet was introduced as a way of gaining experience with the process with the end goal being selling chips to third parties.


----------



## lcaillo

PE06MCG said:


> It would seem that film producers / directors have been given full encouragement by their Leaders to make a film as close or as far from reality as they wish.
> Upon release, the film then assumes an untouchable status.
> 
> Is there the remotest possibilty that a personal viewing 'menu of effects' can actually be helpful to a final film?
> 
> I can visualise the Producer / Director having to decide between two effects they had used for the final version despite liking them both equally.
> Would he / she be too outraged if their alternative choice could somehow be reproduced by a 'home effects' menu on a Display?


Film is both art and commercial product. Directors produce what they choose and can get funding for. I do not understand where "untouchable status" comes from. Not only is the product altered in an infinite variety of ways but virtually everyone in this discussion has acknowledged that one should process or modify images in whatever way one prefers. Some prefer to have a reference standard and use it. Many could care less. There is no untouchable status. One already has an enormous "menu of effects."

Who cares if a director or any other artist does not approve of what one does with his/her art? Personally, I would like to know that my system reproduces what was produced and intended. Then if I don't like that I can change it. My choice. If one likes what the processor does, or likes to watch with the color space modified to swap the color difference signals, then that is the way one should watch it. Believe it or not, I actually had a guy pay me to calibrate his displays then took one of them and swapped the R-Y & B-Y component inputs to one of them to get a different color "look" that he thought was "cool." Yes, I am serious. The point is, anyone can watch a film or anything else however one chooses. Doing so does nothing to advance the science, however.


----------



## lcaillo

dmiller said:


> Some have been running the Darblet through many tests and apparently it does not affect most areas that are calibrated in a consumer display. It appears to be maybe processing in a way not covered by standard terms. To me it is an interesting little box.
> 
> Since it is billed as a video processor too many are expecting it to "clean up" poor images from various sources. I do not think this is a something it does well as it often makes them worse. It appears to me to improve the image at times and other times it harms it. My frustration is liking to set it and ignore it which has proven hard to do. My expereience so far is with Direct TV and streaming Amazon from a Roku. Now that the Olympics are over I will crank up my Oppo and check Avatar for sure.
> 
> I have a feeling that the Darblet was introduced as a way of gaining experience with the process with the end goal being selling chips to third parties.


I suspect that the primary goal is much simpler, and that is to make a profit. I believe that the product definitely has a valid place in the market and the sellers have every right to make that profit. I wish them success in doing so. They will not get a pass on the very reasonable questions that we have posed (that have yet to be answered, mostly) nor on using terminology like "fidelity" in a manner that is inconsistent both logically and functionally.


----------



## Rambo12

I'm just curious and something that rambling in my head just now. What if a director primarly intended in a scene for a car to pop out of the screen at you and through the contraints of your monitor it doesn't so much. And then you modify the picture so that the object noticably pops out, and you go "Wow!" like the director intended but in doing so something like a mountain turns out not as clear as to what the director intended. So through manipulation, the original and primary important goal of the director, for that scene is achieved or much better achieved and the secondary or less important role of the mountain view is sacrificed. So at the end of the day the primary intention of that scene, as the director intended, is realised better through manipulation even tho the ratio of visibility for the scene, from car to mountain, is not what the director originally intended but the primary goal of the scene ie. the car popping out of the screen is much better realised. Would this manipulation be wrong? 

Just like in sound. If a scene where a T-Rex marches around and the director, very importantly, intended for you to feel the thumping of his feet and to a much lesser degree the rustling of the trees. But what if, due to the contraints of your sound system, the thumping isn't very, well thumpy and bassy :bigsmile: and through manipulation you go and ramp up the bass in your sound system and then you feel ' Wow! Heavy and big thumping!" just as the director,importantly, intended you to feel. But by doing this, you don't hear much of the rustling trees, so you've changed the ratio of audible sound to what the director originally intended but you've achieved and attained the primary and most important goal of what the director intended for that scene, through manipulation. Would the director not be happy you've done this and achieved his primary goal? Would this be wrong? And would the director not be happy that you've chose to try to get closer to his primary and most important goal?

Loads of 'director intended' there. :clap: But it's late and if I've wrote something completely wrong and out of line... *I'll get my goat* :dumbcrazy:


----------



## Alan Brown

Rambo12 said:


> I'm just curious and something that rambling in my head just now. What if a director primarly intended in a scene for a car to pop out of the screen at you and through the contraints of your monitor it doesn't so much. And then you modify the picture so that the object noticably pops out, and you go "Wow!" like the director intended but in doing so something like a mountain turns out not as clear as to what the director intended. So through manipulation, the original and primary important goal of the director, for that scene is achieved or much better achieved and the secondary or less important role of the mountain view is sacrificed. So at the end of the day the primary intention of that scene, as the director intended, is realised better through manipulation even tho the ratio of visibility for the scene, from car to mountain, is not what the director originally intended but the primary goal of the scene ie. the car popping out of the screen is much better realised. Would this manipulation be wrong?
> 
> Just like in sound. If a scene where a T-Rex marches around and the director, very importantly, intended for you to feel the thumping of his feet and to a much lesser degree the rustling of the trees. But what if, due to the contraints of your sound system, the thumping isn't very, well thumpy and bassy :bigsmile: and through manipulation you go and ramp up the bass in your sound system and then you feel ' Wow! Heavy and big thumping!" just as the director,importantly, intended you to feel. But by doing this, you don't hear much of the rustling trees, so you've changed the ratio of audible sound to what the director originally intended but you've achieved and attained the primary and most important goal of what the director intended for that scene, through manipulation. Would the director not be happy you've done this and achieved his primary goal? Would this be wrong? And would the director not be happy that you've chose to try to get closer to his primary and most important goal?
> 
> Loads of 'director intended' there. :clap: But it's late and if I've wrote something completely wrong and out of line... *I'll get my goat* :dumbcrazy:


Keep speculating, for what that's worth. The Darby people choose not to respond to my questions concerning any contact with the program production community.


----------



## lcaillo

Rambo12 said:


> ...Would this manipulation be wrong?...Would the director not be happy?...


Wrong? Who gets to judge what is right or wrong with what you do with your home entertainment system? Who cares whether the director is happy with what you do with the content in your own viewing?

This is all about entertainment and enjoyment. There is no reason for anyone to decide how you use your system and what you make images look like. We all have our preferences and opinions. 

What science is about is extending knowledge and understanding. Technology is about applying science. Where some of us start is with the science. Where we all end up when we watch a movie or television program is with technology. Where I see the problem is that most people do not care to take the time to discuss the underlying science (though most vendors are all to happy to claim reference to it in their marketing if it serves that purpose) and cannot distinguish the science (which requires reference, measurement, and analysis) from the technology serving one's preferences.

I would prefer to start with as clear an understanding of the science as possible, and a system that uses that as a baseline to the degree practical. From there I am free to apply that science to my liking or to use the system at reference settings. I can choose to make blue eyes green if I like. The science does not care any more than what the director intends matters. 

I choose to start with a reference and understand exactly what I am CHOOSING to do with the image. On the other hand should I decide that I am a fan of a particular type of processing and decide that I am going to watch my system with it engaged all of the time without really understanding what it is doing to the original image, I am choosing not to engage in audio/video science. When asking questions that lead to understanding is discouraged there is some other agenda other than science. When we engage in though experiments about what a director intended and what his preferences might be regarding how I view his work, frankly, I get bored. I want to know that should I choose I CAN watch something as close to the way it was produced as possible. I want to know the science behind my system and exactly how and why it produces images and sound the way it does. I want to understand the industry standards and how any particular product performs with respect to those. I want to know more therefore I participate in this forum as opposed to others.

The bottom line is that some of us want to know more. Others simply wish to promote their own preferences. I find the first category much more interesting.


----------



## PE06MCG

Alan Brown said:


> It is much more difficult to get professional video quality in the home. Those of us who value image fidelity want the real deal, not some diminished or distorted version of it. Compromises must be made for the consumer market due to the costs involved. Consumers usually aren't willing to spend that kind of money and manufacturers know this. It's OK if you just don't "get it." Most consumers don't. You are in the majority. Excellence in any endeavor typically takes more work and costs more. My favorite video monitor is made by Dolby Labs. It's a 42" LCD that is 13 inches thick, weighs 150 lb. and costs $30,000.00. Oh, and it still needs to be calibrated out of the box.


Your comments about excellence are well made and I admire the wish to maintain 'fidelity' as I understand it.

The word 'Fidelity' seems to be an all encompassing term to enable all aspects of the final version of the film to be preserved completely.

However, if that is so do you see any hypocrosy here?
Films are encouraged to be made with disregard to reality, and are shall we say often 'selective' in maintaining the 'fidelity' of original books despite choosing them as a suitable subject to make the film from.

We are sometimes disappointed by films of books because our own imagination stimulated by a good read has perhaps not been duplicated or is non existent in the film so perhaps I can empathise with this 'fidelity' wish.
More often of course we marvel at the magnificent interpretation onto the visual domain.

I also have a 42 inch LCD which is a Toshiba and cost about £500 which certainly puts me amongst the majority you mention.

I realise I can never get perfection because my budget and technical capabilities are extremely limited so I value the effort put into the making of films to the point that I actually buy the BD or view it in my local cinema.
The pity is that my viewing room is non existant and hardware choices do not measure up to the BD's capabilities so perhaps in my case a personal effects menu (no matter how unprofessional) may actually be of benefit in addressing this disparity? (joke).

Peter


----------



## lcaillo

You have a virtually infinite "effects menu." You have every right to choose to use the myriad of ways to modify your images and vendors have every right to sell you more permutations on how to do so. If we had not had the attempts to apply some order to the industry in terms of standards for imaging science, you would have far less options with regard to either reproducing content as produced or with whatever manipulations you prefer.

I see no hypocrisy in Alan's views. The desire to have distribution and display systems that allow us to reproduce exactly what goes in without alteration does not imply that one should not choose to make alterations according to preference. The hypocrisy is in the disdain for standard terminology and in the misuse of terms like fidelity in service of marketing. Is there greater hypocrisy in claiming science as a justification for preference or in having a preference for good science? In asking the tough, yet reasonable questions in a forum that calls itself a "shack" or in castigating any skepticism on a forum that has "science" in its name?

Personally, I choose to question the prevailing view that the world is flat, even if it is not popular to do so. 

Epistemological ranting done.


----------



## PE06MCG

lcaillo said:


> You have a virtually infinite "effects menu." You have every right to choose to use the myriad of ways to modify your images and vendors have every right to sell you more permutations on how to do so. If we had not had the attempts to apply some order to the industry in terms of standards for imaging science, you would have far less options with regard to either reproducing content as produced or with whatever manipulations you prefer.
> 
> I see no hypocrisy in Alan's views. The desire to have distribution and display systems that allow us to reproduce exactly what goes in without alteration does not imply that one should not choose to make alterations according to preference. The hypocrisy is in the disdain for standard terminology and in the misuse of terms like fidelity in service of marketing. Is there greater hypocrisy in claiming science as a justification for preference or in having a preference for good science? In asking the tough, yet reasonable questions in a forum that calls itself a "shack" or in castigating any skepticism on a forum that has "science" in its name?
> 
> Personally, I choose to question the prevailing view that the world is flat, even if it is not popular to do so.
> 
> Epistemological ranting done.



Perhaps somebody could define 'fidelity' for me as it is used by the film industry then perhaps we can all start with a level playing field.

I have been advised on this thread to never assume so perhaps my uninformed technical and artistic background makes me prone to make rudimentary errors in these areas.

Incidentally I agree completely about current 'effects' capabilities so I don't see why another addition to this rich treasure store should cause such a furore.

Regarding 'flat earth' I'm afraid I did not major in geography so I can only 'assume' you may be correct.


----------



## dmiller

With the Darblet then we have technology that may involve new science. Why are those so invested in science not thoroughly investigating it? Test it with available tools and report the findings. that is also hypocrisy


----------



## mechman

It's not new science. It's similar to what you can do to an image in a lot of photo editing suites.


----------



## dmiller

mechman said:


> It's not new science. It's similar to what you can do to an image in a lot of photo editing suites.


Maybe true but can you use those suites on a video or film while its being viewed? If not then its an advance in the science.


----------



## Jungle Jack

The question and answer that has so far eluded me is given the claims of what the DVP does, why is it being marketed to Consumers as opposed to Professionals? I would imagine the TV and Film Industry would be most interested in such a scientific advancement.


----------



## dmiller

Jungle Jack said:


> The question and answer that has so far eluded me is given the claims of what the DVP does, why is it being marketed to Consumers as opposed to Professionals? I would imagine the TV and Film Industry would be most interested in such a scientific advancement.


Unless Darbee decides to fill us in we may not know the answer for some time. I speculated they are using the consumer DVP as a test unit. That opinion is driven by how little thought seemed to go into it's design as a consumer product.

There may be professional use but that has not yet been made known to us. I know Alan asked them to divulge this information but I can only say I understand why they would not at this stage.


----------



## mechman

dmiller said:


> Maybe true but can you use those suites on a video or film while its being viewed? If not then its an advance in the science.


Someone has apparently figured out how to.


----------



## PE06MCG

mechman said:


> It's not new science. It's similar to what you can do to an image in a lot of photo editing suites.


Thats true, I think many of us amateurs have used 'Boris' or 'After Effects' as plugins to our Video Editing software.

In fact that was exactly why I thought the Darbee was special being able to give something resembling an effect in realtime onto the Display.
Surely only a matter of time before other effects are added to its current single trick?

As Alan says though, the Professionals have had time and extra skill and experience to get the optimum effects on their DI table.
Still it would be good to try though.


----------



## tele1962

I have to say that i am surprised that the AVForums excellent review was not discussed more than it was (not meaning here by the way) as i thought it was bang on.:dontknow: 

http://www.avforums.com/reviews/Dar...deo-Enhancement-Device-Review_352/Review.html


----------



## Alan Brown

PE06MCG said:


> Your comments about excellence are well made and I admire the wish to maintain 'fidelity' as I understand it.
> 
> *The word 'Fidelity' seems to be an all encompassing term to enable all aspects of the final version of the film to be preserved completely.*
> 
> However, if that is so *do you see any hypocrosy here?*
> Films are encouraged to be made with disregard to reality, and are shall we say often 'selective' in maintaining the 'fidelity' of original books despite choosing them as a suitable subject to make the film from.
> 
> We are sometimes disappointed by films of books because our own imagination stimulated by a good read has perhaps not been duplicated or is non existent in the film so perhaps I can empathise with this 'fidelity' wish.
> More often of course we marvel at the magnificent interpretation onto the visual domain.
> 
> I also have a 42 inch LCD which is a Toshiba and cost about £500 which certainly puts me amongst the majority you mention.
> 
> I realise I can never get perfection because my budget and technical capabilities are extremely limited so I value the effort put into the making of films to the point that I actually buy the BD or view it in my local cinema.
> The pity is that *my viewing room is non existant* and hardware choices do not measure up to the BD's capabilities so perhaps in my case a personal effects menu (no matter how unprofessional) may actually be of benefit in addressing this disparity? (joke).


Please stay in context. The topic of this thread is a VIDEO processor...not film. Film programs must be converted to video to work within the video distribution system. Film technology and video technology are not equivalent. Fidelity in the video world is limited to faithful program reproduction of approved video content after post production has been completed on a calibrated professional montor. This has been explained ad nauseam throughout the thread.

Hypocrasy? How silly! Have you not heard of artistic license? Please look it up. There is nothing new under the sun, just different combinations of pre-existing fundamental principles. Movie adaptations of literary works are just that....adaptations. How a screen writer interprets an existing story in the literary medium for adaptation in a motion picture medium is his purview. 

Are you not viewing your TV in a room? That is your "viewing room," is it not? There is no perfect video program reproduction system. All systems perform on a sliding scale from somewhere between perfect and inoperable. The study of video technology informs us of how to weigh various compromises to the ideal, then acquire the equipment we can afford, that interferes the least with the programs we want to view. An exception to this is someone who purposely implements a device that is judged to alter the program in a personally pleasing way. Each viewer gets to make his own choices, order his own priorities, determine what is of value to him, and spend his money accordingly. 

I don't see any "furor" over this. Disagreement is allowed in a rational debate. There have only been a few comments that have started to sound irrational.

Best regards and beautiful pictures, 
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## PE06MCG

Thanks for reply Alan,

I'm even getting in trouble for jokes now.

Thanks for claryfying things. I thought I was on topic but obviously not. Apologies again.

I know one thing for certain and that is I am what is laughingly called a customer who is supporting the Film industry by buying its BD products and visiting a Cinema from time to time.

What possible threat do you see from the Darbee?


----------



## Alan Brown

PE06MCG said:


> Thanks for reply Alan,
> 
> I'm even getting in trouble for jokes now.
> 
> Thanks for claryfying things. I thought I was on topic but obviously not. Apologies again.
> 
> I know one thing for certain and that is I am what is laughingly called a customer who is supporting the Film industry by buying its BD products and visiting a Cinema from time to time.
> 
> *What possible threat do you see from the Darbee?*


"Threat" is a pretty strong word. The fundamental problem I have with the company is how they define image fidelity. I'm in favor of reducing the amount of confusion in the video arena. Confusion undermines the pursuit of excellence. What I said in post #238 applies here.


----------



## lcaillo

dmiller said:


> With the Darblet then we have technology that may involve new science. Why are those so invested in science not thoroughly investigating it? Test it with available tools and report the findings. that is also hypocrisy


Some definitions from Dictionary.com, perhaps not perfect, but applicable here:

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 

Technology: the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

Fidelity: adherence to fact or detail, accuracy, exactness.

There is no new science in this product. It is technology, i.e. the application of science. Clever technology, and potentially very useful, no doubt.

Contrary to what some have claimed, it is entirely possible to analyze, investigate, and learn much about a product and its effects without actually having it to observe. Since there are no currently accepted standards and test equipment for evaluating what it does, one might actually argue that any observation can only be subjective anyway and a rational analysis could be more objective or more meaningful than an empirical analysis. After all, most of the reports from those who have used the processor have been like/dislike rather than seriously trying to objectify the conditions that produce various effects. Most of the discussion has been rather emotional.


----------



## Ken Ross

Received my Darbee earlier today and my early observations are largely positive. Used judicially, it does provide an extra 'kick' to the picture. I find it interesting, that unlike some processors, the effect is quite variable from scene to scene. At times it almost seems like an edge enhancement processing, but it's not.

At this point I'm finding a setting of about 45 to be the best on average. I have not seen any deleterious effects from the device, so that's another good thing. My initial installation was not passing audio for some reason, but I attributed it to an HDMI handshake issue. Once I powered everything off and back on, all was well.

Much more testing to come.


----------



## dmiller

Ken Ross said:


> Received my Darbee earlier today and my early observations are largely positive. Used judicially, it does provide an extra 'kick' to the picture. I find it interesting, that unlike some processors, the effect is quite variable from scene to scene. At times it almost seems like an edge enhancement processing, but it's not.
> 
> At this point I'm finding a setting of about 45 to be the best on average. I have not seen any deleterious effects from the device, so that's another good thing. My initial installation was not passing audio for some reason, but I attributed it to an HDMI handshake issue. Once I powered everything off and back on, all was well.
> 
> Much more testing to come.


I pretty much found the same. I kind of arrived at 40-50 on HD mode for general watching of DTV. I am starting to experiment more with the full pop mode where it apparently ignores noise. I do not care for it on DTV but if used with high quality transfers like on Bluray it should create some interesting results.


----------



## lcaillo

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*

Several posts that were not in keeping with the vision of the forum of respectful discourse have been removed. Please keep posts on the topic of the device without recriminations or sarcasm toward others with differing perspectives.

We do not have to agree, but we will post in the spirit of sharing ideas and knowledge without accusation and condescension. Respect the perspective of others. Even if unpopular everyone should be able to express their views of the value of a product or technology without being attacked or ridiculed.


----------



## dmiller

Sorry everyone . I was one of the guilty parties. 

Now back to my babysitting duties. My son left his 175 pound Mastiff for a few days and he is demanding attention.


----------



## Ken Ross

dmiller said:


> I pretty much found the same. I kind of arrived at 40-50 on HD mode for general watching of DTV. I am starting to experiment more with the full pop mode where it apparently ignores noise. I do not care for it on DTV but if used with high quality transfers like on Bluray it should create some interesting results.


Actually I like the effect on FIOS. I haven't drawn any conclusions yet as to where the impact is greatest. But it's interesting to see, after you've acclimated to the effect, turning it off seems to flatten the picture a bit.


----------



## mechman

I just watched Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows with the Darblet. I had to go back to several scenes several times and try to see if I could adjust out what the Darblet was adding. I would not recommend using this device with this movie. It was the first blu-ray that I have encountered serious issues with this device. Although the only other two blu-rays were Avatar and The Lorax. 

I'll be putting some serious time in with this device tomorrow and hope to get all my pictures and videos done for Friday.


----------



## PE06MCG

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



tele1962 said:


> I have to say that i am surprised that the AVForums excellent review was not discussed more than it was (not meaning here by the way) as i thought it was bang on.:dontknow:
> 
> http://www.avforums.com/reviews/Dar...deo-Enhancement-Device-Review_352/Review.html


Bearing in mind how people are polarised with this device is it really such a shock.

Like you I thought it was a good review attempt but its conclusion eventually came down to whether he liked it or not so what could the reviewer say other than that?
His normal tools that check grayscale gamma etc don't seem appropriate somehow so under these conditions its conclusions are based mainly on like or dislike.

If these effects become normal perhaps discussing their impact on individual types of source then drilling down to individual program types or even dare I say it films may be a better area for it to be reviewed rather than as a piece of hardware.

It has got more in commen with reviewing 'effects' found in video editing software (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) so as I say 10 out of 10 for having a go.


----------



## PE06MCG

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



lcaillo said:


> Several posts that were not in keeping with the vision of the forum of respectful discourse have been removed. Please keep posts on the topic of the device without recriminations or sarcasm toward others with differing perspectives.
> 
> We do not have to agree, but we will post in the spirit of sharing ideas and knowledge without accusation and condescension. Respect the perspective of others. Even if unpopular everyone should be able to express their views of the value of a product or technology without being attacked or ridiculed.


First chance to respond to this post, time difference and all that.

I notice that at least one of my posts has been removed so I may be to blame here.

I am new to the Forum but it seems obvious I have infringed one or more of your rules. 
My questions are usually very basic in the spirit of 'if you don't know ask' school of thought which perhaps reflects my Yorkshire (North of England) ignorance and sometimes bluntness.

It is obvious I have not observed your rules somewhere along the line and have offended you and perhaps some of your members so please accept my sincere apologies.

However I am usually a polite person so would normally try to understand the other persons point of view rather than insult it. 

Must be my age I suppose.


----------



## tele1962

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



PE06MCG said:


> Bearing in mind how people are polarised with this device is it really such a shock.
> 
> Like you I thought it was a good review attempt but its conclusion eventually came down to whether he liked it or not so what could the reviewer say other than that?
> His normal tools that check grayscale gamma etc don't seem appropriate somehow so under these conditions its conclusions are based mainly on like or dislike.
> 
> If these effects become normal perhaps discussing their impact on individual types of source then drilling down to individual program types or even dare I say it films may be a better area for it to be reviewed rather than as a piece of hardware.
> 
> It has got more in commen with reviewing 'effects' found in video editing software (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) so as I say 10 out of 10 for having a go.


I think Mark did indeed say that, but please correct me if i am wrong he also said that it had an adverse effect for anyone who wants to stay true to the original content or has an interest in only showing what you are suposed to see.


----------



## dmiller

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



tele1962 said:


> I think Mark did indeed say that, but please correct me if i am wrong he also said that it had an adverse effect for anyone who wants to stay true to the original content or has an interest in only showing what you are suposed to see.


Yes he did. He made that point early on but he also proceded to test the device and his appraisal was fair despite that opinion. I commend him for that. There can be little doubt that if your goal is to stay true to the original content then the Darblet is probably not for you. 

However I feel no one should have the right to limit what I am supposed to see. The studios have done more than enough with HDCP.


----------



## PE06MCG

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



tele1962 said:


> I think Mark did indeed say that, but please correct me if i am wrong he also said that it had an adverse effect for anyone who wants to stay true to the original content or has an interest in only showing what you are suposed to see.


He did make quite a few comments, I was merely complimenting him on actually doing the review because of the difficulties with tools to evaluate the 'distortion' or 'added value' depending on your polarised opinion.

I have to repeat that I do not have one of them but I can see both sides of the argument.

I still marvel at the PQ we all get from upscaling SD to HD no matter what the source but when it is compared to original HD pixels there is obviously an improvement.

Is the upscaling process no matter how good seen as a 'distortion' of the original? I doubt it but some may disagree.
We prefer to measure one upscaling PQ with another despite them both being technically innaccurate (at least I think they are).


----------



## Ken Ross

mechman said:


> I just watched Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows with the Darblet. I had to go back to several scenes several times and try to see if I could adjust out what the Darblet was adding. I would not recommend using this device with this movie. It was the first blu-ray that I have encountered serious issues with this device. Although the only other two blu-rays were Avatar and The Lorax.


What was the issue that you saw on this movie and did you try other settings?


----------



## tele1962

Got to try another Darblet at some point..........just for peace of mind.:scratch:

Not for that price though.:yikes:


----------



## mechman

Ken Ross said:


> What was the issue that you saw on this movie and did you try other settings?


It added a lot of video noise to the image when they were in the train and Holmes was 'dying'. Mainly on the faces of the characters. I had it at the default of 75 during the initial viewing and it was very obvious. After we finished and I sent the kids to bed I went back and tried multiple settings down to 40 and I could not get rid of it. I still have to check this on my Sony LED/LCD.

I didn't get nearly as much done as I would have liked to yesterday, mainly due to my wife's mini van blowing a heating cooling line to the rear heater core. And I don't know how much time I'll be able to spend on this today.


----------



## Ken Ross

mechman said:


> It added a lot of video noise to the image when they were in the train and Holmes was 'dying'. Mainly on the faces of the characters. I had it at the default of 75 during the initial viewing and it was very obvious. After we finished and I sent the kids to bed I went back and tried multiple settings down to 40 and I could not get rid of it. I still have to check this on my Sony LED/LCD.
> 
> I didn't get nearly as much done as I would have liked to yesterday, mainly due to my wife's mini van blowing a heating cooling line to the rear heater core. And I don't know how much time I'll be able to spend on this today.


Wow, that's kind of wild. I've never seen that at all from the material I've watched thus far. I'm very sensitive to additional noise, and I specifically looked for that. But to this point I haven't seen any increase in noise. I don't have that movie in my collection, so I can't comment on that.

I would say that a setting of 75 is very aggressive IMO. I don't go beyond a setting of 50 in the HD mode. Even when set higher, I don't see an increase in noise, but rather an overly aggressive sharpness that detracts from the picture.


----------



## tele1962

Ken Ross said:


> What was the issue that you saw on this movie and did you try other settings?


Hi ken just seen your post on the other forum regarding Marks review of the Darblet. Mark is one of the most respected and honest reviewers i know along with David Mackenzie. Here is the unedited version of what Mark had to say in his opening paragraph.

"We’re obviously enormously keen on maintaining the industry standards present in film and TV production, here at AVForums; we calibrate for a reason and that is to ensure we see material presented in the form the director and content producers envisaged and the Darbee Visual Presence will clearly go against those ideals, to some degree, but we will always approach a product or idea with an open, yet objective, mind-set. With that established, it’s time to unleash the Darbee for a dabble."

I just don't get it when people are keep banging on about it not altering anything.........it clearly does in much the same way as many photoshop tricks can.
We are interested in looking at the image as pure as we can without any enhancements being introduced at the viewing end.......it is a sharpening tool without the ringing, but instead introducing it's own set of quirks. So we are swapping ringing for something else instead.

People should buy it if they like it but those people should not be saying because one enhancement tool comes along that we should throw the very standards we try to achieve out of the window. I am still waiting for some of the other leaders in the field of AV to have something to say.............which up to now they have not which is speaking volumes to me.

PS 
People keep mentioning that Mark reviewed it at 70% he did not, he used 70% to show more clearly in the pictures the problems he could see, that were still visable at 30 and 40 but he could not get a good photograph of them at this level.


----------



## Ken Ross

Tele, the thrust of my comments were directed at the fact that as far as I know, the Darbee violates no 'established standards' that I'm aware of. If it was altering the color (and I've seen zero evidence of that nor have I read that from any other reviewer), then yes, it would be non-coforming to accepted standards such as Rec709.

But he made a very blanket statement that it does ("We can be very confident in saying the Darbee Visual Presence won’t give you pictures that adhere to the established image standards as the content creators intended"). 

That's was the thrust of what I was saying.


----------



## tele1962

Ken Ross said:


> Tele, the thrust of my comments were directed at the fact that as far as I know, the Darbee 'violates' no standards that I'm aware of. If it was altering the color (and I've seen zero evidence of that nor have I read that from any other reviewer), then yes, it would be non-coforming to accepted standards such as Rec709.
> 
> But he made a very blanket statement that it does ("We can be very confident in saying the Darbee Visual Presence won’t give you pictures that adhere to the established image standards as the content creators intended").
> 
> That's was the thrust of what I was saying.


Ken yes he did say that as he understood the fundimentals of what the Darblet does, then later on this is backed up by the Luma Zone Plate patterns that showed quite clearly what was going on.
Again i would also like to see what Joe Kane or any of the other guy's have to say on it also.
We also have to remember Mark has no vested interest in selling this product, just reviewing it then handing it back.


----------



## Ken Ross

I too would like to see what someone like Kane would say.


----------



## dmiller

Tele

A number of respected industry leaders have reviewed it. They apparently are not on your short list of qualified individuals. Still worth reading IMO.


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> Tele
> 
> A number of respected industry leaders have reviewed it. They apparently are not on your short list of qualified individuals. Still worth reading IMO.


No disrespect to those people but i up to now don't know who they are......i did see one who reviews for Highdef Digest, but unfortunately not very accurate ones.


----------



## dmiller

I have read elsewhere that there may be a difference in how the US and UK deals with some of the standards. Maybe this explains some of what appears to be a discrepancy in our viewpoints.


----------



## tele1962

Ken Ross said:


> I too would like to see what someone like Kane would say.


Ken seen your post:

" Interesting. What I find ironic about this approach is that a television picture, any TV picture, is produced through a myriad of 'processing' techniques! What happens if a manufacturer builds in the "Darblet effect" but it's invisible to the user OR the reviewer? Would they then be fine with this because they're simply unaware an additional processing step has been 'invisibly added'? In fact would they say that TV seems to be better since it seems to have an additional sense of realism!

I think you see where I'm going with this. I think it can get a bit silly at this extreme"

You are quite right any amount of tinkering at source can go on (not always very well done) but that is the way it is, but at least we are safe in the knowledge that our tv's are reproducing this as accurately as they can without adding what we perceive the way it should look. Some people love Dynamic mode, some Sharpness at 50%, some like all enhancements left on.......me i prefer to look at what is the most accurate picture i can without constantly having to guess if 0, 30%, 40%, 50% or more is the right setting as some seem to be struggling to do.

PS
So many people now are spotting these poor transfers due to the accuracy of there displays (Gladiator being one) that studios have released new prints without the tinkering, like grain scrubbing, edge enhancement, colour timing that unfortunately are applied to film material these days.


----------



## Alan Brown

tele1962 said:


> Ken seen your post:
> 
> " Interesting. What *I find ironic* about this approach is that a television picture, any TV picture, is produced through a myriad of 'processing' techniques! What happens if a manufacturer builds in the "Darblet effect" but it's invisible to the user OR the reviewer? Would they then be fine with this because they're simply unaware an additional processing step has been 'invisibly added'? In fact would they say that TV seems to be better since it seems to have an additional sense of realism!
> 
> I think you see where I'm going with this. I think it can get a bit *silly* at this *extreme*"
> 
> You are quite right any amount of tinkering at source can go on (not always very well done) but that is the way it is, but at least we are safe in the knowledge that our tv's are reproducing this as accurately as they can without adding what we perceive the way it should look. Some people love Dynamic mode, some Sharpness at 50%, some like all enhancements left on.......me i prefer to look at what is the most accurate picture i can without constantly having to guess if 0, 30%, 40%, 50% or more is the right setting as some seem to be struggling to do.


Not ironic, silly, or extreme in the slightest. If the DVP processing was used prior to final approval, then using it to subsequently alter the image by a viewer at home would be a distortion of the program. One more time.....fidelity is referenced to the completed program at the approval monitor. Altering the signal and "look" of the image after that point is strictly the decision of the viewer. Alteration of the picture to change its perceived sharpness or depth is still a post-final approval operation. 

Whether you believe me or not does not change the reality and authenticity of the fact that focus (image sharpness) and depth are deliberate, conscious, compositional tools and artistic elements used by imaging professionals to arrive at a final visual quality of their choosing. Such elements are characteristics of EVERY electronic image in ANY format or technology. Changing such characteristics changes the "look" of the picture. 

Believe it or not, precisely mimicking reality is an artistic, compositional decision made by the director and cinematographer, or director of photography (DP). Altering an appearance of reality is fundamental to making motion pictures. 'The Godfather' is predominantly yellow by deliberate choice, just as 'The Matrix' is green, 'Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow' is soft, 'Schindler's List' is black and white, and 'Terminator 2' is blue. These are dramatic examples of obvious unique deviations from a realistic appearance. Cinematography also manipulates varying subtle alterations of "reality" to change the mood or message of a scene. Disturbing, altering, distorting, "enhancing" the image to change these subtle elements after final approval is a departure from fidelity. 

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## Ken Ross

tele1962 said:


> Ken seen your post:
> 
> " Interesting. What I find ironic about this approach is that a television picture, any TV picture, is produced through a myriad of 'processing' techniques! What happens if a manufacturer builds in the "Darblet effect" but it's invisible to the user OR the reviewer? Would they then be fine with this because they're simply unaware an additional processing step has been 'invisibly added'? In fact would they say that TV seems to be better since it seems to have an additional sense of realism!
> 
> I think you see where I'm going with this. I think it can get a bit silly at this extreme"
> 
> You are quite right any amount of tinkering at source can go on (not always very well done) but that is the way it is, but at least we are safe in the knowledge that our tv's are reproducing this as accurately as they can without adding what we perceive the way it should look. Some people love Dynamic mode, some Sharpness at 50%, some like all enhancements left on.......me i prefer to look at what is the most accurate picture i can without constantly having to guess if 0, 30%, 40%, 50% or more is the right setting as some seem to be struggling to do.
> 
> PS
> So many people now are spotting these poor transfers due to the accuracy of there displays (Gladiator being one) that studios have released new prints without the tinkering, like grain scrubbing, edge enhancement, colour timing that unfortunately are applied to film material these days.


Each to his own tele. I simply don't see this device making the picture inaccurate. There are variations in picture quality from one show to another, from one channel to another and one service provider to another. At some point Tele you actually have to sit back and enjoy the show without obsessing. 

If you dont like what the Darblet is doing, you don't use it. If you do, then you use it and enjoy it. Thus far, with a setting of 45-50, I like what I'm seeing. Even if I needed to dial in more or less, I still wouldn't worry if it offers a perceived improvement. 

BTW, there have been respected reviewers here in the U.S. that do like the Darblet and don't see ill-effects. You may choose to ignore those and focus on the one negative review, but that's your prerogative.


----------



## Ken Ross

Alan Brown said:


> One more time.....fidelity is referenced to the completed program at the approval monitor.
> 
> Best regards and beautiful pictures,
> Alan Brown, President
> CinemaQuest, Inc.
> A Lion AV Consultants affiliate
> 
> "Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


And let's be honest here, virtually nobody will be viewing their programs on the director's monitor or in the director's ambient lighting. Obviously the duplication of the ambient lighting is far easier than duplicating the director's monitor. So we have altered that image's fidelity on virtually every consumer display regardless of how they are adjusted or whether a Darblet is in the chain or not. 

I well remember visiting CBS's HD studio some years ago and drooling over the quality of those megabuck studio monitors. As nice as the best consumer displays are, they still don't match the imagery that the director saw.


----------



## dmiller

tele1962 said:


> PS
> So many people now are spotting these poor transfers due to the accuracy of there displays (Gladiator being one) that studios have released new prints without the tinkering, like grain scrubbing, edge enhancement, colour timing that unfortunately are applied to film material these days.


So you agree that some or many transfers do not meet the Directors intent anyway so why the fuss?


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> So you agree that some or many transfers do not meet the Directors intent anyway so why the fuss?


Because to see these inaccuracies you have to have a reference source to view them.


----------



## tele1962

Ken Ross said:


> Each to his own tele. I simply don't see this device making the picture inaccurate. There are variations in picture quality from one show to another, from one channel to another and one service provider to another. At some point Tele you actually have to sit back and enjoy the show without obsessing.
> 
> If you dont like what the Darblet is doing, you don't use it. If you do, then you use it and enjoy it. Thus far, with a setting of 45-50, I like what I'm seeing. Even if I needed to dial in more or less, I still wouldn't worry if it offers a perceived improvement.
> 
> BTW, there have been respected reviewers here in the U.S. that do like the Darblet and don't see ill-effects. You may choose to ignore those and focus on the one negative review, but that's your prerogative.


Can you please point me in the direction of those reviews?

PS
That was not a negative review and was left entirely in the hands of those who choose to view the way they like, preference versus reference again, but reiterated what many are saying.
I post on AV related forums because i care about setting my equipment up to the way it should be, an AVScience sort of thing and come looking for advice to do so. If i wanted to add extras to my viewing i would take the out of the box settings and adjust by eye.


----------



## lcaillo

The point behind having standards to maintain fidelity in any media and distribution method is to assure that what the end user gets is what went into the system. If we did not have very good systems and standards that are well understood we end up with the kind of results we got with NTSC. We still see poor adherence to standards in production and transmission which is exactly why programming varies in quality.

The concept of fidelity has nothing to do with telling people how to adjust their displays or what processing to apply when viewing. Attempting to maintain fidelity ALLOWS the end user the CHOICE of seeing what might have been intended by the artist or at least what was produced.

I do not understand why there seems to be so much angst regarding the request for clarity in language and clarity in understanding standards and how content is produced. The fact is that Larry Pace and Darbee as a company have claimed the ability to produce better fidelity. This is contradicted by what the device actually does and their own descriptions of its purpose. Alan, myself, and others have called foul on this misuse of the terminology and have attempted to clarify the concepts of image fidelity and standards. There seems to be an unwillingness to separate that discussion from whether one LIKES the effect or not. The two have nothing to do with each other.

The Darblet does not maintain image fidelity. Period. Whether that is good or bad is a personal preference. My personal position is that it has value on some programming that is excessively soft and unpleasant to watch. It is also my view that I want the option of seeing what the artist intended so I will not start with the unit on. I might prefer to watch Matrix with more red or in black and white. I can do so. I might decide to watch The Godfather in vivid mode. All of that is perfectly OK if I or anyone else chooses. None of these choices changes the fact that I am not choosing image fidelity when I do so. 

I still want my system to not add anything or subtract anything as a baseline. At that point I have the most options and I can judge for myself the value of the artistic expression.

Somehow, many seem to be threatened by suggestions that the Darblet is inconsistent with image fidelity. Many seem to feel that any questioning of its value is somehow suggesting that it is bad. In fact, the position of Alan and others that image fidelity is important gives everyone the maximum freedom in viewing options. Should a service distributing movies choose to use the Darbee processing on everything before transmission, would you feel like that is the right thing to do. I would be outraged that I do not get to make that choice for myself in the same way that I am outraged by ridiculous amounts of compression.

I stand by my statement that Darbee is fundamentally incorrect when making the statement that they are producing better fidelity. It is a fact that this is a wrong statement. It has nothing to do with whether one likes the product or not. They say themselves that they are going beyond the limitations of fidelity, to quote Larry, "...make the best fidelity you possibly can." That might be something that you like but it is logically inconsistent. 

As for the good/bad debate, I see no value in this dichotomy. It clearly is a matter of application, as the effect is scalable and many have determined that modest application (as opposed to anywhere near 100%) is most appropriate. Others have noted content that they prefer higher and some have indicated content for which they prefer no processing. Once again, I assert that the meaningful discussion of the product must include what characteristics of the programming are likely to make the processing useful and when it might not be.


----------



## tele1962

OK i am asking if they are looking in, if Dwayne, Kevin, Joe, David K (cnet) want to put forward their views as i am sure you guy's are following what is going on plus some of you owe me one (ahem shootout LOL).:R

Just kidding guys.


----------



## dmiller

lcaillo said:


> I do not understand why there seems to be so much angst regarding the request for clarity in language and clarity in understanding standards and how content is produced. The fact is that Larry Pace and Darbee as a company have claimed the ability to produce better fidelity. This is contradicted by what the device actually does and their own descriptions of its purpose. Alan, myself, and others have called foul on this misuse of the terminology and have attempted to clarify the concepts of image fidelity and standards. There seems to be an unwillingness to separate that discussion from whether one LIKES the effect or not. The two have nothing to do with each other.


I totally agree. Why not separate out the fidelity discussion from the discussion of the Darblet as a piece of gear? The two subjects are each getting lost inside each other. Here the fidelity discussion was aimed at Larry and he no longer participates. 

I also suggest someone her get hold of Larry and invite him back or start a private discussion with him. He obviously is not returning on his own. Some of the statements are marketing bullets that lack in credibility to me. The same is probably present on literature of many items discussed on this forum. Maybe Larry Pace is not his real name and English is not his primary language. I did say maybe-I have no idea. 

The fidelity discussion gets invoked so often I feel I am breaking the law by experimenting with the Darblet:R


----------



## lcaillo

Why would you feel that way?

Your choice...


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
While Member Interaction is what we are all about here, I fear this thread is/has devolved into a defense of the specific merit of this product. As with many things, there are those who derive joy from this product and those whose boat it does not float. I am afraid this thread is not going in a positive direction and there well could be a point when this thread is closed. I truly hope it does not come to this.
Cheers,
J


----------



## Jungle Jack

Also, Leonard's 5:54 PM Post is a far better encapsulation than I can honestly convey on this subject.


----------



## dmiller

lcaillo said:


> Why would you feel that way?
> 
> Your choice...


Please note smiley face. It was a joke


----------



## Ken Ross

tele1962 said:


> Can you please point me in the direction of those reviews?


To name just a couple, see below. Honestly tele, I'm not trying to convince you, I could care less what you do. If you don't like the concept why go any further? If you have an open mind then proceed. 

Widescreen Review- May only be accessible via the Darbee website: http://darbeevision.com/assets/documents/Darblet_Review_Gary_Reber_July_Aug_2012.pdf

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/darbeevision-darblet/#more-37666


----------



## Ken Ross

dmiller said:


> The fidelity discussion gets invoked so often I feel I am breaking the law by experimenting with the Darblet:R


If you like what it does, use it. I've had my display as I do all my displays, ISF'd. I'm not threatened in the least by whether or not this unit brings my display into 'non-conformance' and if so, by how much. There are many other things that do that way before the Darbee is introduced. As I've already stated, the same TV show can and will look different depending on what channel or what provider you use. Is the broadcaster multi-casting and making the picture look much different than the 'director intended' as the result of restrained bandwidth?

To be honest, I think the Darbee plays a small role in the many ways that a typical TV program can deviate from 'intent' by the time it reaches our screens. In fact, I can probably make a case that the Darblet may actually help restore some TV shows to a state closer to what the director intended after the service provider mucks with the picture.

Obviously a discussion of Blu Ray is a different matter. But again, if you like what it does, use it and don't worry about what others think.


----------



## Alan Brown

dmiller said:


> So you agree that some or many transfers do not meet the Directors intent anyway *so why the fuss?*


Simple.....for the one's that do.


----------



## Rich H

*lcaillo,*

First..hi...my first post here after lurking for a while. :wave:

Second: I agree the distinction you want to make between fidelity and preference is valid and very important - conceptual clarity is always a virtue in these types of discussions.

Third: I'm all for standards. I have gone to sometimes extravagant lengths to ensure every display I've bought has been ISF calibrated via appropriate equipment by some of the best calibrators in the industry.
So I am very sympathetic to the concept of standards.

All that said, I think there is (and has been) thoughtful conversation to be had even when it comes to the concept of "fidelity." Because both the terms "standards" and "fidelity" don't seem to cover many niggling issues, which is what some here are getting at. For instance, this statement of yours about the Darblet:




lcaillo said:


> The Darblet does not maintain image fidelity. Period.


...will make some people like myself so "hold on there.." because it seems to make a very broad, confident statement when the real world contains many problematic, mitigating issues and compromises. The main point I'm going to make has to do with considering to what do we want our "fidelity" aimed, is only one person's answer valid, and the fact we need to consider systems as a whole - the end result rather than necessarily picking on a single part. Going back to your previous statement...



lcaillo said:


> The point behind having standards to maintain fidelity in any media and distribution method is to assure that what the end user gets is what went into the system.


Let's first use an audio analogy. What would we say "went into the system?" for an early 80's record that is the object of our fidelity?

Is it 

A. The information contained on the master tape? 

Or is it 

B. How the music sounded live? (if it were live).

Or is it:

C. "The sound the mixer/artist heard in the playback room - the sound the artist signed off too."

(skipping B for simplicity...)

If it's "A" then increasingly better reproduction chains and transducers can be "better" and bring forth "greater fidelity" as they can uncover and make audible more of the sonic information of the content.
So on a "higher fidelity" system the sound may well be audibly different than what the original artist/engineer heard.

Or is it "C?" Well, as someone who has been in a lot of mixing studios in my life (I was a musician, now I do sound effects for film and TV) I can tell you most people wouldn't want to live with
those classic Yamaha NS-10's used for monitoring so many records of the past. Even people who use them weren't above calling them atrocious (ear-searing etc...which is why the famous kludge is to put tissue paper over the tweeters). Many flat-measuring, full-range "accurate" systems with vanishingly low distortion and "nothing audibly being distorted in the chain" would not reproduce what the artist/engineer heard sitting in front of the NS-10's. And system/monitor variation is so great among the many recordings that no person could every really hope to hear most recordings just as the artist/engineer/producer signed off on them.
(My brother, a struggling musician, loves to bring his raw tracks to my high end audio systems just to hear what he's missing on his lower-end monitors in his studio).

So the audio analogy can remind us that the issue of "fidelity" can be a tricky one to really pin down.

(cont'd in following post...sorry..)


----------



## Rich H

So I'd want to ask "fidelity to what, exactly?" "Well," you might say, "this is why we've tried to make standards, so this type of variability doesn't happen!" So what is our goal now? How the image looked on specific broadcast monitors used for the timing/mastering of the image, that the film-maker signed off on? Ok. We could go with that. But the problem is we don't own those monitors. And consumer display technology can be all over the map in terms of the differing capabilities and visual signatures of a display. So it starts to get into compromise, a pick-your-poison scenario. I've seen people who rail about "accuracy" settle for owning projectors that don't go as deep into the blacks as any CRT or a current JVC projector (e.g. "Joe Kane's" Samsung projector model). But these can not reproduce the black levels of broadcast monitors, let alone a JVC or CRT projector. But maybe they think the image clarity and color are less compromised on the Samsung. Ok. But these people have chosen a projector that has it's compromises vs what was possible to see on the original monitors. (Or...are my JVC RS55's black levels too deep to be accurate? Should we start wishing for less contrast in projectors?).

But this same accuracy hound who has already chosen a display that differs from a broadcast monitor may then reject the Darby as "altering the image from the original source." When he's made choices in his display that does just that! :dontknow: But then, we all have to make such compromises.

So let's take two projectors: A JVC RS90 and a Samsung Samsung SP-A900B. Both excellent projectors. But measurably and visually different with the same signal, even when calibrated, due to differences in contrast abilities. The JVC will look obviously richer with deeper blacks in low APL scenes - Samsung will likely look sharper with a "higher MTF/ANSI" appearance, especially in bright scenes, better uniformity etc. When you are dealing with compromises, which one is "right" and which is the one that is "higher fidelity?" 
The visible differences between these two projectors will be at least as perceptible as what a Darblet will bring to a single projector (used conservatively). And yet I doubt the choice of one of those projectors over another would raise the "no one interested in accuracy would use this" flags that the Darblet is getting. It's more like a "pick your poison - which parameters of accuracy matter most to you?" But then if you've made such a compromise, as it seems pretty much everyone must, at least in projection, we have to be careful about saying "_you didn't choose accuracy when you chose to use that device in your system_." Pot, kettle and all that. 

Going further, and more to the final point: Take a great DLP projector with a current top of the line lens vs an older JVC RS1 LCOS or even on older generation Panasonic 1080p LCD projector. Next to the DLP the JVC and the Panasonic are going to look to some degree softer, less obviously detailed, and have less vibrant ANSI/MTF parameter contrast in fine details and contrast, particularly in brighter scenes. 

Here are two images only to illustrate the idea (mostly for clarity). One is from a JVC RS1, the other from a BenQW5000 single chip DLP. The differences are exaggerated due to the photos not being taken on the same day, but they capture the general direction you go in terms of increasing sharpness, clarity etc with a good DLP vs certain LCOS:

JVC RS1:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/images-projectors-q4-07/DLA-RS2_5thElement_leeloo_large.jpg

BenQW5000:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/images-projectors-q4-11/w7000_5th-element_leeloo1_large.jpg

(Again, not proclaiming these accurate, only generally representative of the sharper vs softer look of the DLP vs older LCOS).

Now if a display with a more precise optical design, or other advantages in LOWERING distortion, leads it to display the source with more clarity,
then I'd expect we might say it offers even greater fidelity to the source.

But what of the display that doesn't keep up, the one that lets details go soft, fine contrast fade somewhat, so we don't perceive the detail as we would with the DLP projector?

As it happens, those differences, or advantages for the DLP, are very much in line with what people are seeing with the Darblet in the chain - especially those with LCOS projectors. Careful use can nudge the image into more DLP-like territory in terms of how it is presenting the source. So if you add a Darblet to the JVC and Panasonic and are able to judiciously dial-back-into-view details that were softened or obscured by the inherent limitations of the technology...how is it this is not a way of _increasing_ the fidelity to the source? (Or, if you like, simply take display "A" that makes some detail less discernible than it would be on a broadcast monitor, and use the Darblet to carefully dial back the visibility of that detail and clarity).

If losing that detail is moving away from fidelity, how can re-gaining them not be a move toward fidelity? Now, maybe the detail is not being regained in precisely the same way as with true higher performing optics, and may even alter the detail slightly to do it's trick. But it's still a pick-your-poison: if you DON'T use the Darblet you are already "losing fidelity" anyway, missing clarity and details you would see if you had
a projector with higher level optics. If you start to dial back the detail so things become sharper and more finely rendered as with a higher end display, then it seems to me this can be considered re-gaining some fidelity. 

Now, like ANY picture control - sharpness, color, contrast, gamma, etc you can go too far. When I push my Darblet up too high I see a very obnoxious exaggeration of high-lights - a "too hot" look that, as someone who used to work lighting on movie sets, I know the DP would cringe and send me scrambling for scrims to fix. It's easy for the image to look obviously re-processed. But used carefully, judiciously, I am not yet convinced that it couldn't be said to be able to re-claim some element of fidelity to the source, in the direction you'd get by owning projectors with more precise optic systems.

in other words we have to consider systems as a whole. Sometimes something in our system may be able to compensate somewhat for deficiencies elsewhere, to balance out in the end toward the goal of fidelity. So perhaps it's not as simple as saying "I just want the image utterly untouched before it gets to my display, or my system isn't about fidelity." and "this box alters the signal, therefore it can not be used with the aim of
fidelity to the source."

Happy to hear your response.

Cheers,

Rich H

(The general idea being that JVC projectors have been leaders in on/off contrast, but other displays can surpass the JVC in other realms of fidelity, e.g. sharpness and detail. With a Darblet there may be the possibility that, as some JVC owners perceive it: we are gaining back some of the strengths that other displays like great DLPs have in terms of resolving source detail for our eyes, getting closer to the best of both worlds...again...Darblet used judiciously).


----------



## mechman

Ken Ross said:


> Wow, that's kind of wild. I've never seen that at all from the material I've watched thus far. I'm very sensitive to additional noise, and I specifically looked for that. But to this point I haven't seen any increase in noise. I don't have that movie in my collection, so I can't comment on that.


This was the only movie that I witnessed this happening. I got some video of it today too and hopefully I can get it put up this weekend. But I really doubt it will be worth anything as it will be compressed several times over before posting. But for anyone with the movie, it is at 1:32:45 and on. Watch for the gypsy woman's brother's face in the train car. It happened on the big screen from 75 on down to 35 although 35 was very subtle.



Ken Ross said:


> I would say that a setting of 75 is very aggressive IMO. I don't go beyond a setting of 50 in the HD mode. Even when set higher, I don't see an increase in noise, but rather an overly aggressive sharpness that detracts from the picture.


75 is the setting that they default it at and it is the setting that Gary Reber used IIRC. I've viewed content at a variety of levels and I'm fairly certain that it does much better with animated and CGI films than anything else. And I'm not convinced of it's value since I have to turn it down quite a bit to get it to behave. And while you are looking at the on/off with it paused, everything looks a bit different. But when you toggle on and off while content is played, the differences are pretty much indiscernible.

And I think there was someone who stated that it was great for sports. I found that to be incorrect as well as I watched baseball, football and hockey with it (again at a variety of different levels/settings) and there is no value to it. If you have it set really high, the compression artifacts are readily highlighted and little is done with regards to the action. It didn't take long to notice the crowd was enhanced but who really wants the crowd enhanced for a sporting event? :coocoo:

I have more testing to do yet as well as I want to get it back on the Sony LED/LCD and get a macro shot of the some of the 'enhanced' pixels.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm still not against this product. I thought it was fine with The Lorax and Avatar. I just think it's value is way less than it's cost. And I really don't see this being built into any displays in the future. Displays are already capable of this. It is the content that is modified. And that content could look that way originally if the director intended it so. The tools are already there.

Not to mention the handshake issues... again. I think I may have caught that on video several times as well.


----------



## mechman

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



dmiller said:


> Yes he did. He made that point early on but he also proceded to test the device and his appraisal was fair despite that opinion. I commend him for that. There can be little doubt that if your goal is to stay true to the original content then the Darblet is probably not for you.
> 
> However I feel no one should have the right to limit what I am supposed to see. The studios have done more than enough with HDCP.


Don't like the Picasso? Break out the finger paints!

:rolleyesno:

If you don't like it, don't watch it or buy it.


----------



## Ken Ross

Rich H., some really excellent discussion points on fidelity. You were striking at the heart of the issue I was alluding to, but you did it much better. The thought that an outboard device such as the Darblet can't bring us closer to 'fidelity' is something I've yet to be convinced of. 

This has nothing to do with trying to stretch the definition of fidelity, but rather trying to get at the heart of what fidelity is and how best to achieve it. Like you, I'm not sold on the idea that the use of a device like the Darblet moves us further away from 'fidelity'. In actuality it might, in some cases, move us closer. Your examples were an excellent illustration that we should be a bit more open-minded about what fidelity is, how it's best achieved and whether a device like the Darblet can help achieve that. 

As I said in a prior post, none of us are watching on the studio monitor that the transfer took place on, so none of us are actually seeing precisely what the artist saw. So by the strictest of definitions, none of us have achieved that same level of fidelity. As you said, you pick your poison.


----------



## dmiller

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



mechman said:


> Don't like the Picasso? Break out the finger paints!
> 
> :rolleyesno:
> 
> If you don't like it, don't watch it or buy it.


The problem is I can not tell if I like it or not if I do not buy it or at least investigate it through research of test results and opinions of our learned brothers.

The Picasso analogy is pretty extreme::nono: The use of sarcasm from a moderator seems to be in violation of the rules.


----------



## dmiller

Rich H

Thank you. Your post(s) are a thoughtful addition to the discussion.


----------



## Ken Ross

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



dmiller said:


> The problem is I can not tell if I like it or not if I do not buy it or at least investigate it through research of test results and opinions of our learned brothers.
> 
> The Picasso analogy is pretty extreme::nono: The use of sarcasm from a moderator seems to be in violation of the rules.


Most retailers have a liberal return policy on the unit. Nothing ventured, nothing gained...and, no risk.


----------



## lcaillo

Ken Ross said:


> Rich H., some really excellent discussion points on fidelity. You were striking at the heart of the issue I was alluding to, but you did it much better. The thought that an outboard device such as the Darblet can't bring us closer to 'fidelity' is something I've yet to be convinced of.
> 
> This has nothing to do with trying to stretch the definition of fidelity, but rather trying to get at the heart of what fidelity is and how best to achieve it. Like you, I'm not sold on the idea that the use of a device like the Darblet moves us further away from 'fidelity'. In actuality it might, in some cases, move us closer. Your examples were an excellent illustration that we should be a bit more open-minded about what fidelity is, how it's best achieved and whether a device like the Darblet can help achieve that.
> 
> As I said in a prior post, none of us are watching on the studio monitor that the transfer took place on, so none of us are actually seeing precisely what the artist saw. So by the strictest of definitions, none of us have achieved that same level of fidelity. As you said, you pick your poison.


Ken,
Perhaps if content is distorted, noise added, or otherwise altered by the distribution process it may seem like it is possible to get closer to "fidelity" by manipulating the image with a processor like the Darblet. If that is your idea of fidelity you have to know exactly what those changes to the original signal are, then apply processing that reverses them. This is impossible to do unless you are using a process like a codec or a noise reduction system. The examples of Dolby and DBX have been used as analogies in some discussions of the processor. This is very different. Dolby and DBX function in predictable encode/decode relationships and can be used to preserve fidelity. One cannot create it on the back end (display) by adding a "fix" that is not tied to what is done to the signal previously.

I can see some great applications for this technology, including in production. Once produced, however, I want the distribution and display system to show me exactly what went in. Then I can decide what I like and what I don't and process it further if I choose. Fidelity in a distribution and display system requires not altering the signal and images and faithfully reproducing the input. That DOES NOT MEAN that one is not free to use whatever processing one desires. It is simply the definition of fidelity.

I used the analogy to audio previously of the aphex processors. Many artists and engineers have used such processing in creating music. No one would argue that applying it universally on the playback end is getting us closer to fidelity, even if it simulates what is used in a live performance by a musician. Fidelity is playing back the recorded media exactly like it was produced. You might like it on playback and it might sound better, but it is not fidelity.

Fidelity is akin to precision, as opposed to accuracy, which might be more closely related to reality as the term is commonly used. You might get a more accurate display of a scene as it looked going into the camera using the darblet on some images. This is not precisely what went into the system, however. There is a difference.


----------



## lcaillo

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



dmiller said:


> The problem is I can not tell if I like it or not if I do not buy it or at least investigate it through research of test results and opinions of our learned brothers.
> 
> The Picasso analogy is pretty extreme::nono: The use of sarcasm from a moderator seems to be in violation of the rules.


There is a fine line between sarcasm and humor, and anyone who knows mechman understands that his demeanor is quite pleasant and not at all like his image might suggest. Take this as an attempt at humor rather than a sarcastic jab. I would point out that if you have an issue with a moderator or admin you should report the post, as our rules specifically forbid critique of moderators in the forum publicly. We are happy to discuss it privately if you have an issue with any staff here.

I think his point, dmiller, is that no one is forcing you to watch anything in any particular way. You said "However I feel no one should have the right to limit what I am supposed to see." Which is a statement that I completely agree with, but no one is making you use the Darbee, or not use it.

If more of the kind of review that I have suggested were available, you might be able to get a better idea of whether you like it or not. But given the short supply and the high demand, it seems like a rather low risk to buy it. Someone has already related that he had no problem reselling the unit.


----------



## lcaillo

Rich H said:


> So I'd want to ask "fidelity to what, exactly?"





Rich H said:


> in other words we have to consider systems as a whole. Sometimes something in our system may be able to compensate somewhat for deficiencies elsewhere, to balance out in the end toward the goal of fidelity.





Rich H said:


> So perhaps it's not as simple as saying "I just want the image utterly untouched before it gets to my display, or my system isn't about fidelity." and "this box alters the signal, therefore it can not be used with the aim of
> fidelity to the source."


Attempting to create fidelity to the source by applying processing to correct unknown distortions to the original image is, perhaps, a noble intent, but is sort of like begging the question of what fidelity might be. I maintain that fidelity requires not altering the signal. Fidelity may not be what you want, and that is fine. It is simply incorrect to suggest that emphasizing elements of an image, no matter how clever an algorithm might be, is improving fidelity. What you are trying to do is approximate what you think the original might have been. Useful, desirable in many cases, and you might like it, but it is not being faithful to the input signal.

Yes, I agree, we must consider the goals of the entire system. Along the way in designing and applying such systems, however, we need standards and we need to get better at defining, measuring, and applying them. If after doing everything we can to get the distribution system and display "out of the way" and not adding nor detracting from what goes in you still want to alter the image, you should certainly do so. If you want to choose compromises along the way that are to your preference then patch them with a processor like the darbee, I see no issue with that. But to suggest that a processor that emphasizes contrast in local picture elements, clearly altering the input signal, is producing improved fidelity because it MIGHT give a better rendition of the some recorded scenes is, IMO, an incorrect and less useful application of the term fidelity.


----------



## Rich H

lcaillo said:


> Ken,
> Perhaps if content is distorted, noise added, or otherwise altered by the distribution process it may seem like it is possible to get closer to "fidelity" by manipulating the image with a processor like the Darblet. If that is your idea of fidelity you have to know exactly what those changes to the original signal are, then apply processing that reverses them. This is impossible to do unless you are using a process like a codec or a noise reduction system. The examples of Dolby and DBX have been used as analogies in some discussions of the processor. This is very different. Dolby and DBX function in predictable encode/decode relationships and can be used to preserve fidelity. One cannot create it on the back end (display) by adding a "fix" that is not tied to what is done to the signal previously.


But we are trying to keep this within the real-world discussion of limitations we experience as consumers.

The very highest-end equipment will tend to (or we want it to) produce the source with the lowest distortion. Which - compared to a lower quality/higher distortion display without added processing - will tend to allow the higher end equipment to present an image that looks clearer, sharper, more finely detailed.
Which is one reason I brought up Joe Kane's Samsung projector, known for it's superb optical design, which when you examine it objectively shows less distortion at the pixel level vs a LCOS/LCD projector, and this manifests at the subjective level as a sharper, clearer more detailed image.

So the point is, in the real world, whatever other virtues our display may have and here I'm thinking more about us projector owners, it is likely we have ALREADY lost fidelity to the source (compared to a higher end display). So to say it can not be made up on the "back end" leaves one saying "well, I guess if I add the Darblet I'll lose fidelity." But we are ALREADY there, having lost fidelity with our display. So what to do?
Buy a projector with a more precise optical system? Well, in the real world such displays are either vastly more expensive (e.g. professional DLP units) or come with other compromises (e.g. lower on/off contrast etc than one can get with something like a JVC or Sony LCOS design).

In this case we perhaps can add some Darblet processing to regain some fidelity in terms of edging up the clarity and detail we'd start seeing if we had a more precise optical system. It's not perfect, but having already started with a distorted image, if we can end up with subjectively a bit less distortion (clearer image) then it seems we can say this is gaining some more fidelity to the source.

The point being that, at least in the world of projectors, it seems to me the issue is not anomalous, like "OK, if you just HAPPEN to have image distortion somewhere maybe some Darblet processing can help." Rather, given the compromises in most affordable consumer gear, some distortion and lack of fidelity to the source is rather common, instead of scarce. Which seems to imply the Darblet might be able to help in many cases.

I'm not completely wedded to the idea myself and I'm still uncertain how I'm going to use my Darblet in terms of how often/what settings. But I do find these questions interesting.


Cheers,


----------



## dmiller

Mechman 

Sorry if I misconstrued your humor for sarcasm. As Leonard said its often a fine line. Also your picture does not make you appear to be humorless.:R

To set the record staight I do own the Darblet and like it's effect at 40-50% on HD mode for DTV and streaming from my Roku. I have chosen to leave it on at that level for those sources. My display is ISF calibrated and I have always left processing off by personal preference. I go against that preference with the Darblet because I think I see greater depth to the image without addition of additional artifacts for those sources (which are lower in quality than BD IMO). I have yet to play with Blu Ray so I can not comment on that.

My interest in various forums is to discover the reviews and opinions that give me a better understanding of what the Darblet is doing. I do not need affirmation of my opinions nor am I troubled by opposite opinions.


----------



## lcaillo

Rich H said:


> So to say it can not be made up on the "back end" leaves one saying "well, I guess if I add the Darblet I'll lose fidelity." But we are ALREADY there, having lost fidelity with our display. So what to do?


The problem is with your use of the term fidelity. We simply disagree on this. You are equating fidelity with what you think looks like a more pleasing version of the image that you think was recorded. Fidelity is about being precise. We are talking about whether the darblet improves fidelity in the system and this is simply not possible for any processor to do without knowing what went in. It might make the image more pleasing to watch, it might seem more real to you, it might be a better approximation of some images, but it is not faithful to the input signal. It cannot be by its design. Fidelity is not the right question to debate with respect to this product, yet people keep defending Darbee for claiming something that is inconsistent by definition and impossible unless you redefine the term.

Again, the more interesting and useful question is not whether the device produces better fidelity (a nonsensical idea in my opinion) but what does it do that is useful to what kinds of images. Alternatively what does it do that is not desirable to what kind of images and what are the parameters that affect the level of processing that makes it work best. It clearly has some effects that most people like. Let's devote more time and effort to defining those parameters and limits to make it useful.

What types of content do you like it on and what do you not? How much, under what conditions? It alters the image. When is that good and when is that not?


----------



## lcaillo

dmiller said:


> Mechman
> 
> Sorry if I misconstrued your humor for sarcasm. As Leonard said its often a fine line. Also your picture does not make you appear to be humorless.:R


I think it is time for mech to adopt the monkey as his avatar.:R

dmiller,
I really believe that most of us share very similar perspectives on this processor. The language we use to discuss the matter is imprecise, and that is what some of us have tried to improve in this industry for a long time. We need better definitions of performance and very clear terminology before we can communicate clearly about the effects of any particular product.


----------



## dmiller

lcaillo said:


> I think it is time for mech to adopt the monkey as his avatar.:R
> 
> Thats why I generally post a picture of my dog when neededlddude:
> 
> 
> dmiller,
> I really believe that most of us share very similar perspectives on this processor. The language we use to discuss the matter is imprecise, and that is what some of us have tried to improve in this industry for a long time. We need better definitions of performance and very clear terminology before we can communicate clearly about the effects of any particular product.


You are right here for sure. The problem is ones definitions of fidelity vary by context thus making it very difficult to be precise. I certainly applaud the work of ISF in trying to do so but feel its a complex issue and can not really be reduced to simple terms.


----------



## lcaillo

We disagree on definitions and that we should define things tightly is exactly the point that some of us get in trouble for making. Terminology is essential to getting to standards for technology and the words we use have meanings that affect the underlying assumptions in any logical discussion or debate. If we do accept limited definitions of terms, then are articulate in our use of the many terms available, the context takes care of itself. When we allow terms to be used differently in different contexts, defining technology, and doing science becomes unwieldy, nearly impossible.

The way we define things and the underlying bias in our assumptions colors all debate. Once we accept that and agree on the definitions and assumptions, we can get to the more pertinent questions without getting into circular arguments. The self-referential use of the term fidelity by Darbee is objectionable because it does exactly that. It is not hard to understand the motivation behind it, pure marketing. Let's not confuse marketing and whether people like it or not for science and effective use of technology. Lots of folks are doing so in the debate surrounding this product.

My experience is that this processor is great if you want to extract more emphasis on small areas of differential luminance and give the overall image more apparent "pop." I did a presentation for staff this week that we recorded and the images are rather soft. If I had this processing available it would be very useful to tweak up the look of the recording (and emphasize some of the greyness in my hair). At the same time, I found the enhancement a distraction on some films because it made things like the light glistening off of leaves on a shrub too obvious, where the cinematographer had tight focus on what he felt was salient in the image. Darbee has its algorithm for salience detection, but it might not always hit what is special about an image. As mentioned previously, context is important.


----------



## Rich H

*lcaillo,*

You may indeed be right, but thus far I don't quite see that you've made a careful and convincing enough case to declare to others that the Darblet would have no place if one's goal were "fidelity."



lcaillo said:


> The problem is with your use of the term fidelity. We simply disagree on this. You are equating fidelity with what you think looks like a more pleasing version of the image that you think was recorded.



Nowhere did I imply I was using the term fidelity as a synonym for "looks more pleasing to me." In fact I've been quite clear that is not what I'm talking about. I've been talking about actual losses in fidelity due to distortion (on a display) and the possibility of bringing an image closer to how it would look on a display with less distortion, hence increasing fidelity to the source. (At a perceptual level). Your use of the term "fidelity" seems either imprecise - which is why I've been asking for more detail on what you mean by the term - or it seems perhaps too restrictive, insofar as it does not cover other real-world scenarios were we must juggle compromises, but still with a goal toward "fidelity."




lcaillo said:


> Fidelity is about being precise. We are talking about whether the darblet improves fidelity in the system and this is simply not possible for any processor to do without knowing what went in. It might make the image more pleasing to watch, it might seem more real to you, it might be a better approximation of some images, but it is not faithful to the input signal. It cannot be by its design. Fidelity is not the right question to debate with respect to this product,


But as I've already pointed out, if you reserve the term "fidelity" only in terms of what an *individual*
device does in a chain - that is pass on a signal without alteration - this seems an impoverished concept of "fidelity" because it does not address systems as a whole. It seems we want fidelity to the source, and only talking in terms of any individual device, rather than looking at the whole chain, misses the bigger picture. I'm talking particularly of real-world issues we have to juggle.

Take a digital equalizer. If "flat response" will reproduce the source sound accurately and my speaker has a slight dip in the presence region, I can raise the eq in that presence region. Looking only at that single component, it's altering/distorting the signal. But at the end of the chain the result is _higher fidelity_ to what is on the source.

Why then isn't it possible that the Darblet might be used in a similar fashion, to "eq" the end result to a level of higher fidelity to the source material? And given that distortion - reduction of precision/clarity/detail - is perhaps prevalent in many of our displays, why wouldn't the Darblet be part of the discussion about how, given these compromises, we can deal with the issue?



lcaillo said:


> this is simply not possible for any processor to do without knowing what went in.


That is an objection in principle - more a point that it might be difficult to know "what went in," not an objection that it isn't possible. In other words: how do you know what "went in" the source?

Well...the appeal seems to be to what one would see on broadcast monitors - that is how one "sees" what is on the source. (Though this again brings in the other issues of nailing down fidelity - because say you have a new monitor that reveals more detail in the source than your original broadcast monitor...which surely happens as time progresses. Is the new revealed detail "wrong?" and the new monitor is of lower fidelity? Etc.)

Well, again, many of our devices in the real world fall short of the best professional displays and lose or distort information. If we can tweak the image to make the visual information start to resemble more the clarity of the original monitored image via "eq-ing" it, how is that not hewing to the idea of "fidelity?"

Again, going back to projectors: Some projector designs objectively distort the image less than others (e.g. Samsung) and the result of this "higher fidelity image" is a sharper, clearer, more detailed" image. So THOSE projectors ARE telling us about what greater fidelity to the source looks like. If you can eq/tweak the image of a lower-performing projector with a Darblet to look more like the higher fidelity image in terms of clarity, sharpness and revealed detail, how is the end result NOT hewing to the end goal of fidelity?

In fact, a well-regarded calibrator, Jeff Meier, who calibrated my projectors and who I know detests anything that distorts the signal (he's wary of introducing just about anything into the chain, including Lumagen products), has indicated this line of thinking makes sense. He evaluates everything very carefully and objectively and has said that _careful_ use of the Darblet "can transform your JVC DILA into something closer to a three chip DLP without the extra light output." That from someone intimately familiar with constantly calibrating JVC and top end DLP projectors (for movies studios as well).

If we wanted to be really careful and more objective in doing so, in principle we could compare a JVC projector with Darblet to a high end DLP, and given the DLP is showing us the higher fidelity image, dial the Darblet until the JVC looks more similar in clarity/detail to the DLP. If this is not impossible in principle, then your abject dismissal of the Darblet as a method of achieving fidelity would seem too rash.

And, again, in the real world, no most of us don't have two such projectors side by side. But that still doesn't
mean that very slightly sharpening the JVC image with a Darblet wouldn't be a move toward higher fidelity, and it does not seem egregious for someone with a goal of fidelity to engage in this. (Again, the level of image difference one can introduce _carefully_ with the Darblet surely isn't so significant, given there is acceptable variance even among many ISF calibrated displays).

Rich H


----------



## lcaillo

Rich H said:


> Your use of the term "fidelity" seems either imprecise - which is why I've been asking for more detail on what you mean by the term - or it seems perhaps too restrictive, insofar as it does not cover other real-world scenarios were we must juggle compromises, but still with a goal toward "fidelity."


Consider my meaning of the term as restrictive as you can imagine. Signal in, signal out. Something that maintains fidelity does not alter it. No assumptions about what might have been done elsewhere are needed. Those distortions should be discussed and dealt with in their own context. It is only by tightly defining terms that we can apply logic and reasoning clearly.


----------



## tele1962

I don't think David Mackenzie is going to review the Darblet as he is to busy on his film, Blu Ray/DVD work, but i think the AVForums review said it all really. Seen a couple of other reviews i am not so sure about though but hey everone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## lcaillo

Rich H said:


> Take a digital equalizer. If "flat response" will reproduce the source sound accurately and my speaker has a slight dip in the presence region, I can raise the eq in that presence region. Looking only at that single component, it's altering/distorting the signal. But at the end of the chain the result is _higher fidelity_ to what is on the source.


Perhaps, perhaps not. This assumes that you can more closely approximate what was in the source and may be useful at the system level. It also assumes a very specific adjustment on a specific system. My point all along has been that the important information about this processor is what it does under what conditions. Until we can describe that better it is difficult to apply it to best effect. It is far more complicated in its effect than simply adjusting frequency response, and many more assumptions are required to get to some idea of system level "fidelity" as you are using the term. I simply disagree that this is a useful way to discuss the matter.

Your own judgement of what represents fidelity to the original image is completely your own choice and no one should tell you that you have to accept another view. If we are to discuss very complex systems and technology, and science we must agree on how terms are to be used. As we become more restrictive on definitions we come closer to being able to apply reason and logic and come to conclusions that might go beyond opinion.

I like what the processor does to sports in the sense that lines on a field, a ball in flight, a shoe's position on turf can all look more well defined and clear. I do not like the distraction of the enhancement of the crowd detail in the background, which I find distracting. I tended to turn the processor level down considerably when there was lots of background on sporting events. I found golf balls in flight easier to see and was willing to tolerate much more enhancement to get that information, which to me was the most salient part of the image.

Going forward, I will not respond in this thread without including something about what I like and don't like, or my observations of its effect that might assist others in better understanding what the processor does. I can blather and debate semantics, linguistics, or epistemology more than most and we have departed from useful discussion of the product quite a bit in this thread.


----------



## Rich H

*
lcaillo,*

You seem to be repeating some assertions, but without actually addressing the issues and examples I've brought up. 



lcaillo said:


> Consider my meaning of the term as restrictive as you can imagine.


Ok, but then as I point out, it seems perhaps too restrictive. Or at least idiosyncratic given many professionals chase the goal of "fidelity" in a way your term would seem to restrict.



lcaillo said:


> Signal in, signal out. Something that maintains fidelity does not alter it.


Ok, then to be precise we need to know the following:

Was Dolby Noise Reduction not created with the goal of higher fidelity?
After all, the first device in the chain altered the signal providing preemphasis. At the end of the chain
the Dolby device altered the signal again and provided deemphasis. On your precise terms, this can not
serve the goal of "fidelity" given the signal has been altered at points in the chain. And yet, "greater fidelity" is precisely the goal of that system, a way of reducing one distortion (tape hiss) that tended to mask the actual artistic part of the content (music/sound).

It seems idiosyncratic to define such moves as not being attempts at greater fidelity. Do you really want to do this? Especially as this type of distort at one end, un-distort at another end processing is used to promote and preserve fidelity in many delivery systems today (e.g. via codecs etc).



lcaillo said:


> No assumptions about what might have been done elsewhere are needed.


On the contrary - I think a lot of engineers would say you NEED to figure in what has been done elsewhere to the signal (especially if that includes distortion) if your goal is fidelity. 



lcaillo said:


> Those distortions should be discussed and dealt with in their own context.


Yes, and since those distortions exist in the real world, we have to include them in our real-world goal toward "fidelity." A concept of "fidelity" that is only achieved as in ideal is not robust enough for the real world. We should think that moving in the direction of fidelity is a good thing too, even if we don't achieve perfect fidelity. And real-world discussions of distortion and how to counteract it's influence are necessary here.



lcaillo said:


> It is only by tightly defining terms that we can apply logic and reasoning clearly.


Agreed. But what I'm trying to do is talk about where the logic leads.

Cheers,

Rich H


----------



## lcaillo

Rich H said:


> If we wanted to be really careful and more objective in doing so, in principle we could compare a JVC projector with Darblet to a high end DLP, and given the DLP is showing us the higher fidelity image, dial the Darblet until the JVC looks more similar in clarity/detail to the DLP. If this is not impossible in principle, then your abject dismissal of the Darblet as a method of achieving fidelity would seem too rash.
> 
> Rich H


I simply do not see how this has anything to do with fidelity. This is an image matching exercise that must assume greater fidelity of one image over another to achieve your goal. I would rather understand what the limitations are in each projector and attempt to address those issues. Until you understand what those limitations are, say poorer black level or colorimetric issues, you can't really say that the darbee processing will get one more closer to "fidelity" regardless of your definition of the term. There are good standards for measuring the performance of projectors that we could start with.

The darbee processing takes small picture elements and where its algorithm decides there is important information extends the dynamic range in luminance in those local elements. It does so only in middle luminance ranges and does not affect overall black level of peak luminance overall. This would preclude improvements that would make one projector with poorer minimum black levels looking like one with better blacks. The effect of the processor is to make image detail that in the input is not very crisp much more defined by extending local luminance ranges. This is very different than the limitations in comparing projectors. I could make a projector overall appear more crisp and contrasty, but it is doing so by manipulating the image in a manner that is very different than the variance between projectors. It might fool the eye into thinking that a projector with lower output or poorer blacks looks in some way better, even more similar to a superior projector. There are lots of techniques that we can use, like bias lighting, to enhance the viewing experience. But this is a perceptual effect that is very different than correcting the deficiencies in a projector that make it less able to produce an image with fidelity to its source.

The darbee processor takes very small areas of weak contrast and makes them more obvious and more highly contrasted. The grain in a wood floor, or the pores on a face are the kinds of local detail that gets enhanced by increasing the difference in luminance in that region. The elements that it acts upon appear to be very small, and the effect does not extend to the near black or near white extremes of the luminance range of the overall image.


----------



## mechman

*Re: Darblet off topic posts*



lcaillo said:


> There is a fine line between sarcasm and humor, and anyone who knows mechman understands that his demeanor is quite pleasant and not at all like his image might suggest. Take this as an attempt at humor rather than a sarcastic jab. I would point out that if you have an issue with a moderator or admin you should report the post, as our rules specifically forbid critique of moderators in the forum publicly. We are happy to discuss it privately if you have an issue with any staff here.
> 
> I think his point, dmiller, is that no one is forcing you to watch anything in any particular way. You said "However I feel no one should have the right to limit what I am supposed to see." Which is a statement that I completely agree with, but no one is making you use the Darbee, or not use it.
> 
> If more of the kind of review that I have suggested were available, you might be able to get a better idea of whether you like it or not. But given the short supply and the high demand, it seems like a rather low risk to buy it. Someone has already related that he had no problem reselling the unit.


Humor it was. :T I should have put a smiley afterwards and for that I apologize. :bigsmile:


----------



## Rich H

lcaillo said:


> My point all along has been that the important information about this processor is what it does under what conditions. Until we can describe that better it is difficult to apply it to best effect. It is far more complicated in its effect than simply adjusting frequency response, and many more assumptions are required to get to some idea of system level "fidelity" as you are using the term.


Well, ok but now you seem to be more equivocal, talking of what we don't know (though it seems at least one calibrator seems to think he has a grasp of what the Darblet is altering in the image, and finds it brings LCOS images closer to DLP level sharpness). 

Whereas I had been responding to the fact you'd stated in no uncertain terms:



lcaillo said:


> The Darblet does not maintain *image* fidelity. Period.


(my emphasis).

Which did seem to invoke fidelity in too rash a declaration, given extenuating issues in real world displays.



lcaillo said:


> I simply disagree that this is a useful way to discuss the matter.


I'm still left wondering...why not? I've been happy to try and understand what you mean by your terms, which is exactly why I ask my questions.




lcaillo said:


> Going forward, I will not respond in this thread without including something about what I like and don't like, or my observations of its effect that might assist others in better understanding what the processor does. I can blather and debate semantics, linguistics, or epistemology more than most and we have departed from useful discussion of the product quite a bit in this thread.


Ok. I'm a philosophy buff myself so I was hoping someone with a quote from Locke on his signature would be more amenable to this type of conversation. I don't see how it distracts and many observers find these exchanges illuminating.

But I wouldn't tell anyone else how to spend his Sunday....:sn:

Cheers and thanks for the discussion. (Again, I agree very much with a lot of what you have written and you clearly bring useful information to this forum!).

Rich H


----------



## lcaillo

Rich H said:


> Agreed. But what I'm trying to do is talk about where the logic leads.


There has been far too much emotion and investment of whether the device is good or bad to allow logic to lead us anywhere in this debate. Logic requires defining the assumptions and terms used in any proposition. Making a case for a particular point of view, no matter how convincing, does not mean that we have applied logic. 

The darbee processing does not affect traditional calibration measurements which are large scale image components or at the extremes of image ranges in many cases. Even on multiburst patterns and other patterns that measure detail it is very difficult to see much of the effect. It does have a profound impact on the viewing experience, however, and under certain image conditions this can be a very pleasing effect. It can direct one's attention away from deficiencies in a display such as a lack of overall contrast. By emphasizing local contrast of what the algorithm decides are salient picture elements the result is a much "clearer" and more "defined" appearing image which appears to have greater contrast overall. I have two PDPs, on old LG and a newer Panasonic. The latter has far superior blacks and higher output at white peak. Using the Darblet on the LG made it much more pleasant to watch when I could tolerate the annoying effect of enhancing parts of the image that I found distracting. I found myself making careful adjustment on many programs that were trade-offs between the benefits of greater perceived contrast and overly enhancing aspects of the image such as artifacts and irrelevant detail. There is apparently an art to using the Darblet to best effect that I have not mastered in my brief experimentation with it.


----------



## Rich H

lcaillo said:


> I simply do not see how this has anything to do with fidelity. This is an image matching exercise that must assume greater fidelity of one image over another to achieve your goal.


Of course. Which is what you do when you appeal to broadcast monitors as the standard for image fidelity!
(Which is what was posted earlier).

On this concept of "fidelity" we are trying to match the image of our display with the image seen on the broadcast monitor used for the final production of the content. So why is this image-matching exercise suddenly a mystery?



lcaillo said:


> I would rather understand what the limitations are in each projector and attempt to address those issues.


Sure. And many limitations can be understood, for instance here is a close, objective examination of the 
differences between LCOS and certain DLP projected images, as pertains to image clarity:


http://www.videovantage.com/?p=805

Sure we ultimately ought to try making our projectors more precise, optically, to lower distortion. That's one way of moving toward fidelity to the source image. But in the real world, it's not so easy. LCOS has OTHER advantages for fidelity, but currently can not combine those with the specific fidelity advantages of certain DLP designs (optical precision). So in the real world, how do we make moves toward addressing these issues?

Well, taking one parameter at a time: if a Darblet can move the image in the direction of what it would look like if we could improve our optics on a LCOS...that would seem to be a move toward fidelity to the image.
Like dolby processing, regardless of HOW the image is manipulated on way to the end result, if the end result of a LCOS-manipulated image clarity is CLOSER to that of a DLP with higher optical fidelity, then I don't see why this move can't be made in good conscience with the goal of increasing image fidelity.



lcaillo said:


> There has been far too much emotion and investment of whether the device is good or bad to allow logic to lead us anywhere in this debate.


Er...not on my part. There is no acrimony from me (which some people seem to just assume in conversations like this). I have Darbee. I'm somewhat conflicted about it myself and not trying to defend it per se. I just like to make sense of what I, and others, are meaning. But if you feel too emotional on the issue...? (Otherwise, if we both aren't being too emotional, why can't we move forward on the issue?)

Rich H


----------



## Rich H

I think that discussion is played out. Don't want to bore others. On to more user reports I guess.


----------



## tele1962

I wonder and this not being patronising to present company, why it is the leaders in the field of AV are not even seeming to be bothered with it?


----------



## dmiller

I for one did not find the discussion to be boring at all.

I did fire up my Oppo and tried Avatar which many seem to like with the Darbee. I liked it too finding I could increase the effect quite a bit without destroying the imge. For the first time however I could see the effect disappear as the background distance increased. Close floating mountains vs far away shots.

I also tried Private Ryan. Here I was not too pleased with the effect. Perhaps it was distorting the film grain in this case. I will have to try more but I think I will turn it off for BluRay. With "On" being the exception


----------



## lcaillo

Dolby processing is an encode/decode process with defined parameters. It solves a very well defined problem. A single ended process like the darbee processing makes assumptions about what is salient in the image and applies an algorithm. The degree to which that process solves a problem that is introduced by the system is not certain. I don't buy many of the arguments that I have heard about how it does so, because the connection between the problems in the distribution chain/display and the algorithm has not been clearly established. The processing appears to be solving a different problem, more related to what people like to see as opposed to the problems of image distribution.

What aspect of deficiency in the delivery of visual media does the darbee process address? Well, this is a question that is difficult to answer. Because the processing is not directly correlated with traditional measurements of display properties or signal characteristics it requires a different approach than normal measurement and calibration. It has been recognized by display manufacturers that increased contrast and color intensity and manipulation attract buyers. This is why vivid and "torch" modes have been applied and why we got to displays with OOB color temps more than twice reference levels. Darbee obviously recognized the desirability of greater perceived contrast. By applying this understanding to very small picture elements, the achieve the desired "pop" without the global problems that affect calibration levels and distort color and drive displays to clip whites or blacks. It is a very clever solution to a problem that others have not addressed without other side effects. That is not to say that it is not without its own side effects that may not be preferable. I have mentioned some of the things that I don't like about it several times. Manipulating intra frame contrast in very small areas discretely gives the effect of a much more contrasty image. That might appear to be solving a problem in the design of some displays but is doing so in a manner that uses knowledge of what we perceive as significant in an image rather than approaching the problem directly, which would be impossible without redesigning lots of displays. Again, very clever, but it is a different approach that does not solve a problem as previously defined. It creates a completely different manipulation of what we see than the distortions in the display to make us feel more satisfied with the result. A very unique product that has some very useful applications, but the language and evaluation methods that are standard in the industry really don't make much sense in some ways when applied in this context.


----------



## lcaillo

dmiller said:


> I for one did not find the discussion to be boring at all.
> 
> I did fire up my Oppo and tried Avatar which many seem to like with the Darbee. I liked it too finding I could increase the effect quite a bit without destroying the imge. For the first time however I could see the effect disappear as the background distance increased. Close floating mountains vs far away shots.
> 
> I also tried Private Ryan. Here I was not too pleased with the effect. Perhaps it was distorting the film grain in this case. I will have to try more but I think I will turn it off for BluRay. With "On" being the exception


Can we describe what it is about those close floating mountains vs the far away shots that relate to the degree of the effect? This is where some input from the manufacturer might lead us to better understanding, or we can play with it to try to determine these parameters. Is it the size of the elements of differential luminance, or the level of difference, or some other characteristic that seems to limit the effect? We are somewhat guessing at the way the device values salient characteristics of the image...but this may get us somewhere toward better understanding the processing and its effects.


----------



## Rich H

dmiller said:


> I for one did not find the discussion to be boring at all.
> 
> I did fire up my Oppo and tried Avatar which many seem to like with the Darbee. I liked it too finding I could increase the effect quite a bit without destroying the imge. For the first time however I could see the effect disappear as the background distance increased. Close floating mountains vs far away shots.
> 
> I also tried Private Ryan. Here I was not too pleased with the effect. Perhaps it was distorting the film grain in this case. I will have to try more but I think I will turn it off for BluRay. With "On" being the exception


I really like having the Darbee in my toolbox, but it's not a perfect tool. If I set it just a bit too high I can start seeing the image as being "Darbeeized" and when that intrudes too much on my consciousness in watching a movie, I want to pull back because ideally I want the technology to be invisible to me so I concentrate on the content. The problem is the effect can vary within a movie, so at some settings only certain shots may make the Darbee processing obvious, thus it's not easy, at least for me yet, to settle on a single final setting. Perhaps I'll get there. Perhaps I'll use it sometimes, not others.

(One this issue clearly subjectivity plays a big roll. For instance, for some people the issues of certain high gain screens seem invisible when they are viewing content, whereas screen artifacts drive me crazy).


----------



## dmiller

I am watching on a 60" Kuro at about 12 ft seating distance. Defects are not as visible to me as I assume they would be with a large projection screen. The other issue for me is I do not have the "trained" eyes that some of you possess. A blessing at times.


----------



## Alan Brown

In the interest of more clearly illustrating the "preference" side of this debate, I have discovered and share with the readership someone who could be considered a "master" of that principle: 



.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## Rich H

LOL ^^^

The guy has to be an engineer.

Reminds me of my father in law, an engineer (British background) to the core, when he cooks food. The idea of ever improvising or leaving anything to chance or imprecision is impossible for him. So he has the timing/temperature/instructions for everything he makes and follows it to a "T."

His roast beef dinner, Yorkshire pudding, potatoes and steamed vegetable dinner comes out perfect every single time, always tasting the same.

The flip side of this impatience with imprecision or novelty is a rather limited palette. That roast beef dinner is the only thing he has ever served us, twice a year, for the last 20 years...

Back to Darbee...


----------



## Alan Brown

Rich H said:


> LOL ^^^
> 
> The guy has to be an engineer.
> 
> Reminds me of my father in law, an engineer (British background) to the core, when he cooks food. The idea of ever improvising or leaving anything to chance or imprecision is impossible for him. So he has the timing/temperature/instructions for everything he makes and follows it to a "T."
> 
> His roast beef dinner, Yorkshire pudding, potatoes and steamed vegetable dinner comes out perfect every single time, always tasting the same.
> 
> The flip side of this impatience with imprecision or novelty is a rather limited palette. That roast beef dinner is the only thing he has ever served us, twice a year, for the last 20 years...
> 
> Back to Darbee...


He's actually a television actor, a practical expert on the topic of video programs as art.


----------



## J&D

Excellent video but I could not tell if there was any enhancement.:justdontknow:

Excuse me for a minute while I run to the store for a watermelon.:wave:


----------



## mechman

dmiller said:


> I for one did not find the discussion to be boring at all.
> 
> I did fire up my Oppo and tried Avatar which many seem to like with the Darbee. I liked it too finding I could increase the effect quite a bit without destroying the imge. For the first time however I could see the effect disappear as the background distance increased. Close floating mountains vs far away shots.
> 
> I also tried Private Ryan. Here I was not too pleased with the effect. Perhaps it was distorting the film grain in this case. I will have to try more but I think I will turn it off for BluRay. With "On" being the exception


That's the rub of it. It seems harmless for some content and yet others it seems like it is harmful, with the majority being harmful in my case. It just doesn't do well with DirecTV at all IMO. And yet Avatar and animated films it seems fine. For me it would default to on for blu-ray and off for broadcast content. 

And Leonard stated that he liked it for sproting events while I noticed an enhancement of compression artifacts some while noticing very little, outside of the crowd, with other sporting events. 

This device will be will no doubt be a personal preference thing. Just make sure you can return it if you don't like it as it's awfully expensive for what little it does. :spend:


----------



## mechman

*Darblet with Football on DirecTV*

When the camera is panned out, pay close attention to the numbers on the field. Source is DirecTV. The enhancing of compression artifacts goes away when the darblet is set to around 35, which gives zero benefit to the content.












Hockey coming next and then baseball.


----------



## mechman

*Darblet with Hockey*

This is called hockey Leonard! It's pronounced hoc-eee.

About the only thing you will notice in these is the crowd, which really needs no enhancement at all.


----------



## mechman

*Darblet with baseball*

Again, the source is DirecTV. Pay attention when they are showing the hitter. Watch the Target Field logo on the back wall and the enhancement to compression artifacts.






It should be noted that these are my pj setup. Epson 3010 with a 100" screen. All videos were shot in 1080p using a Kodak Zi8 on a tripod.


----------



## mechman

*Darblet HQV Test Patterns*

These videos are using a Sony BDP-S590 Blu-ray player and the HQV Test Pattern disc. Some of these show what the darblet really does in a more positive way.

*Resolution Enhancement*

The wood grain shot and the forest stream really show the positive side of the darblet.






*Contrast Enhancement*

The shot with the roller coaster is actually not all that good. The darblet is again enhancing artifacts. The driftwood seems ok but it doesnt enhance this as much as it does other content. The beach at dusk there is little improvement as well - look at the palm leaves. The black and white cat does nothing for the black cat and slightly improves some darker areas in the white cat's hair - look at the eyes, nose and ears.






*Compression Artifacts*

Watching this video on youtube it appears that this one is lost in the transfer. All I can say is that all settings 40 and above enhance compression artifacts. I've had luck at 38 with some content and other content I've had to go as low as 35.


----------



## mechman

*Darblet with Avatar blu-ray*

I thought that this showed the darblet doing what it could do when it did things right.

My Avatar videos are verboten I guess. Sorry Fox!


*Make sure you watch these videos in 1080p.*


----------



## Jungle Jack

I forgot. What is Hockey? Mech, I am so glad you fixed your Wife's Minivan and were able to put up the Videos. Props too on doing your own Auto Repair!
J


----------



## Ken Ross

Rich H said:


> *lcaillo,*
> Nowhere did I imply I was using the term fidelity as a synonym for "looks more pleasing to me." In fact I've been quite clear that is not what I'm talking about. I've been talking about actual losses in fidelity due to distortion (on a display) and the possibility of bringing an image closer to how it would look on a display with less distortion, hence increasing fidelity to the source. (At a perceptual level). Your use of the term "fidelity" seems either imprecise - which is why I've been asking for more detail on what you mean by the term - or it seems perhaps too restrictive, insofar as it does not cover other real-world scenarios were we must juggle compromises, but still with a goal toward "fidelity."
> 
> 
> Rich H


That to me is the crux of the argument. If the gap between a perfectly accurate display, one that brings us the best 'fidelity' that is humanly possible, and display B that doesn't quite achieve that, can be narrowed by using the Darblet, why is that not raising the fidelity of display B?

I have not yet been convinced this is not the case. I think much of this issue does revolve around differing definitions of fidelity.


----------



## mechman

Ken Ross said:


> That to me is the crux of the argument. If the gap between a perfectly accurate display, one that brings us the best 'fidelity' that is humanly possible, and display B that doesn't quite achieve that, can be narrowed by using the Darblet, why is that not raising the fidelity of display B?
> 
> I have not yet been convinced this is not the case. I think much of this issue does revolve around differing definitions of fidelity.


The thing is, speaking as a display B camp person, it doesn't narrow the gap. It doesn't fix my pj's wacky green primary nor does it fix my low end grayscale. It doesn't fix my sharpness either as my pj is sharp enough as is. And it doesn't help with contrast or brightness settings either. It does nothing to help my pj's fidelity. 

So the real question is, what does it do? And that's a good question! :T I kind of look at it as a dynamic contrast algorithm that picks (a lot of times wrong but some times right) an area of the content to apply itself to - or 'enhance'. All you have to do is watch a sporting event and you realize right away that for some reason, this thing likes to enhance crowds. I would guess that it likes the lower light areas. Although the stump on the beach (from the HQV patterns) it didn't do nearly as much as it does to a crowd at a hockey game. And I would think that the parameters would be the same - mainly a bright image with some very dark content in the shot as well.

What are your thoughts on your darblet Ken? As an Elite owner, I would consider you in the display A camp. And I would think that an Elite would not need a product like the darblet. :huh: I would think that there is some sort of processing that is probably turned off that you could turn back on that could mimic the darblet's effects. What have you watched? What have you noticed? What have liked/disliked?


----------



## mechman

Jungle Jack said:


> I forgot. What is Hockey?


:rolleyesno: Someday I'll fly down to Florida and make the two of you (Leonard and yourself) attend a true sporting event. :neener:



Jungle Jack said:


> Mech, I am so glad you fixed your Wife's Minivan and were able to put up the Videos. Props too on doing your own Auto Repair!
> J


To quote Red Green: "If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."


----------



## Ken Ross

mechman said:


> The thing is, speaking as a display B camp person, it doesn't narrow the gap. It doesn't fix my pj's wacky green primary nor does it fix my low end grayscale. It doesn't fix my sharpness either as my pj is sharp enough as is. And it doesn't help with contrast or brightness settings either. It does nothing to help my pj's fidelity.
> 
> So the real question is, what does it do? And that's a good question! :T I kind of look at it as a dynamic contrast algorithm that picks (a lot of times wrong but some times right) an area of the content to apply itself to - or 'enhance'. All you have to do is watch a sporting event and you realize right away that for some reason, this thing likes to enhance crowds. I would guess that it likes the lower light areas. Although the stump on the beach (from the HQV patterns) it didn't do nearly as much as it does to a crowd at a hockey game. And I would think that the parameters would be the same - mainly a bright image with some very dark content in the shot as well.
> 
> What are your thoughts on your darblet Ken? As an Elite owner, I would consider you in the display A camp. And I would think that an Elite would not need a product like the darblet. :huh: I would think that there is some sort of processing that is probably turned off that you could turn back on that could mimic the darblet's effects. What have you watched? What have you noticed? What have liked/disliked?


I don't see the kind of issues I see in your videos Mechman and I'm not sure why.

Although the Elite is a great display, some would argue whether it's a 'Class A' given its known cyan error in the lower luminance values. But that's another story and once I certainly don't want to resurrect here or anywhere for that matter.

Given the strict definition of fidelity and such here, I don't think any consumer display fits the "Class A" definition. 

Thus far I'm favorably impressed with the Darblet. I find it takes little effort in getting a positive response from the unit with no observable ill-effects. I'm sure that the interaction with the Darblet and any given display will be different, that only makes sense, but thus far I'm enjoying what I see on the Elite.

Does the Elite 'need' the Darblet? I'm sure it doesn't, but I don't believe there's a consumer display around that can't be improved upon or, as some might prefer, 'enhanced'. 

I've watched only broadcast material on FIOS thus far (no BDs) as I still haven't had as much time as I'd like to play with it. However, used judicially (an HD setting of about 45-50), I see an apparent detail improvement. I know some like to call it contrast enhancement, but visually it appears more like a detail enhancement. I'm well aware that a contrast enhancer can also appear to visually enhance details, but this is somehow different to my eye.

I can certainly see the beginning of ugliness when one gets too aggressive with the enhancement, so I can't see using settings greater than about 50 or so in MY setup. I emphasize 'my setup' because again, I can well imagine that different setups will respond differently to what the Darblet is doing. So I'm not sure there is any cast in stone setting for this thing.

In the end, although curious, I'm less concerned about hearing from the manufacturer about the specifics of how it's done as opposed to watching the picture and seeing what is done. BTW, I see no display control that really mimics what the Darblet is doing.


----------



## Rich H

mechman said:


> The thing is, speaking as a display B camp person, it doesn't narrow the gap. It doesn't fix my pj's wacky green primary nor does it fix my low end grayscale....[snip].... And it doesn't help with contrast or brightness settings either.


It's not supposed to do those things. :huh: So such complaints seem beside the point, don't they?
It would be like complaining that Gamma controls don't fix your display's misconvergence. Well, they aren't supposed to, but since fidelity/accuracy can be addressed parameter by parameter, control by control, we have to take things one at a time. The issue raised with the Darblet (at least the one I'm talking about) is whether in instances were a projector is not reproducing details as finely as is possible, can the Darblet help us regain _on a perceptual level (from the viewing position)_ the detail and clarity we are missing?

These comments speak more to the issues raised:



mechman said:


> It doesn't fix my sharpness either as my pj is sharp enough as is.
> 
> It does nothing to help my pj's fidelity.


Which projector do you use?

Perhaps it's optical path is indeed above reproach and distortion free, and hence the Darblet would be moot in terms of fidelity.

But if it's not, and it is in any way softer looking than it otherwise could be if it had less distortion, then it falls short of the final goal of "fidelity" and which suggests "my pj is sharp enough as it is" may simply be a statement of preference - that you find it's sharpness fine and don't personally want for more.

I'm just curious which it is.

I think your comments on how you perceive the Darblet to work on details like crowds are great. (This device gets a big "yuck" from me when cranked up, on virtually any content). 

The thing is most who can compare projectors with varying optical capabilities (again, say LCOS vs a really good DLP) will tend to point out sharpness differences are in the big picture, subtle...but distinct and though subtle can have a subjectively significant effect (which is why some enthusiasts...not to mention professionals...are willing to pay for those last distinctions). The question for me is, used judiciously and carefully, whether the Darblet can be dialed toward this type of subtle increase in clarity, without incurring the type of obvious and egregious artifacts easily seen when pushed higher. (My fiddling with the device at lower levels seems to suggest so...though I haven't come to a solid conclusion myself).

Thanks,

Rich H


----------



## Ken Ross

Rich H said:


> The question for me is, used judiciously and carefully, whether the Darblet can be dialed toward this type of subtle increase in clarity, without incurring the type of obvious and egregious artifacts easily seen when pushed higher. (My fiddling with the device at lower levels seems to suggest so...though I haven't come to a solid conclusion myself).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rich H


I have seen just that. With a 45-50 HD setting dialed in, I actually forget the Darblet is in the chain. However when the unit is turned off, you can immediately see the difference. To me this is an excellent result. You get the benefits without even realizing there is some additional resource having been added. The 'invisibility' of any type of enhancer is to me, a prerequisite for it remaining in my system. If I'm reminded that a device is in my chain, then it's not offering the degree of transparency I want.

Don't misunderstand, by 'transparency' I'm not talking about effects that can't be seen, but rather effects that can be seen while forgetting that some additional device is the cause of that.


----------



## mechman

Rich H said:


> It's not supposed to do those things. :huh: So such complaints seem beside the point, don't they?
> It would be like complaining that Gamma controls don't fix your display's misconvergence. Well, they aren't supposed to, but since fidelity/accuracy can be addressed parameter by parameter, control by control, we have to take things one at a time. The issue raised with the Darblet (at least the one I'm talking about) is whether in instances were a projector is not reproducing details as finely as is possible, can the Darblet help us regain _on a perceptual level (from the viewing position)_ the detail and clarity we are missing?


The discussion was whether the darblet would close the gap between a lessor display and a greater display with regards to fidelity. I thought the answer was pretty straight forward. Whether the darblet does those things or not makes no difference. Those are tools that I use to help me get closer to image fidelity through video calibration.





Rich H said:


> Which projector do you use?
> 
> Perhaps it's optical path is indeed above reproach and distortion free, and hence the Darblet would be moot in terms of fidelity.
> 
> But if it's not, and it is in any way softer looking than it otherwise could be if it had less distortion, then it falls short of the final goal of "fidelity" and which suggests "my pj is sharp enough as it is" may simply be a statement of preference - that you find it's sharpness fine and don't personally want for more.
> 
> I'm just curious which it is.
> 
> I think your comments on how you perceive the Darblet to work on details like crowds are great. (This device gets a big "yuck" from me when cranked up, on virtually any content).
> 
> The thing is most who can compare projectors with varying optical capabilities (again, say LCOS vs a really good DLP) will tend to point out sharpness differences are in the big picture, subtle...but distinct and though subtle can have a subjectively significant effect (which is why some enthusiasts...not to mention professionals...are willing to pay for those last distinctions). The question for me is, used judiciously and carefully, whether the Darblet can be dialed toward this type of subtle increase in clarity, without incurring the type of obvious and egregious artifacts easily seen when pushed higher. (My fiddling with the device at lower levels seems to suggest so...though I haven't come to a solid conclusion myself).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rich H


Epson 3010. The sharpness on it looks fine when a sharpness pattern is displayed. But the darblet doesn't do anything like a sharpness setting would. It's adjusting luminance at varying locations of the content according to the algorithm. As opposed to sharpness applying an edge enhancement which can have a detrimental effect.

I will have to get the old DLP out of the garage and see how this thing works with that as well then. Hopefully it won't keep giving me the issues I was having causing me to replace it. 

I think that it works wonderfully with some content and downright awful with others (DirecTV). My big issue with the darblet is that I think it costs too much for what it does. If it would just be a simple process of turning it on and dialing in one setting (or maybe having a couple of presets) and leaving it alone it would be one thing. But from my experience with it, you really don't know what you're going to get with it until you put the content up and play with the settings. Settings that worked well for Avatar and the Lorax worked poorly for Sherlock Holmes A Game of Shadows. And I'm certain that there are many more that would require different settings. To me, it's just not worth it to have a device that would require that much maintenance. 

One of the other things that I have noticed with this product and it's online presence is the posting of stills. When you take a still shot of someone's face it may show subtle differences. But when the content is actually rolling, those subtle differences tend to get lost. That's why I posted the videos above. So that you can see the differences with the device on and off with content playing.


----------



## mechman

Removed the Avatar videos as I guess they were long enough that Fox didn't like them. You'll just have to trust me when I say that the darblet works well with Avatar. :T


----------



## GoNoles

LOL, you are gonna get a letter in the mail


----------



## dmiller

Mechman be sure the peep hole in your front door is in good order. The HDCP police also use unmarked cars.

I do have a question for you. Our observations seem to differ on Direct TV. I am content with the Darblet set at HD 40-50%. Maybe your larger screen make defects more visible? I ask because our observations seem to be similar elsewhere.


----------



## mechman

dmiller said:


> Mechman be sure the peep hole in your front door is in good order. The HDCP police also use unmarked cars.


:sneeky:



dmiller said:


> I do have a question for you. Our observations seem to differ on Direct TV. I am content with the Darblet set at HD 40-50%. *Maybe your larger screen make defects more visible?* I ask because our observations seem to be similar elsewhere.


It's kind of what I was thinking but have yet to check as the darblet has handshake issues with the HR20-700 on my Sony LED/LCD. And I don't want to move DVRs around as I have external hard drives on most of them and the last time I moved them I lost all the shows. 

I did check Sherlock Holmes A Game of Shadows last night on my 52" Sony and the video noise is still prevalent in the scene I previously noted. I noticed the noise all the way down to 30 - I didn't check any lower. I also watched a little of Batman A Dark Knight. The darblet effect was very minor, even at 75, in the IMAX scenes.


----------



## dmiller

I suspect you are more adept at picking out the noise than I am. (Trained eye?) I am reacting more to overall impression and I am not sure the Darblet is contributing or not at times. I think the effect is very interesting but inconsistent. As the cues it reads change so does it's effect. Maybe the algorithmns can be refined to provide more consistency


----------



## mechman

I wouldn't consider myself adept at picking out noise, it was just that obvious in that particular scene.


----------



## mechman

Apparently the price is now going up to $349. In my opinion, I would not recommend this to anyone at this price. I've stated several times that this is over priced. Now it's way over priced. :spend:

If you are contemplating buying one, watch the videos. Still photos of paused content do not tell the whole picture with this device. When you tame it down to a manageable level (somewhere less than 40 IMO) the difference between on and off in playing content is difficult, at best, to see. 

I thought that it's price point should be around $50, maybe $99.99 for the infomercial crowd. :rolleyesno:


----------



## Ken Ross

And from my point of view, I think it's a bargain. If you like what it does, it's cheap. If you don't, it's overpriced.


----------



## dmiller

Ken Ross said:


> And from my point of view, I think it's a bargain. If you like what it does, it's cheap. If you don't, it's overpriced.


Totally agree:clap:


----------



## Jungle Jack

mechman said:


> Apparently the price is now going up to $349. In my opinion, I would not recommend this to anyone at this price. I've stated several times that this is over priced. Now it's way over priced. :spend:
> 
> If you are contemplating buying one, watch the videos. Still photos of paused content do not tell the whole picture with this device. When you tame it down to a manageable level (somewhere less than 40 IMO) the difference between on and off in playing content is difficult, at best, to see.
> 
> I thought that it's price point should be around $50, maybe $99.99 for the infomercial crowd. :rolleyesno:


Wow. I too thought it was pricey at $280. While I realize some think it a bargain in comparison to a DVDO Edge and other Video Processors, but I do not consider the DVP to be in that category.


----------



## mechman

Jungle Jack said:


> Wow. I too thought it was pricey at $280. While I realize some think it a bargain in comparison to a DVDO Edge and other Video Processors, but I do not consider the DVP to be in that category.


The way I looked at it is that the DVDO iScan Duo can be had for $899. It can adjust grayscale, gamut, gamma and a myriad of other things that will get you closer to image fidelity. The Duo is sold at a valid price point IMO.


----------



## Jungle Jack

mechman said:


> The way I looked at it is that the DVDO iScan Duo can be had for $899. It can adjust grayscale, gamut, gamma and a myriad of other things that will get you closer to image fidelity. The Duo is sold at a valid price point IMO.


Exactly. Could not agree more about that.


----------



## dmiller

mechman said:


> The way I looked at it is that the DVDO iScan Duo can be had for $899. It can adjust grayscale, gamut, gamma and a myriad of other things that will get you closer to image fidelity. The Duo is sold at a valid price point IMO.


The Duo list is $1299 vs $269(349 coming). Who knows what you may be able to get the Darblet for in time? Maybe $50 but also maybe much higher. It depends on the perceived value to each individual user.

Some DVDO models sold for up to $4000 even before they incorporated CMS. Some perceived that as value at the time. Many swear by their Lumagens as well.

The Darblet processes video but is not a Video Processor in my opinion.


----------



## PE06MCG

mechman said:


> The way I looked at it is that the DVDO iScan Duo can be had for $899. It can adjust grayscale, gamut, gamma and a myriad of other things that will get you closer to image fidelity. The Duo is sold at a valid price point IMO.


The Duo certainly allows me to get my Display showing correctly and value for money has done more to influence the PQ I view than any effects processer could ever do.

That said I believe there is a place for this technology and shall await its evolution with interest.


----------



## Ken Ross

mechman said:


> The way I looked at it is that the DVDO iScan Duo can be had for $899. It can adjust grayscale, gamut, gamma and a myriad of other things that will get you closer to image fidelity. The Duo is sold at a valid price point IMO.


But then again many of those things can be adjusted with the display's controls. Also, one is over 3x the price of the other.


----------



## dmiller

Keep in mind too that it took years of development on the DVDO VPxx series processors to yield the current models perceived value pricing.


----------



## PE06MCG

dmiller said:


> Keep in mind too that it took years of development on the DVDO VPxx series processors to yield the current models perceived value pricing.


Thats a good point.

Also the DVP's effect is seemingly unique and does not have, up to now that is, a bunch of various tools to achieve various objectives.
Perhaps their recent price increase strategy is to get as much money as they can from hardware sales before targetting their main objective which may be to integrate it into Displays and BD Players etc.?


----------



## PE06MCG

Perhaps the experts could give me some advice.

I have an HD LCD TV.
I calibrate this so it should be reasonably accurate.
I view both SD and HD on it via BD/DVD players and TV.

Understandably some are concerned about distortion issues with the DVP but when I view an SD source on my TV am I seeing a distorted image?

Should I perhaps view all SD material on a calibrated SD Display if I want to be pedantic about maintaining my DVD or SD program original quality?


----------



## dmiller

Kris Deerings review is up at hometheater.com lddude:


----------



## GoNoles

Hometheater.com


----------



## Ken Ross

Wow, I couldn't agree more with Kris's review and he's said many of the same things I and others have mentioned. You get a very worthwhile added pop to the image with no observable artifacts. He did mention an increase in some artifacts with SD material, but I watch none of that any more and I suspect many here don't too. 

In our discussion of image fidelity, I asked what would happen if this device was built in to displays? Would it draw any concern at all as it does now as a peripheral device if people weren't aware of it being integrated into the display? Or would many simply say 'wow, that display has more pop than the others'. I believe a built in Darbee would have the effect of forcing predispositions aside and simply making people assess the display on its picture quality...after all, at that point nobody is even aware there's a Darbee in there!  Kris suggested that maybe one day we'll see these built in to displays. 

I also found it interesting that Kris did see a slight increase in noise on the luma zone plate pattern on the S&M BD, but it never manifested itself with any program material he tried. I've long agreed that test pattern material is important in calibration (obviously) but what you see in actual program content doesn't always translate to what you saw in the test material. Some live and die by the charts and graphs and go no further in an assessment, but unless they're used in conjunction with our eyes and ears while watching and listening to real program material, then you never get the full 'picture'. 

Anyone that's read high end equipment reviews over the years can find countless reviews where a writer sees one thing in video calibration charts or audio response curves, yet the reviewer mentions that either there was a visual or audible issue not suggested by the test data OR an issue that can't be seen or heard yet was suggested by the test data. 

It just emphasizes the importance of putting our biases and predispositions aside and actually viewing or listening to the equipment in question. Kris went in to this with an obvious predisposition (and made that clear to his credit), but was objective enough to let what his eyes saw take precedence over his biases. Like Kris, I've come to just leave my Darbee in my chain and forget about it. But like him, I still find myself switching it on and off to see the effect. Such is the life of a tweaker. 

Kris also rated it very highly for value, and I certainly agree with that.


----------



## mjg100

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> While I too am spurious, I figured as Bob had already ordered one, let him give his impressions. I actually deleted a sentence about just how much profit margin there must be in those little boxes and how that can sometimes create self serving Threads/Posts by those with a financial interest. However, sometimes I somewhat pull my punches especially when a Member has already purchased something.
> J


Widescreen review's Kris Deering sure gave it a thumbs up and kris is not known for buttering up a product.
I got one to look at and I was not expecting much, nor was I expecting to keep it, but I was surprised at the difference this little device made and I have kept it in my system. I am using it with an RS45, 9' wide curved scope AT screen, anamorphic lens and a Lumagen. My image has never looked better.


----------



## Jungle Jack

mjg100 said:


> Widescreen review's Kris Deering sure gave it a thumbs up and kris is not known for buttering up a product.
> I got one to look at and I was not expecting much, nor was I expecting to keep it, but I was surprised at the difference this little device made and I have kept it in my system. I am using it with an RS45, 9' wide curved scope AT screen, anamorphic lens and a Lumagen. My image has never looked better.


Hello,
That post was from literally 38 pages ago on this thread. That being said, my views on the DVP have not changed too dramatically. However, in the next 2 weeks, I should get the opportunity to check out the DVP in my HT.

I hope I have the same epiphany that so many others have seemed to experience. I still think the industrial design does not look like a $269 product. (soon to be $349) I realize that it is all about how it enhances the picture. I will certainly have an open mind if I do end up having the opportunity to check out the Darblet. I am very happy for you that it has helped to bring out the best in your HT.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tele1962

Seems apart from one other forum it's gone all quite regarding the Darblet?


----------



## PE06MCG

tele1962 said:


> Seems apart from one other forum it's gone all quite regarding the Darblet?


I agree.

Very little to discuss I suppose, you either hate it or love it.
I think the users are busy getting the best out of it and the others (including myself) have nothing to argue about except entrenched opinions.that stalemate.

Have you bought one yet?


----------



## lcaillo

I think most of what could be said has been said. And then some. I have said far more than should be needed myself. After all of the viewing and analysis, I stand by what I said in the first few posts, that I don't think there is much serious interest in what this device does on this forum. All of the interest and discussion has been about what others have said and qualifying the hysteria about the product. It is an interesting piece of equipment, but ultimately, just that, not the bees knees like it has been portrayed.


----------



## tele1962

PE06MCG said:


> I agree.
> 
> Very little to discuss I suppose, you either hate it or love it.
> I think the users are busy getting the best out of it and the others (including myself) have nothing to argue about except entrenched opinions.that stalemate.
> 
> Have you bought one yet?


No mate price is to high for what seems to be a hit and miss product.:spend:


----------



## PE06MCG

tele1962 said:


> No mate price is to high for what seems to be a hit and miss product.:spend:


You could be right, in all honesty I am very happy with my current PQ so I cannot justify spending that money to give me an alternative view of the same content.

I suppose all new video equipment needs time to get used to and find sweet spots but I like the idea of it and am very interested to see where it will lead, not necessarily only with Darbee.

Originators are not necessarily the ones who develop the ideas better commercially.


----------



## dmiller

Here is a post from a Director/DP offering his informed opinion.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1410383/darbee-darblet/90#post_22360968


----------



## DaGamePimp

I know most of you have moved along but since I just ordered a darblet this week I wanted to read all the varying opinions that I could find. I am a long time videophile and have been watching 6500K/D65 displays for over 10 years. I make no claims of being a pro calibrator but I do pro level calibrations for friends, family and of course on my own gear (none of which is capable of being 100% perfect, even owning a reference sRGB monitor).

I am as skeptical, regarding this device, as anyone and have voiced my concerns several times at AVS but what 'I find funny' here at HTS is that none of the people touting the image fidelity montra are likely using what would be considered a true reference display (equal to that of a studio monitor) at home. If we take into consideration that just about every single consumer display will not calibrate out 100% perfect on all aspects it seems rather ridiculous to proclaim the darblet is altering a directors intent. Sharp Elite... not perfect (cyan issue), Panasonic VT50... not 100% perfect either (close). So even those highly regarded consumer displays are likely altering the directors intent when calibrated by top industry pros as they are still not likely to match the reference studio monitors on all aspects. It's also humorous that most of the comments were regarding cable/sat feeds which are known to be suspect to begin with and do not even belong in a discussion of image fidelity.

Just an FYI...
As somewhat of an HTS outsider I can honestly say that, at least initially, this thread does come across as being somewhat snobbish and biased against this device (not just skeptical). It reads as the same handful of people being on a bandwagon proclaiming video purists (like myself) should not even consider using it. Yet we have many highly respected pro & industry experts submitting reviews stating otherwise... :dontknow:


I don't have my darblet as of yet and as I said I am still very skeptical and will run the device through every possible test that I can before committing to keep it. In the end it seems most agree that if it makes for additional enjoyment without degrading the image or altering calibration then there is no 'foul' in using it. :T

My thanks to those that took their time to read my post and please remember it was just an honest observation, I meant no offense and did not come here to argue.

Regards,
Jason


----------



## tele1962

DaGamePimp said:


> I know most of you have moved along but since I just ordered a darblet this week I wanted to read all the varying opinions that I could find. I am a long time videophile and have been watching 6500K/D65 displays for over 10 years. I make no claims of being a pro calibrator but I do pro level calibrations for friends, family and of course on my own gear (none of which is capable of being 100% perfect, even owning a reference sRGB monitor).
> 
> I am as skeptical, regarding this device, as anyone and have voiced my concerns several times at AVS but what 'I find funny' here at HTS is that none of the people touting the image fidelity montra are likely using what would be considered a true reference display (equal to that of a studio monitor) at home. If we take into consideration that just about every single consumer display will not calibrate out 100% perfect on all aspects it seems rather ridiculous to proclaim the darblet is altering a directors intent. Sharp Elite... not perfect (cyan issue), Panasonic VT50... not 100% perfect either (close). So even those highly regarded consumer displays are likely altering the directors intent when calibrated by top industry pros as they are still not likely to match the reference studio monitors on all aspects. It's also humorous that most of the comments were regarding cable/sat feeds which are known to be suspect to begin with and do not even belong in a discussion of image fidelity
> Just an FYI...
> As somewhat of an HTS outsider I can honestly say that, at least initially, this thread does come across as being somewhat snobbish and biased against this device (not just skeptical). It reads as the same handful of people being on a bandwagon proclaiming video purists (like myself) should not even consider using it. Yet we have many highly respected pro & industry experts submitting reviews stating otherwise... :dontknow:
> 
> 
> I don't have my darblet as of yet and as I said I am still very skeptical and will run the device through every possible test that I can before committing to keep it. In the end it seems most agree that if it makes for additional enjoyment without degrading the image or altering calibration then there is no 'foul' in using it. :T
> 
> My thanks to those that took their time to read my post and please remember it was just an honest observation, I meant no offense and did not come here to argue.
> 
> Regards,
> Jason


Most tv's are not perfect you are quite right, however introducing the darblet into the chain adds one more piece of processing that to be honest we normally turn off. The many experts i have spoken to and there are quite a few are not going to even give it the time of day.............and most have not even commented on it so far, which is very telling in it's self.
Like i have said if the likes of Joe Kane, Stacey Spears, David Mackenzie, Don Munsill, Dnice, Kevin Miller and film studios come out and say this is great. I will have one like a shot. Until then it's for me just another picture adjustment that no one can decide where it should be set to give what people think/guess is the correct picture, which is what i was doing before i calibrated my tv.


----------



## lcaillo

Two of the admins here have evaluated it and both of us found similar experience. On some content it is great. On some content it is very annoying. It depends on the type of images and the level of setting that you use. I concluded that I would like to keep it in my system to tweak up content that looks too soft and lacks "snap" but would not run it for everything. 

I have repeatedly said that understanding when it is best used and when it is not is the important question. Anyone who categorically says that someone should not use the processor is on the far extreme and going well beyond skepticism. What has been stated repeatedly is that some of us have serious issues with the claims of the manufacturer which are internally and logically inconsistent. The emotion of the arguments in favor of the device remains puzzling. Virtually everyone here agrees that one should use it if you like what it does.

Some here have stated that they think it is overpriced. I personally do not and find it to be a reasonable value if you like what it does. I will put it back in my system when it returns from the round robin eval trip that it is on now. I will also program the controls into my remote to easily turn it on and off and adjust.

Some here have been more interested in promoting the drama and continuing it. Many of those posts have been removed because they do not contribute to the topic of the thread in the spirit or letter of the forum vision and rules. This will continue to be enforced.


----------



## Ken Ross

tele1962 said:


> No mate price is to high for what seems to be a hit and miss product.:spend:


If you consider it a hit, then the price is very reasonable. If you think it's a miss, then the price is high. That seems like a formula that applies to almost anything we buy.


----------



## Ken Ross

Interesting post. IMO, and I think his post hit at the crux of the matter, I too don't believe this device alters director's intent. In fact, as he stated, it may well bring us closer in many instances. After several weeks with this little gem, I'm sold.


----------



## hydra

I just got my Darbee today. I have a Kuro with factory speakers (stereo sound). When I connect the Darbee to my Oppo, I lose the audio. But when I unplug the Darbee and connect my Oppo to the TV (the way it was connected before I bought the Darbee), naturally the sound comes back.

Does this mean my Darbee is defective?


----------



## Ken Ross

Initially, I too lost my audio. However, when I turned everything off and back on again, my audio was restored. I haven't had the problem since. I attributed it to an HDMI handshake issue. 

If recycling your system doesn't work, it could be defective.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
At some point today, a DVP is going to be delivered to my house. (part of the Round Robin Evaluation Trip) I look forward to seeing what the results are.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## Robert Zohn

Darbee was kind enough to Fed Ex me an evaluation unit last week. Unfortunately, due to moving VE we have not had the time to thoroughly test the Darbee vp, but from our limited use I like the results. Images appear sharper and have more color saturation and detail. But it does not look like traditional video processing. 

We're setting up a scientifically perfect lab with two identical displays so we can properly evaluate the Darbee device. We'll be testing the processor with projectors and flat panels. I'll report back within a week with our results.

Enjoy!

-Robert


----------



## Jungle Jack

Robert Zohn said:


> Darbee was kind enough to Fed Ex me an evaluation unit last week. Unfortunately, due to moving VE we have not had the time to thoroughly test the Darbee vp, but from our limited use I like the results. Images appear sharper and have more color saturation and detail. But it does not look like traditional video processing.
> 
> We're setting up a scientifically perfect lab with two identical displays so we can properly evaluate the Darbee device. We'll be testing the processor with projectors and flat panels. I'll report back within a week with our results.
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> -Robert


Robert,
That is awesome and I look forward to reading your findings. I only wish I could have purchased my 60GT50 from you, but had a $1200 credit from a broken Sony SXRD purchased 4 years ago at Best Buy. 
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## Robert Zohn

Hi JJ, No problem, you have my dedicated support if you ever have any issues. Glad you were able to get credit for the defective Sony. 

BTW, great display choice on your GT50!!

-Robert


----------



## Jungle Jack

Robert,
Thank you so much. I cannot believe just how good the 2012 Panasonic Plasma's look. I recommended to my best friend from college the VT30 last year and he visited from Atlanta and was giving me grief for telling him to get a VT30. 
All the best,
Jack


----------



## dmiller

Robert Zohn said:


> Darbee was kind enough to Fed Ex me an evaluation unit last week. Unfortunately, due to moving VE we have not had the time to thoroughly test the Darbee vp, but from our limited use I like the results. Images appear sharper and have more color saturation and detail. But it does not look like traditional video processing.
> 
> We're setting up a scientifically perfect lab with two identical displays so we can properly evaluate the Darbee device. We'll be testing the processor with projectors and flat panels. I'll report back within a week with our results.
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> -Robert


Hello Robert

I look forward to your test results.

Don


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> Hello Robert
> 
> I look forward to your test results.
> 
> Don


+1 this is what i have been waiting to hear.:clap:

Robert can you say who will be doing the evaluation?

Looks like David is going to give it a look see but we need an evalation unit, if anyone can help please.


----------



## Robert Zohn

Looks like I need to wait till CEDIA is over as my top reviewers are all enjoying the event.

Stay tuned.............

-Robert


----------



## wmassie

A "long-time" darblet user here and I am running 2 darblets in series to my displays (Mits 73 and Epson 8700UB). I set the first darblet at HD 50-60% and the second darblet at full-pop 5-15% ( I can position in my setup so remote signals don't conflict). The results I'm seeing are more depth and heft to all hd and blu-ray sources. The key is to ensure your display is calibrated as well as you can then sweeten with the darblet. Spend some time with the darblet - you will be amazed at what it can do at the right settings, with the right material. So let's review:

Calibrate then Darbee-ate!


----------



## tele1962

Any news yet Robert?


----------



## Jungle Jack

I am hurt! A DVP arrived at my home a few days ago (special thanks to the Leonard Caillouet Foundation) and no one is eagerly anticipating my thoughts. To be honest, I am just waiting to hit 150 hours on the 60GT50 is received the same day as the DVP.

I too look greatly forward to what Robert and the good folks at Value Electronics have to say about the Darblet.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## ALMFamily

Jungle Jack said:


> I am hurt! A DVP arrived at my home a few days ago (special thanks to the Leonard Caillouet Foundation) and no one is eagerly anticipating my thoughts. To be honest, I am just waiting to hit 150 hours on the 60GT50 is received the same day as the DVP.
> 
> I too look greatly forward to what Robert and the good folks at Value Electronics have to say about the Darblet.
> Cheers,
> JJ


Don't be - I have been eagerly awaiting your thoughts. I just did not want to badger you as I know you have been busy enjoying your GT50! :bigsmile:


----------



## Jungle Jack

I truly was kidding, but thank you for the kind words. I am so glad you are happy with your GT50. I now have an August, 2012 Build Date GT50 and just finished with the 150 hour break in.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Well I have connected the DVP. So far, the first thing I can say with certainty is that the Audio Return Channel does not work with the Darblet in the loop. A special thanks again to the Leonard Calliouet Foundation for the generous loan of the DVP. And thanks to Mech to sending it to me as well.

That being said, the only things I use ARC for are the Viera Link Applications on my Panasonic TC-P60GT50. As I have a PS3, OPPO BDP-93, and I am sure I am forgetting something, this is not a deal breaker for me. 

In the hour that I have had it connected, I will say it has been a pretty subtle effect. I have not taken it past 45 so far. 

The Remote Control is a cruel joke for a soon to be $350 product. I will be watching Football tonight and plowing through Blu-rays as well. I have 2 house guests and I asked them to guess how much the DVP cost, and my friends 15 year old daughter said $30 and her father $50. I asked them separately and have not discussed the DVP coming here. Neither are Darbee's target demographic I grant you.

I will report back more as I acclimatize myself with the DVP. I will up the Darbee after this post.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## mikey15

I should have a Darblet demo unit in my showroom in a few weeks. I'm finishing up the dealer paperwork tomorrow.


----------



## tele1962

wmassie said:


> A "long-time" darblet user here and I am running 2 darblets in series to my displays (Mits 73 and Epson 8700UB). I set the first darblet at HD 50-60% and the second darblet at full-pop 5-15% ( I can position in my setup so remote signals don't conflict). The results I'm seeing are more depth and heft to all hd and blu-ray sources. The key is to ensure your display is calibrated as well as you can then sweeten with the darblet. Spend some time with the darblet - you will be amazed at what it can do at the right settings, with the right material. So let's review:
> 
> Calibrate then Darbee-ate!


Would it not be the case that you would then be moving from refrence to prefrence if you "Calibrate then sweeten with the darblet".
I will wait for Roberts and David's reviews on the Darblet.

I like this comment on the Darblet as it sort of summs up the debate:

" The Darbee implements a different kind of sharpening algorithm. The only way to sharpen without side effects is to not sharpen at all or to do it at a low level where the side effects are reduced - the whole point of the device is to change the image. Used on low settings, neither traditional edge enhancement processes or the Darbee will create much in the way of artefacts. Obviously, the trade off is between how much of a sharpening effect you want with how visible the artefacts will be. "


----------



## buzzard767

tele1962 said:


> Would it not be the case that you would then be moving from refrence to prefrence if you "Calibrate then sweeten with the darblet".


If you don't have a 64x64x64 LUT system feeding your TV like the studios do then you'll never see what reference looks like anyway.

FWIW I've been beta testing Calman 5, especially the ability to use Studio to calibrate using the Lumagen 125 point LUT system released yesterday. My VT50 picture is now much more accurate.

I put a Darblet between the Lumagen and the VT50 and it now takes a setting of 40% to give the same effect I got pre LUT at 55%.


----------



## Jungle Jack

buzzard767 said:


> If you don't have a 64x64x64 LUT system feeding your TV like the studios do then you'll never see what reference looks like anyway.
> 
> FWIW I've been beta testing Calman 5, especially the ability to use Studio to calibrate using the Lumagen 125 point LUT system released yesterday. My VT50 picture is now much more accurate.
> 
> I put a Darblet between the Lumagen and the VT50 and it now takes a setting of 40% to give the same effect I got pre LUT at 55%.


Buzz,
I truly might be interested in your services next time you are in SW Florida. I love my 60GT50, but need to take it to 11. Or Darbee Level 129.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tele1962

buzzard767 said:


> If you don't have a 64x64x64 LUT system feeding your TV like the studios do then you'll never see what reference looks like anyway.
> 
> FWIW I've been beta testing Calman 5, especially the ability to use Studio to calibrate using the Lumagen 125 point LUT system released yesterday. My VT50 picture is now much more accurate.
> 
> I put a Darblet between the Lumagen and the VT50 and it now takes a setting of 40% to give the same effect I got pre LUT at 55%.


Reference meaning calibration standards. As it is a bit like saying........yeah i have calibrated my tv but i think i will add a little more colour or sharpness because i think it needs it and while i am on maybe a bit brighter............then it becomes preference and the calibration no longer holds true. So by adding the Darblet to the chain to adjust the picture to say HD mode Full Pop mode Game Mode or 20%, 30,%,45% again it becomes preference.


----------



## dmiller

tele1962 said:


> Reference meaning calibration standards. As it is a bit like saying........yeah i have calibrated my tv but i think i will add a little more colour or sharpness because i think it needs it and while i am on maybe a bit brighter............then it becomes preference and the calibration no longer holds true.


The problem with your argument is that the Darblet does not change the calibration per tests run by many users and reviewers. Plus calibrating your display does not give you a reference system. In most cases not even close.


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> The problem with your argument is that the Darblet does not change the calibration per tests run by many users and reviewers. Plus calibrating your display does not give you a reference system. In most cases not even close.


Agreed it does not change most test patterns but still adds an effect to the picture that in it's self has been shown to add artefacts. Calibrating your display will get you as close to a set of standards and as close to reference for that tv as possible adding the Darblet adds an effect which some find pleasing as it can be turned up or turned down or turned off, again this is in the field of preference.


----------



## dmiller

The Darblet does not add artefacts. It may enhance some that are already embedded in the material such as compression artefacts that are present in all we view on a TV. Since you do not have a Darblet at least be accurate in "what has been shown".


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> The Darblet does not add artefacts. It may enhance some that are already embedded in the material such as compression artefacts that are present in all we view on a TV. Since you do not have a Darblet at least be accurate in "what has been shown".


OK it in it's self may not but as you have stated it might bring out artefacts embedded in the picture depending on how high you have it for different material so you turn it down to a pont where you maybe can not see them this again becomes preference.
As for me not owning one you are correct but i was one of the first in the UK to have the use of one and at first loved it on the small LCD screen i was viewing it on, then went to connect it to my Samsung D6900. It did not work at all. Since then i have been shown how and why the picture being produced on Blu Ray disc is as good as it gets and all the information is there so why add to it?
Again i will say that if David Mackenzie, Robert, DeWayne Davis (DNice), Kevin Miller or Joe Kane say hay this thing really is a revelation i will be first in line for one........until then i remain sceptical.


----------



## dmiller

tele1962;549214Since then i have been shown how and why the picture being produced on Blu Ray disc is as good as it gets and all the information is there so why add to it?[/QUOTE said:


> Wow I guess the studio master and digital projection is no better. 4K is doomed.
> 
> The information may be there but at reduced resolution and also highly compressed with the resultant compression artefacts.
> 
> It is I agree the best available at this time for us home enthusiasts but I believe in technology advances for the future as well.


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> Wow I guess the studio master and digital projection is no better. 4K is doomed.
> 
> The information may be there but at reduced resolution and also highly compressed with the resultant compression artefacts.
> 
> It is I agree the best available at this time for us home enthusiasts but I believe in technology advances for the future as well.


4K will be great as that will be the format of the future. Alas yes compression does indeed come into play on many releases and maybe adding some guess work for them might be deemed OK.........just as long as we remember we are guessing.


----------



## lcaillo

tele1962 said:


> Would it not be the case that you would then be moving from refrence to prefrence if you "Calibrate then sweeten with the darblet".


Why is this a meaningful point to make? Can we please focus on exactly what they unit does rather than debating other's choices about how they use the device? Every decision is preference. 



tele1962 said:


> I will wait for Roberts and David's reviews on the Darblet.
> 
> I like this comment on the Darblet as it sort of summs up the debate:
> 
> " The Darbee implements a different kind of sharpening algorithm. The only way to sharpen without side effects is to not sharpen at all or to do it at a low level where the side effects are reduced - the whole point of the device is to change the image. Used on low settings, neither traditional edge enhancement processes or the Darbee will create much in the way of artefacts. Obviously, the trade off is between how much of a sharpening effect you want with how visible the artefacts will be. "


This is a very confusing quote. It does not define what "sharpening" is and we do not have an industry specification of it. In the sense that sharpening has been applied in most previous controls, the darbee does not do the same thing. Most of these controls have been frequency response manipulations. The darbee process is luminance enhancement, not freq response based at all. "Sharpness" as most consumers might perceive it, however, involves contrast, saturation, and/or frequency response. Most would likely consider the darbee effect as sharpening the image. 

As for artifacts, I would say that what the darbee processing or a sharpness control does that is annoying is probably better described as a side-effect, but both can have effects that are undesirable if overused. My biggest complaint was emphasis of stuff that really does not contribute to the primary content, such as on a football field when the grain of the grass really "pops out." The extra emphasis on the lines on the field, however, are a benefit to me because they make it easier to see what is happening (e.g. a foot near or tougching a sideline).


----------



## tele1962

lcaillo said:


> Why is this a meaningful point to make? Can we please focus on exactly what they unit does rather than debating other's choices about how they use the device? Every decision is preference.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very confusing quote. It does not define what "sharpening" is and we do not have an industry specification of it. In the sense that sharpening has been applied in most previous controls, the darbee does not do the same thing. Most of these controls have been frequency response manipulations. The darbee process is luminance enhancement, not freq response based at all. "Sharpness" as most consumers might perceive it, however, involves contrast, saturation, and/or frequency response. Most would likely consider the darbee effect as sharpening the image.
> 
> As for artifacts, I would say that what the darbee processing or a sharpness control does that is annoying is probably better described as a side-effect, but both can have effects that are undesirable if overused. My biggest complaint was emphasis of stuff that really does not contribute to the primary content, such as on a football field when the grain of the grass really "pops out." The extra emphasis on the lines on the field, however, are a benefit to me because they make it easier to see what is happening (e.g. a foot near or tougching a sideline).


No debate here there is reference calibration standards or preference simply what we think it should look like. I can't see your point as that is inherently (preference) what the Darblet does and we are discussing the Darblet.

The quote was made by David Mackenzie here, you are more than welcome to ask him:

http://forums.hdtvtest.co.uk/index.php?topic=7271.150


----------



## lcaillo

Obviously, those that like what the darbee processing does have a preference. Whether it moves the image closer to what would be considered reference quality has been debated thoroughly. Challenging someone's choice of settings on this basis does nothing to inform us regarding the effects of the device. Your view, my view, and the views of several others regarding the relation of this processor to imaging standards have been communicated thoroughly. Let's keep the discussion in this thread focused on better understanding the effect on a variety of content and sources. If you want to debate processing vs reference, please start a new thread.


----------



## dmiller

lcaillo said:


> Obviously, those that like what the darbee processing does have a preference. Whether it moves the image closer to what would be considered reference quality has been debated thoroughly. Challenging someone's choice of settings on this basis does nothing to inform us regarding the effects of the device. Your view, my view, and the views of several others regarding the relation of this processor to imaging standards have been communicated thoroughly. Let's keep the discussion in this thread focused on better understanding the effect on a variety of content and sources. If you want to debate processing vs reference, please start a new thread.


Thank you


----------



## tele1962

No problem we will leave it up to Robert and the rest of the guys to tell us what they find as not being an owner myself i can't see how you can discus one without the other. But if someone can find a way to set up a new thread i would be most greatful.


----------



## RodK

Does anyone know if there is a Canadian retailer for the Darblet? It looks interesting , and I would like to check one out. Cross border shopping can be a pain if I don't like it and want to return it.


----------



## buzzard767

tele1962 said:


> Reference meaning calibration standards.


Perhaps this will explain my previous post more meaningfully. The CIE chart on the left is from a Panasonic 65VT50 plasma with peak white set up for equal R, G, & B to accommodate LUT production. The CIE on the right is the result of a 125 point 3D LUT calibration with the new Lumagen Radiance firmware that enables this ability now offered by both ChromaPure and Calman. Even though the 100% saturation points are not calibrated to the centers of their respective squares the 25, 50. and 75% saturation points being off the mark are all too typical of consumer television sets when fully calibrated at 100% which is the way 99.999% of previous calibrations have been done. If the TV would have used more professional LUTs such as those made by LightSpace or CineSpace software utilizing thousands of color points and processed by a $5000 Davio 2.0 box all the points would have been dead center in their squares.

Without look up tables, our calibrated displays do not show the same image as a studio monitor and in some cases, not even close. Consumer television sets need 3D LUTs to approach true image fidelity. 









I was one of the first to acquire a Darblet. In fact, I bought three of them and did extensive testing. They show no changes with the meter, standard patterns, and charts. No difference in color, grayscale, or gamma. The Darblet only seems to change something we aren't prepped to measure and that is luminance changes in very small areas of the screen. For example, if we split a 65" screen into halves, one being 80% bright and the other being 30% and then cycle the Darblet from 0 to 100% and back we would see no change whatsoever. Take this same pattern and make it into little squares like 1/4" or 1". If the screen is filled with these squares we would see luminance changes in each one as the Darblet is cycled. 0% does nothing. 100% makes the 80% luminance a little brighter and the 30% luminance a little darker. The Darblet has increased contrast and high contrast is the number one parameter for a "good" picture. 

How is it perceived from a distance? Increased clarity. This is what all the "clearing the fog" and "raising the veil" comments are about.

Your comments about preference are correct. Each to his own. Personally, I'll take a more clear picture as I see it every time.

And so nobody forgets, without 3D LUTs, no E8000, VT50, or Sharp Elite looks like a lutted studio monitor. They can't.

Hope that helps.


----------



## tele1962

Thanks Buzz yes it does.:T


----------



## dmiller

Another review from a respected source:

http://www.quebecaudio.com/actualite/darbee-darblet-video-processor/


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> Another review from a respected source:
> 
> http://www.quebecaudio.com/actualite/darbee-darblet-video-processor/


You guys are starting to sway me. :doh:onder:


----------



## lcaillo

buzzard767 said:


> Without look up tables, our calibrated displays do not show the same image as a studio monitor and in some cases, not even close. Consumer television sets need 3D LUTs to approach true image fidelity.
> 
> And so nobody forgets, without 3D LUTs, no E8000, VT50, or Sharp Elite looks like a lutted studio monitor. They can't.
> 
> Hope that helps.


There are certainly many limitations and variables that calibration on even the best displays cannot address. As I have said many times, the darbee processing does have value, in my opinion. It does not replace the advantages of extensive LUTs nor many other potential enhancements in display and distribution. What it does is extend the dynamics of certain picture elements. This has nothing to do with fidelity unless those changes are mapped somehow to the original image or product. Let's keep the concepts clear and separate and focus on precisely what the device does and the parameters that factor into decisions about how to use it.


----------



## buzzard767

Here is the back half of my video chain:

Radiance Mini 3D 125 point LUT >> Darblet >> 65VT50 and my viewing pleasure is improved over LUT >> Display

No doubt about it.


----------



## hydra

*update on "no sound" issue*

In reference to post #387, I finally fixed the problem. I had to plug the HMDI cable into the HDMI port 2 of my Oppo 93, and then the sound came back on. I have no idea why HDMI port 1 didn't work.


----------



## David Mackenzie

Buzz,

How did you measure those pre-Radiance colour saturation points? We did the same at the Value Electronics Shootout after using the display's own CMS and had much, much better performance than this (nearly perfect, in fact). Is that a comparison of uncalibrated (no CMS used on the VT50) vs the Radiance? Or is there some difference in the measurement method?


----------



## buzzard767

David Mackenzie said:


> Buzz,
> 
> How did you measure those pre-Radiance colour saturation points? We did the same at the Value Electronics Shootout after using the display's own CMS and had much, much better performance than this (nearly perfect, in fact). Is that a comparison of uncalibrated (no CMS used on the VT50) vs the Radiance? Or is there some difference in the measurement method?


Hi David. I didn't take the time to do a full calibration prior to making the LUT because quite frankly I was a bit worn out after spending about 150 hours this past month with the SpectraCal ColorBox and its frustrating shortcomings.

I had originally calibrated this VT50 at 100% saturation and the tracking in the region of flesh tones was substandard so I used ChromaPure's ability to calibrate 75% Rec.709 and this helped considerably. In order to increase the gamut size for LUT production, I went back to 100% saturation and did things like switch to Colorspace = Wide, etc. and I think it changed the overall characteristics. I was most concerned with moving the primaries out and balancing grayscale. Once this is done the LUT takes care of the rest so I didn't pay much attention to other 1D parameters. Another factor which may or may not have had an influence is that I often vacillate between ChromaPure and CalMAN and in the case of the Lumagen Radiance it makes a big difference because CalMAN can pull up 2% patterns from the Radiance and Chromapure can only get down to Radiance large patterns which I believe are around 10%.


----------



## buzzard767

Sorry, I'm still off topic, but to graphically demonstrate my previous post....

CalMAN measurements on the left and ChromaPure on the right - same calibration and readings taken within minutes of one another. Different pattern sizes. It could relate to D3 profiles from an i1Pro as well.


----------



## David Mackenzie

Interesting stuff, thanks! Well, here's how the European *ST*50 does using its own CMS. The European GT50, VT50 and the American VT50 are basically the same:










These are the only consumer TVs I've seen that manage this well, though. I'd love a Radiance of my own!


----------



## lcaillo

Great discussion guys but lets spin off the talk about calibration measurements into a discrete thread to keep this one on topic. We would love to have more discussion of calibration techniques and results on the forum, but no one will be looking for it here.:huh:


----------



## tele1962

Robert any news on the Darblet?onder:


----------



## Robert Zohn

tele1962, we've been enjoying our Darbee on several displays. With my new flagship store opening I have not had the time to do more evaluation so I gifted my demo unit to Kevin Miller in exchange for his professional evaluation. 

I'm expecting his review shortly and I'll ask Kevin to report his findings here.

-Robert


----------



## tele1962

Robert Zohn said:


> tele1962, we've been enjoying our Darbee on several displays. With my new flagship store opening I have not had the time to do more evaluation so I gifted my demo unit to Kevin Miller in exchange for his professional evaluation.
> 
> I'm expecting his review shortly and I'll ask Kevin to report his findings here.
> 
> -Robert


Cheers Robert.:T


----------



## mechman

In case some of you may have missed this post.



> On another note, Kevin had the opportunity to review the Darblett which he will post on HTS. Since a lot of owners on here use it, I figured I'd pass this info along. He said that the unit "causes massive edge enhancement, raises black level, and changes the orginal video source drastically."


----------



## dmiller

I do not understand why moderaters here take such stances. What you posted is heresay with no mention of settings etc. It simply reinforces your predjudice and is very unprofessional in my eyes.

I am looking forward to the actual review. I am sure it will be fair.


----------



## Jungle Jack

What stance is exactly being taken? To mention that Kevin Miller who happens to be one of the finest Calibrators in the World found issue with the Darblet? I do find this to be noteworthy as many other Video Experts have been quite gushing about the Darblet.

If you want to read a DVP Thread on another AV Forum where even not liking it is met with derision and practically fanboi behavior, there are several. Sometimes it feels like if there is not 100% positive thoughts on the DVP folks accuse you of being negative or unprofessional.


----------



## lcaillo

dmiller said:


> I do not understand why moderaters here take such stances. What you posted is heresay with no mention of settings etc. It simply reinforces your predjudice and is very unprofessional in my eyes.
> 
> I am looking forward to the actual review. I am sure it will be fair.



Moderators here have opinions like anyone else. We will allow them to have their opinioin like anyone else. I do not see how pointing to a post that indicates that a well resected professional has noted that there are some limitations to the use of the processing is a "stance."

We would be happy to post a review from Kevin Miller, whether he thinks the darbee processing is perfect in all cases or has some examples of limitations or thinks it is compplete nonsense....just like we are happy to allow your view, as long as it is presented respectfully. Just be careful to be sure that the latter qualification is met.


----------



## tele1962

I think we need to see Kevin's full report/review before we make any proper judgments as already it is being reported that Kevin is invovled in our " circle of hate " conspiracy theory.:unbelievable:

I think i know what he might say to that..............being one of the worlds leading calibrators and industry insiders, but again i will wait for his full review.


----------



## dmiller

tele1962 said:


> I think we need to see Kevin's full report/review before we make any proper judgments as already it is being reported that Kevin is invovled in our " circle of hate " conspiracy theory.:unbelievable:
> 
> I think i know what he might say to that..............being one of the worlds leading calibrators and industry insiders, but again i will wait for his full review.


This is the first I have heard of a circle of hate? Where did that start? A conspiracy theory? Really?

My objection to Mechman is despite other references to Kevins future review here he posts the one containing likely misquotes of what was said by Kevin.


----------



## tele1962

dmiller said:


> This is the first I have heard of a circle of hate? Where did that start? A conspiracy theory? Really?
> 
> My objection to Mechman is despite other references to Kevins future review here he posts the one containing likely misquotes of what was said by Kevin.


This was quoted elsewhere on another forum..........but again i think we should let Kevin provide his review before anyone anywhere can make such ridiculous claims as cricle of hate etc.

For me Mechman only posted the information in the correct place and was not passing judgment one way or another?


----------



## lcaillo

Please leave nonsense from other forums there. It does not deserve discussion.


----------



## primetimeguy

mechman said:


> In case some of you may have missed this post.


Curiously waiting that report because to the best of my knowledge no one has ever reported those issues. In fact people report it does what it does without those side effects.


----------



## KelvinS1965

I plan to try using my Lumagen Mini3D to reduce the size of the windowed test patterns on the AVSHD709 disc I use. I want to make them as small as possible so that the area (on my 10' screen) _just_ covers where my sensor aims. The Darbee is after the Mini3D so the idea is to see if very small area's gamma or greyscale is effected by turning the Darbee on or off. The only issue I have at present is that my tripod is small and only just reaches my projector screen (though I might try a similar test on my TV which is lower). By pausing scenes and turning it off and on I _think_ that I see this sort of thing occurring, but I'd like to know if only for my own interest.

I bought my Darbee secondhand off a fellow HD350 owner who tried it and didn't like it. If I hadn't liked it then I could have sold it on at little loss, but at around 50% HD I'm quite happy with the result (this is after a full calibration including CMS). However as the previous owner had the same display as me and recently had an ISF calibration done, then it just shows that not everyone will like it.


----------



## buzzard767

*Re: ElitePRO-60X5FD and PRO-70X5FD Discussion Thread*



tele1962 said:


> Same here i have not seen any reports regarding raised black levels when using the Darblet.


Here's a report:

No Darblet in the chain, Darblet in the chain set to 0, Darblet in the chain set to 120% in all three modes - all cases measured exactly the same - 0.011 cd/m2 = 0.00321 FtL

Conclusion: The Darblet does not alter black MLL.

As to that earlier mention of edge enhancement, no, not in the sense of a display Sharpness control adding content. Not even a little bit. I studied it pixel by pixel.


----------



## tele1962

*Re: ElitePRO-60X5FD and PRO-70X5FD Discussion Thread*



buzzard767 said:


> Here's a report:
> 
> No Darblet in the chain, Darblet in the chain set to 0, Darblet in the chain set to 120% in all three modes - all cases measured exactly the same - 0.011 cd/m2 = 0.00321 FtL
> 
> Conclusion: The Darblet does not alter black MLL.
> 
> As to that earlier mention of edge enhancement, no, not in the sense of a display Sharpness control adding content. Not even a little bit. I studied it pixel by pixel.


I think that maybe we need to wait for the full review.


----------



## mechman

*Re: ElitePRO-60X5FD and PRO-70X5FD Discussion Thread*



buzzard767 said:


> Here's a report:
> 
> No Darblet in the chain, Darblet in the chain set to 0, Darblet in the chain set to 120% in all three modes - all cases measured exactly the same - 0.011 cd/m2 = 0.00321 FtL
> 
> Conclusion: The Darblet does not alter black MLL.
> 
> As to that earlier mention of edge enhancement, no, not in the sense of a display Sharpness control adding content. Not even a little bit. I studied it pixel by pixel.


Is this using patterns or content? In my macro shots, the whites of the stars in Avatar clearly brightened at 75%. But it's not a universal across the board raising of the brightness. Just certain areas are raised. Same with blacks.

I think a better conclusion is that yes it does alter white/black levels in some areas of the content. But not in a measurable way with patterns. And you studied all ~2 million pixels Buzz? :unbelievable:

I'm going to copy these posts to the Darblet thread. Let's carry on the discussion there rather than the Elite thread shall we?


----------



## lcaillo

The Darbee processing only works on very small picture elements with contrast and only at levels not close to white or black limits.


----------



## tele1962

*Re: ElitePRO-60X5FD and PRO-70X5FD Discussion Thread*



mechman said:


> Is this using patterns or content? In my macro shots, the whites of the stars in Avatar clearly brightened at 75%. But it's not a universal across the board raising of the brightness. Just certain areas are raised. Same with blacks.
> 
> I think a better conclusion is that yes it does alter white/black levels in some areas of the content. But not in a measurable way with patterns. And you studied all ~2 million pixels Buzz? :unbelievable:
> 
> I'm going to copy these posts to the Darblet thread. Let's carry on the discussion there rather than the Elite thread shall we?


Ah maybe that is what kevin is meaning?


----------



## lcaillo

Let's not speculate on what someone means in a quote that is hearsay. If he wants to publish a review or comment himself he can do so.


----------



## buzzard767

From the Elite thread:



mechman said:


> Is this using patterns or content? In my macro shots, the whites of the stars in Avatar clearly brightened at 75%. But it's not a universal across the board raising of the brightness. Just certain areas are raised. Same with blacks.
> 
> I think a better conclusion is that yes it does alter white/black levels in some areas of the content. But not in a measurable way with patterns. And you studied all ~2 million pixels Buzz? :unbelievable:
> 
> I'm going to copy these posts to the Darblet thread. Let's carry on the discussion there rather than the Elite thread shall we?


How are you going to measure content? Changes are only made to very small screen areas, dark gets darker, adjacent light gets lighter. Maybe there is a way and Kevin Miller can enlighten us. In any case, my measurements are accurate - Klein K10-A.

I would think that a handful of pixels would be representative of the rest of the screen. Use a magnifying glass and check the borders of small dark against lighter content while switching the Darblet on and off and you will see that pixel colors are not changed, only luminance.


----------



## lcaillo

There are no current standards for measuring what the Darbee processing does. While we might come up with something, the result that they are trying to achieve, "pop" and "more like 3D" is inherently subjective and difficult to quantify.

My recommendation would be to start with very small pixel groups with varying patterns and scale them in size, showing the effect on each at each level. We could use some real image examples of detail and see what happens to them at a granular level. Aside from that, there are so many variables with regard to how people perceive an image that it will be very hard to put metrics to this that will be meaningful.

As I have said all along, we need to focus on what the processing looks like on different examples of content and report that. There is nothing wrong with subjective assessments. One has to be willing to take the good with the bad and accept that not everyone will like the same things. People have to be mature enough to discuss perceptions without attributing motivation or intent to others. This does not have to be a pro/con discussion. It should be more like " I like what it does on xxx in this way and because..." and "I don't care for the effect on yyy because it looks like..."


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Here is the link to Secrets of Home Theater & High Fidelity's Review of the Darblet: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/vide...arblet-dvp5000-video-processor/all-pages.html
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## JimShaw

I am posting because I am very interested in the Darbee and want to keep informed when a new post arrives.

--------------------------------

I just ordered. I'll try it for awhile. If I like, I'll keep it. If not, back it goes. I can read all the posts on this forum but if I don't give it give it a shot, I'll never really know.


----------



## JimP

Jim

Note that near the top right of the page, an item labled "thread tools". It contains a dropdown where you can subscribe to a thread without actually making a post.

Have you tried the Darbee yet?


----------



## JimShaw

JimP said:


> Jim
> 
> Note that near the top right of the page, an item labled "thread tools". It contains a dropdown where you can subscribe to a thread without actually making a post.
> 
> Have you tried the Darbee yet?


I thank you for the info. I looked around but did not see a subscribe button.

Have not tried it at this time. I ordered it yesterday. I really hope that I like it.

I was considering waiting for a product upgrade hoping something might be unvailed at CES in January but I changed my mind when I received this from Darbee...

*"a new upgrade won't be available for some time."*


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
You do not need to subscribe as once you post on this thread you will get notifications for all new posts.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## htaddikt

So far, in my experience with the Darbee, it will not turn straw into gold, but may put a little extra polish on the end product.


----------



## dmiller

Lumagen is incorporating the Darbee into its processors.


----------



## KelvinS1965

Only the new (as yet unrealised) Lumagen models will include the Darbee processing, so you would be looking at the new 4K model which I gather will retail for more than the existing Radiance XE model. There aren't any plans for a 4K Mini model as yet, so for the foreseeable future I think a Mini3D with an external Darbee is the most cost effective solution for Lumagen and Darbee processing combined.

I have to say that with the new 125 point automatic calibration in the Lumagen/Chromapure and the Darbee added as well that the PQ is superb on my JVC X35. I agree it won't turn straw into gold (and only last night I had to turn it down from 55% HD to 35% HD as it was making film grain look too obvious (and ugly) on a film I was watching), but it does help polish up the cleaner transfers even better IMHO.


----------



## bkazepis

I just ordered a Darblett and have not been so excited in a long time regarding an external processor...hearing good things...will post once I have tried it out...

Newbie here but looong time member of other HT Forums...


----------



## fishinbob

dmiller said:


> Lumagen is incorporating the Darbee into its processors.


....and soon we shall see the OPPO BDP 103D. http://www.darbeevision.com/press/2...-visual-presence-to-world-class-blu-ray-maker


----------



## tele1962

fishinbob said:


> ....and soon we shall see the OPPO BDP 103D. http://www.darbeevision.com/press/2...-visual-presence-to-world-class-blu-ray-maker


I seen that, artificial processing of varying types has always been offered by manufacturers, luckily (in most cases) we can switch it off.


----------



## JimShaw

fishinbob said:


> ....and soon we shall see the OPPO BDP 103D. http://www.darbeevision.com/press/2...-visual-presence-to-world-class-blu-ray-maker


Yes, it is coming but at a price. How much over Oppo's 103 $499 will be added for the Darbee tech?


----------



## KelvinS1965

tele1962 said:


> I seen that, artificial processing of varying types has always been offered by manufacturers, luckily (in most cases) we can switch it off.


The difference with this one is that you might not _want_ to turn it off.  I was a cynic too before I tried one, but at 50% on HD on a decent sized screen (projector rather than just a telly) I find it improves the image without adding any side effects other than slightly increasing grain if it is present on the disc (hence the lower % setting and using HD).


----------



## htaddikt

KelvinS1965 said:


> The difference with this one is that you might not _want_ to turn it off.  I was a cynic too before I tried one, but at 50% on HD on a decent sized screen (projector rather than just a telly) I find it improves the image without adding any side effects other than slightly increasing grain if it is present on the disc (hence the lower % setting and using HD).


On occasion I might see a spectacular scene and remember I have the Darbee on all the time. So I will turn if off and in short order turn it right back on. It serves as a quick reminder as to why I left if it on in the first place. There is nothing to be gained with it turned off for any program material. Some material will show it off better, but in my experience nothing is ever degraded.


----------



## JimShaw

htaddikt said:


> On occasion I might see a spectacular scene and remember I have the Darbee on all the time. So I will turn if off and in short order turn it right back on. It serves as a quick reminder as to why I left if it on in the first place. There is nothing to be gained with it turned off for any program material. Some material will show it off better, but in my experience nothing is ever degraded.


I agree 100%. So much so, I pre-ordered to get the 2 HDMI out ports so I can run everything through it and be Darbeetized fully.


----------



## cleveland plasma

bkazepis said:


> I just ordered a Darblett and have not been so excited in a long time regarding an external processor...hearing good things...will post once I have tried it out...


Very few complaints over here, I think you should enjoy it.


----------



## JimShaw

JimShaw said:


> Yes, it is coming but at a price. How much over Oppo's 103 $499 will be added for the Darbee tech?


I just read. $100 more. $599 for the new 103D. "D" is for Darbee


----------



## cconklin1

I am 48 years old and pretty picky when it comes to video (and audio) When I first read about the Darbee, I poo pooed it and gave up reading the thread at avs for about a month. then I saw a WHOLE lot of people whose opinions I respect that said they actually LIKE it. Still I poo pooed it. Then someone gave me theirs to play with. I popped it in between the panny projector and the denon receiver and it has never left! Yes, if I turn it up I can get some funky video that looks weird, but at 35-55% on GOOD material..... !
FWIW, I absolutely DESPISE artificial EE on video, but it will be a cold day in Hades before the Darbee leaves my system...
It has been said over and over and over that the Darbee SHINES with GOOD/Excellent material, and that has been the case for me as well. It won't make fudge out of sh..., but what it does to good video is amazing..


----------



## cconklin1

JimShaw said:


> I just read. $100 more. $599 for the new 103D. "D" is for Darbee


Actually, this is quite a deal! And unlike the Darbee stand alone unit, the Darbee inside the oppo can take firmware updates without needing to be sent in! I have an order in for two Oppo D's and will be selling off my two stand alone units...


----------



## JimShaw

cconklin1 said:


> Actually, this is quite a deal! And unlike the Darbee stand alone unit, the Darbee inside the oppo can take firmware updates without needing to be sent in! I have an order in for two Oppo D's and will be selling off my two stand alone units...


I have been considering the same.

I have a 93 and a Darblet and have pre-order the Ocule for $350. The Ocule has the Darbee guts with a metal case and two HDMI in ports.

Thinking about cancelling the Oclule (save $350)
Sell the 93 and keep the Darblet.

That way I have the Darbee in a new 103D and the Darblet to run Roku and regular TV through. Decisions, decisions.

The firmware update is a big bonus.


----------



## cconklin1

JimShaw said:


> I have been considering the same.
> 
> I have a 93 and a Darblet and have pre-order the Ocule for $350. The Ocule has the Darbee guts with a metal case and two HDMI in ports.
> 
> Thinking about cancelling the Oclule (save $350)
> Sell the 93 and keep the Darblet.
> 
> That way I have the Darbee in a new 103D and the Darblet to run Roku and regular TV through. Decisions, decisions.
> 
> The firmware update is a big bonus.


Why do you need two inputs? The only thing you lose by selling the 93 is that it is the last of the Cinavia free machines. However, that is also why it will sell for $450-$500 in relatively short order if it is in nice shape.


----------



## JimShaw

cconklin1 said:


> Why do you need two inputs? The only thing you lose by selling the 93 is that it is the last of the Cinavia free machines. However, that is also why it will sell for $450-$500 in relatively short order if it is in nice shape.


The Oppo is in perfect shape.

I really like the Darbee. 

Right now I run one HDMI direct to the TV from the Oppo which has the Darblet.

I run everything else through the receiver to the TV. With another Darbee, I can also run the receiver through. Or with the Ocule, I can run both the player and receiver through the Darbee.

I am not an expert on HD items. So, excuse my ignorance but what is Cinavia. My thought is, if I don't have a clue as to what it is maybe I do not need it??????????????


----------



## cconklin1

Why not route everything through the receiver? Then one cable from the receiver to the Darblet, and another to the TV. This is how my system is set up and it works great! Be sure to use a minimum 6ft cable from the receiver to the darbee, and another 6ft cable from the darbee to the tv to minimize any issues you may incur. This was recommended by Darbee as well. That being said, I have a 1ft cable from monoprice from my x4000 to the Darbee, then another 15ft cable to my projector and all has worked fine from day one. Others have had some niggling issues due to, yep.... HDMI.
As far as Cinavia, it is basically an onerous copy protection that some of us hate with a passion as a few of us like to back up our blu ray discs and play them from an attached hard drive or via a server. I do this with a Dune player and an oppo 93 that has an older version of software from 2011. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia
If all you do is play discs, you need probably not worry too much about Cinavia.


----------



## JimShaw

cconklin1 said:


> Why not route everything through the receiver? Then one cable from the receiver to the Darblet, and another to the TV. This is how my system is set up and it works great! Be sure to use a minimum 6ft cable from the receiver to the darbee, and another 6ft cable from the darbee to the tv to minimize any issues you may incur. This was recommended by Darbee as well. That being said, I have a 1ft cable from monoprice from my x4000 to the Darbee, then another 15ft cable to my projector and all has worked fine from day one. Others have had some niggling issues due to, yep.... HDMI.
> As far as Cinavia, it is basically an onerous copy protection that some of us hate with a passion as a few of us like to back up our blu ray discs and play them from an attached hard drive or via a server. I do this with a Dune player and an oppo 93 that has an older version of software from 2011.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia
> If all you do is play discs, you need probably not worry too much about Cinavia.


I know there probably is no difference in PQ but for me I like running direct to the TV which eliminates the receiver in the sequence, a middleman. With money exchanges, if there is a middleman, that middleman always gets a little something no matter how small. So, in my way of thinking, eliminate the receiver because it is a middleman and I want the purest form of video possible from my system and cutting out the receiver MIGHT help.

I was with Adam Darbee in Santa Ana, Calif when we discovered that a 3 ft HDMI cable can have problems with how the Darblet functions. We were trying to figure out what was wrong with my Darbee. It did not work correctly. I was using a 3 ft HDMI cable. When switched with a 6 ft, perfection. Never use a 3 ft HDMI cable. It is not only the Darbee that can have problems with a 3 footer, a lot of electronics can have the same effect. I no longer use a 3 ft HDMI cable.

Thanks for the heads up regarding "Cinavia." I had updated my 93 a long time ago and that, I think, erased that function, correct?

And Yes. All I do is play discs.




m


----------



## cconklin1

You can do what you want with the new 103D. Run one hdmi out to the tv from the 103D, use the other hdmi out from the 103D to go to your receiver for audio for the 103D. Run all other sources to the receiver. Run receiver out hdmi to the rear input hdmi to the 103D. That way you have direct video from 103D to your tv, and then you switch to the rear hdmi input to darbeeize all of your other sources!


----------



## JimShaw

cconklin1 said:


> You can do what you want with the new 103D. Run one hdmi out to the tv from the 103D, use the other hdmi out from the 103D to go to your receiver for audio for the 103D. Run all other sources to the receiver. Run receiver out hdmi to the rear input hdmi to the 103D. That way you have direct video from 103D to your tv, and then you switch to the rear hdmi input to darbeeize all of your other sources!


I use the second HDMI on the 93 for audio to the receiver. That is important to me because I have Wides and Audyssey's DSX is needed to calibrate and run the Wides


----------



## cconklin1

JimShaw said:


> I use the second HDMI on the 93 for audio to the receiver. That is important to me because I have Wides and Audyssey's DSX is needed to calibrate and run the Wides


EXACTLY! You only need one oppo 103D to darbeeize all your sources!


----------



## cconklin1

well, ordered a oppo 103D tonight from Amazon. Hopefully get here before the weekend so I can play with it and my stand alone Darbee..


----------



## buzzard767

JimShaw said:


> I was using a 3 ft HDMI cable. When switched with a 6 ft, perfection. Never use a 3 ft HDMI cable. It is not only the Darbee that can have problems with a 3 footer, a lot of electronics can have the same effect. I no longer use a 3 ft HDMI cable.


I use a 6' cable AVR > Darblet and a 3' Redmere cable Darblet > Display. No problems what so ever....


----------



## cconklin1

buzzard767 said:


> I use a 6' cable AVR > Darblet and a 3' Redmere cable Darblet > Display. No problems what so ever....


And as indicated in my earlier post, I used a 1 footer to my Darbee then another 15 footer to my projector. All of my sources were hooked to my denon x4000 via hdmi with lengths of 1 foot to 3 foot. I never had an issue either. Source items were a Dune HD Duo, Oppo 93, Oppo 103, Roku XS, Directv HR20, ps3, tivo premiere, and a WD live. HOWEVER, I have seen multiple cases where people that had short cables had their issues resolved by switching to 6 foot cables or longer. I believe the lesson to be learned here is IF you have an issue with your Darbee, check your cable lengths. My system has now switched over to all 3 foot redmere cables from sources to the Denon, but I am still running my 1 footer to the Darbee from the denon and the 15 footer to the projector and I have no issues either..


----------



## |Tch0rT|

I picked up one of these over the weekend since I noticed Lumagen and Oppo now incorporate them into their products and Curt Palme started selling them. The purist side of me doesn't like it but side of me that likes to tweak things likes it. I tested it with some digital paintings I've done so I could see the distortion, and yes it does distort the image so slightly but it does seem to look "better" and sharper and with more depth to it. It's best used sparingly, I've been playing with HiDef setting between 35 - 45 mostly on my Mitsubishi 73640. It is VERY sensitive to HDMI cables, the first one I used had "sparkles" not what an owner of a DLP wants to see LOL. I'll have to see if my opinion changes over time but for now I think I'll keep it.


----------



## cconklin1

|Tch0rT| said:


> I picked up one of these over the weekend since I noticed Lumagen and Oppo now incorporate them into their products and Curt Palme started selling them. The purist side of me doesn't like it but side of me that likes to tweak things likes it. I tested it with some digital paintings I've done so I could see the distortion, and yes it does distort the image so slightly but it does seem to look "better" and sharper and with more depth to it. It's best used sparingly, I've been playing with HiDef setting between 35 - 45 mostly on my Mitsubishi 73640. It is VERY sensitive to HDMI cables, the first one I used had "sparkles" not what an owner of a DLP wants to see LOL. I'll have to see if my opinion changes over time but for now I think I'll keep it.


I, too, used to be a "purist" and did not do ANYTHING with my video but pass it along unadulterated to the display. I felt dirty if I even messed with the color space. Then I woke up and said "To with purity, if I like what I see who does it hurt?" The darblet will never leave my system.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

cconklin1 said:


> I, too, used to be a "purist" and did not do ANYTHING with my video but pass it along unadulterated to the display. I felt dirty if I even messed with the color space. Then I woke up and said "To with purity, if I like what I see who does it hurt?" The darblet will never leave my system.


Yeah I'm looking at it more along the lines of "if I like it who cares". It seems to highlight the particular details my eyes are drawn to like skin pores, hair detail, and fabric textures.


----------



## ConnecTED

DARBEE Visual Presence UltraHD Resolution Images Now Available for Download/View.

4K Samples Link


----------



## tele1962

ConnecTED said:


> DARBEE Visual Presence UltraHD Resolution Images Now Available for Download/View.
> 
> 4K Samples Link


:rolleyesno::coocoo::dontknow::rofl:


----------

