1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

My HTPC Experience

Discussion in 'Desktop & Laptop Computers Forum' started by JohnS, Sep 25, 2002.

  1. JohnS

    JohnS
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,580
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Herne Bay, Kent
    Ratings:
    +33
    Just as a little background I am running an ae100 with Hoya FLD filter and an 8ft wide electric Owl screen. I was using a Samsung 709 DVD player connected to my amp via SVideo, a Sky+ via SVideo and a Panasonic SVHS deck, switched through the amp (Sony str940db) into a proV outputting 1076x768 via VGA to the ae100. This gave an image that I was not completely unhappy with, (although I hanker after one of the WXGA pj’s). I do believe that 8ft from the ae100 is just a little large.

    With all the fuss about HTPC I felt that it was something I had to do, I am reasonably PC literate so building it wasn’t going to be a problem, with the idea that upgrading my desktop would provide some leftovers for the HTPC. Initial trials with the desktop dragged downstairs, powerstrip added to set the pixel perfect settings for the ae100 showed an instant “leap” in picture quality without even starting to calibrate everything.

    Encouraged by this I set about getting all the bits together that I needed for the HTPC. I am using the
    Abit VH6T motherboard with the Celeron 1.2 Tualatin from the old desktop. This also had an ATI 32mb ddr AGP card but I decided to keep that for the desktop machine and buy the new Sapphire ATI 9000 128mb AGP for the HTPC. Memory is 512mb of PC133, and an Enermax 350W PSU. The DVD drive is one of the new Asus ones that are ATA66. I am still waiting for the Dign Case so I have put it all in an old case to try it out and start the debugging. I loaded the OS, WinXPproSP1 and then used the information at www.tweakxp.com to hack at the registry and disable or remove all the services that were not required i.e. outlook express, printers, faxes, messenger etc. etc.. I am using Power DVD 4 XP, set the contrast and brightness, colour and saturation using Avia but only using the adjustment from within Power DVD, not the actual windows adjustments.

    The results, well! The pans are smooth and there is no skipping or stutter, the colour seems pretty accurate and the black levels slightly better, all in all very similar to what I am used to from the previously calibrated setup using my Samsung 709 – proV setup. But it doesn’t seem as much of an improvement, certainly not for the inconvenience factor of the HTPC. It seems to me that I am either missing something, or simply my expectations where too high.

    My concern is that it doesn’t seem as good as when I dragged my desktop machine down which had XP pro OS that was bloated from applications and running antivirus software with any-old-PSU and the old Radeon 32mb ddr card.

    I seem to be missing an ingredient. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
     
  2. Gary Lightfoot

    Gary Lightfoot
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,155
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Surrey. UK.
    Ratings:
    +1,956
    Is the agp card you are using a Radeon?

    That may be the diference, as I noticed a increase in image quality moving from an MPact2 mobo HTPC to a Radeon based one.

    Gary.
     
  3. JohnS

    JohnS
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,580
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Herne Bay, Kent
    Ratings:
    +33
    Hi Gary,

    The original card was a radeon 7000 32mb ddr. the new one is a Sapphire 9000 128mb powered by ATI. Should be an improvemnt really. The drivers for the original card where the ones available from Microsoft automatic update, the Sapphire ones where the ones off the disk dated July 02. I have just downloaded the latest drivers so I'll see if thats any different.
     
  4. carrera2rs

    carrera2rs
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Guys this sounds really interesting, I have been really curious about trying a HTPC setup.

    I am runing a Toshiba SD900E and a Sim2HT200 Dm projector and I am reasnobly happy with the piccies but still get annoyed by jaggies on some films etc.

    Vaudio really rate the HTPC option, he uses the Theatretek software and believes that optimising the HTPC to a Sim2 HT200 gives him exceptional pictures. Even to the point that there is nothing to be geained by the HT300 below an 8 foot piccie.

    I am just starting to go up the learning curve, so will let you know when I am up a little further.

    Is there an option to use the PC to provide Iscan progressive or Faroudja, line doubling etc and pixel match the output etc without providing a whole HTPC set up, I quite like my Tosh (And it cost me quite a bit !!!!)

    Adrian
     
  5. JohnS

    JohnS
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,580
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Herne Bay, Kent
    Ratings:
    +33
    Adrian,

    Yes you can keep your SD900 and just use the PC as a de-interlacer and scaler. See the thread about the H3D!!!! card. This I think is ultimatly the way that HTPC will go if people are looking to set up a wife/children friendly system that doesn't need masses of computer knowledge to get going.

    You can see from my post that my experience with the HTPC so far has been quite mixed and no-where near the leap in quality that I was expecting. The finding out and sorting out is part of the fun/challenge though:)
     
  6. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    John,

    Is it possible that what you saw as the initial very marked improvement in picture quality (with your old PC) was partly influenced by the fact that you'd read all the comments here and elsewhere and thus were expecting to see exactly what your brain came up with?

    And subsequently, once that first impact had worn off - and coincidentally at the same time as "upgrading" to the new computer - you were left with the reality of the situation, which wasn't actually that much better than your old non-PC arrangement?

    Is it practical to revert temporarily to that first old-PC lash-up and see if the quality does in fact improve again?

    Your experience rather echoes my own: after reading all the discussions here about going down the HCPC route I'm currently trying it myself. Yes, in some ways there's a improvement in image quality, but I haven't personally seen the startling leap forward that others have reported; and reverting to my plain and simple setup gave me a picture which in some ways I definitely preferred...

    Bert
    www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  7. JohnS

    JohnS
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,580
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Herne Bay, Kent
    Ratings:
    +33
    Hi Bert,

    I suppose the main difference between the two systems is the PSU and the graphics card, I could try the Radeon 7000 again I suppose. The OS was XP but is now XPsp1, thats a little more difficult (long winded) to change but worth a try. The other thing that has changed since the first trials is that I didn't have the Hoya FLD originally. Certainly without it the imporvement from the PC was better blacks, now with it in place maybe the ae100 has reached close to the maximum it capable of and the improvemnt from the PC is very slight.

    Like I said, its not that there isn't an improvement but its definately a bit "underwhelming". Not worth the hastle of the PC setup.
     
  8. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    John,

    Like I said, its not that there isn't an improvement but it's definitely a bit "underwhelming". Not worth the hassle of the PC setup.

    That pretty much sums up my own impressions so far.

    To be fair, I've seen reports on here that - with a good deal of work - the computer can be made more-or-less transparent. The question has to be: does the end result justify that amount of fiddling?

    And also to be fair, several forum regulars warned me before I started of the pitfalls, the problems and (to quote one of them exactly) "the tearing-out of your hair at 3am"!

    Bert
    www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  9. ChrisAllenFiz

    ChrisAllenFiz
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    818
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +17
    But where is the fun if you can`t fiddle? :)

    I have to say that after setting up my HCPC I could never go back to any other connection. The level of detail is much better. Plus you always have the possibility of updating your drivers/software/firmware to eek out even more Picture quality. DScaler support is a bonus.

    It may not be wife friendly (as it happens my GF is at home with computers anyway) but it gives you the satisfaction that whenever you are feeling the need to tinker you have a million and one tweaks to try.

    Chris
     
  10. iwilson

    iwilson
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Messages:
    83
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Ratings:
    +1
    You're never going to see a quantum improvement in video quality at this level i.e. the more you spend the smaller the incremental improvement.

    What I do like about going the HCPC route is the all round package. I have all my mates around once a month for a couple of cold ones and a movie. With the HCPC I download a few high quality trailers and mix in a few DD/THX promos just like at the movies. You can even get a customised intro from Digital Forge download a few of their samples they're good enough to use.

    Before the movie get Winamp going with the milkdrop visualisation, or do a bit of gaming on the big screen. The choices are endless.

    That's the beauty of using an HCPC.

    Ian
     
  11. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    But where is the fun if you can`t fiddle?

    I don't want to fiddle, I want to watch films.

    Bert
    www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  12. JohnS

    JohnS
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,580
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Herne Bay, Kent
    Ratings:
    +33
    After another week or so I've now done some more comparison and I think I am gradually beginning to see more improvement. I think its definatly the finer details that the HTPC gives off better. If you sit and just watch a film, I think that for 90% of the time theproV runs the PC close, its the other 10% that the HTPC just leaves it behind.:)

    If its a great film it doesn't matter what you watch it on, if its a poor film that doesn't completly hold your attention then better to watch it on the HTPC or you spend the whole film just looking for artifacts.;)
     
  13. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    Try lowering the gamma on the overlay the ae100 had a native display gamma of about 3.1 (compared with 2.2 for a CRT).

    Looking at the Avia test pattern I reckon I get an end to end gamma of about 1.5 which isn't too far off the ideal 1.2 (the avia pattern correllates this on the 2.2 patch by he way).

    My overlay gamma is as low as it goes using theatertek. This makes the picture a lot more pleasing. (you'll need to ensure you have contrast and brightness set accurately beforehand)
     
  14. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    Keith,

    You'll need to ensure you have contrast and brightness set accurately beforehand.

    When I watched the Video Essentials DVD I was surprised (and ultimately a little irritated) by the implied blanket statement that there are "correct" settings, and that anything else is simply wrong. Surely these things are a matter of personal taste?

    Bert
    http://www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  15. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    Not really Bert. You ideally want each stage in the image pipeline to be as transparent as possible with regard to the input material.

    Basically you need your overall black point ( brightness) set as low as it can go without clipping off intensities near black. You want your white point (contrast) as high as it will go without crushing intensities near white. This will give you the maximum available intensity detail in the available image. The more intensity detail you can resolve the more natural the image and the less it will look like a cheap photocopy. Colour setting is a little different as peoples colour perception varies wildly (mine is pretty good but I colour correct motion picture film as part of my job: I actually find video colour a little clippy in comparison : which it is, so prefer things a little desaturated rather than harsh unsubtle colour)

    Gamma controls/describes the distribution of intensities from black to white. (its actually fairly straight forward but a lot of people mystify it) Once you are sure your display will resolve all the available itensity changes gamma can be used to redistribute those intensities in a non-linear fashion to make them pleasing to the human visual system. ( real world light behaviour is linear but the human visual system isn't so neither is film or video: its designed to look pleasing with regard to intensity distribution: basically there are more inensity variations recorded in the mid and darker parts of the image compared with the whites)

    The main thing though is to ensure you are not losing parts of the image through your image pipeline. Without adequate test material this turns into guesswork. Throw in a dvd player an offboard scaling/deinterlacer and a display unit all with there own settings to worry about and you start to play with too many variables). You might get a decent image: you are more likely to get an image that is missing some detail somewhere. With digital panel devices its even more crucial as they don't have as much dynamic range available compared with CRTs so are far less forgiving with innaccuracy in the mapping of intensities.

    Whilst peoples image perception does vary they all have one thing in common: images with more intensity variation are preferred to images that are clipped or crushed in comparison. Calibration with reliable test material will ensure your eyeballs aren't being unnecessarily starved of tonality.

    Symptoms of incorrect calibration will be flat largely featurless blacks ( also a sign of old telecine technology) with little falloff into the midtones or very grey washed out image with little in the way of dynamic range. Harsh whites with abrupt clip into peak whites. Simlarly with colour : lack of detail colour wise: fleshtones all one shade grass all one shade of green certain colours unaturally vibrant compared with the rest of the image.
     
  16. JohnS

    JohnS
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,580
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Herne Bay, Kent
    Ratings:
    +33
    I must admit that I didn't know exactly what changing the gamma did, thanks Keith. I'll have a play with Avia later and see what difference it makes.
     
  17. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    2.2 is the patch to aim for ( this correlates with an end to end gamma of 1.2) You'll most likely find you get around 1.2 initially indicating your gamma is too high on disply so you need to crank it down.

    Its a fairly hard pattern to read ( squint or unfocus the projector)and you will need to have your brightness and contrast set correctly first.
     
  18. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    Keith,

    Many thanks for the detailed explanation. I fully take your points, though I'm not sure I completely agree that "reproducing the original as exactly as possible" is necessarily the only valid approach. If viewing is an active rather than a passive activity, then why shouldn't the viewer be free to alter the experience as much as she or he wishes?

    There are similar arguments with music reproduction of course. It's an interesting area for discussion.

    Thanks again,

    Bert
    www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  19. Couch Potato

    Couch Potato
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is excellent, maybe cut out and started as a "Set-up" thread that's sticky!!

    Steve
     
  20. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    There is nothing particularly scientific or empirical about the way video is designed. All these impressive sounding terms like video response characteristics , SMPTE standardisations, EBU, rec709 all reallyboil down to one procedure.

    You sit a bunch of people in a room and show them different images with different image characteristics. Then you ask them a few simple questions ( was it brighter darker better worse sharper duller) Then you correlate all the answers together and see if you can identify a pattern of response that indicates favourable conditions for a majority of the people. Then you take this information and build it into a set of standarisations for designing video/imaging systems that hopefully give the best possible results for the majority of people and are still possible within the mechanical limits of the system itself. Then you get everyone who works with the system to adhere to these standardisations.

    The idea being that if you stick to these criteria with all your equipment and procedures you will see what the previous guy in the chain wanted you to see. For example most pertinently in our case : the end user trying to ensure they are getting as close as possible to what the telecine operator ( I hesitate to call them artists) intended to retain from the original film material. It is highly unlikely that you will be able to disclose more information ( be it colour , intensity or resolution) by having a set-up that is less than correct with regard to the ideal parameters for a particular system.

    People tend to prefer more information in an image rather than less. Most people will find the image more pleasing if the available information is presented with a distribution that is as close to the designed standards as possible.Calibration with regard to correct material will help you get as close to these ideal criteria as possible with your equipment.

    Now I know people that will look at a nicely done photograph and compare it to a fairly nasty clipped photocopy of same and declare the photocopy to be punchier and contrastier when in fact all they are seeing is a more starkly delineated graduation in intensity and loss of actual image information. There is actually less contrast in the image not more. (think of those two tone andy warhol paintings of celebrities they look bold and delineated but they don't contain any subtlety of tonality or colour which is what film photography is all about). Now filmakers will sometimes use techniques that do "mash" the image differently or delineate it in a similar way to the end result you might get on less than well set-up equipment ( saving private ryan , black hawk down , the matrix, etc).

    If your equipment is not actually capable of disclosing these different characteristics of image creation you may well in addition to missing the visually differentiated nature of the piece/scene totally miss out on the aesthetic/thematic considerations evolved from catching this diffrentiation in visual style. I always think films are like mysteries: why does it look like this way now when the action in this scene is doing this , is it relevant is the way the image looks and behaves trying to tell us something and give us an insight into what the director is trying to say beyond merely what the actors are actually saying to each other. They are like clues and signposts all the more interesting because often the image will look counter to what is going on in the action rather than being sympathetic.

    I'd like to ensure that my system isn't incapable of resolving these subtleties to the best that is possible as this to me is one of the things that makes watching a film interesting and involving and "active" ( to coin your phrase). I'd like to make sure that deliberate easthetic decision making on the part of the film-maker is not lost or mistaken for noise in my system. The telecine operator will do their best to try and make the limited range that is possible to transfer from the original film material to the video master be as faithful communicatively as is possble with regard to what the director intended when he made the film.

    Calibration to correct aims will only ever make this more likely not less.
     
  21. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    Keith, once again thanks for the very detailed and most interesting post.

    My use of the phrase "active viewing" actually goes further than yours. You talk about the

    ...transfer from the original film material to the video master [being] as faithful communicatively as is possble with regard to what the director intended when he made the film.

    and of course I accept that many (including directors and DPs!) would agree that this is the only desirable approach. But there is another school of thought which holds that the viewer should not only have the means to alter "what the director intended", she or he should be actively encouraged to do so.

    This places the viewer in a much more participatory position, and changes the entire "creator/audience" relationship.

    As I said, this is very much a minority view, but it does exist (perhaps more in regard to music reproduction than film, though it can be found in that field also.) Its ultimate form postulates the viewer being able to change much more than simply the appearance of the material, but that is of course for the future.

    For the present, and to give a very minor and trivial example, if I as the viewer believe that a particular scene is (say) too dark then surely I should have no qualms about making it lighter?

    Bert
    www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  22. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    On a correctly set up system it won't help if you turn up the brightness as it won't disclose any more detail in the scene all it will do is wash out the blacks and potentially clip and crush the image so that its even harder to discern the action. The image will look even less dynamic than it did at the correct setting. You might make some of the lower intensities more obvious but at the risk of crushing them together and making them flatter, the midtones will also get crushed together and may well xhibit banding (especially on a digital panel device) you will almost certainly push detail past the white point whilst your blacks will be brighter than they should be: you've just seriously compromised your dymanic range perceptually as well as actually.

    Another extreme example would be Pleasantville. For arguments sake say someone hates colour and has their system set-up to only show black and white. I reckon Pleasantville would suffer from its intended thematic interpretation in that particular viewing.

    Black and white material illustrates an interesting point about user preference. It doesn't matter how hard you crank the colour control it won't introduce colour into the scene because it simple isn't there and this is my point: video has definite desired parameters: you can't add information to it that isn't there all you can do is lose information or skew it (which with video will result in a loss as there isn't really an awful lot to play with in the first place)

    Music: which would sound worse? Great music played badly on mistuned instruments. Bad music played superbly on tuned instruments. The bad music will still sound bad if its played badly on mistuned instruments so you don't lose out there but what... about the good stuff??
     
  23. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    Keith,

    On a correctly set up system it won't help if you turn up the brightness as it won't disclose any more detail in the scene...

    Oh yes, I know that. But it's possible that "disclosing more detail" isn't the change which I (or my hypothetical active viewer) wants to make. I might simply prefer an overall level of brightness, regardless of the effect on the other aspects of the picture. This isn't about better or worse, it's about personal preferences, however misguided they might be seen as by others.

    As an example, albeit a non-visual one, in another life I worked as a gramophone-record librarian in a large (and culturally savvy) London borough. I had one borrower who listened to all his records with the treble control on his amp at maximum and the bass control at minimum. This was how he liked to hear music. At all other settings, the sound was wrong for him. Which would have been better: insist on his listening "properly" and ruining his pleasure, or let him continue as he was?

    It could be argued "that's not the way the performers intended it to be heard" to which my customer would doubtless have replied, "So what? It's my record, my equipment, my ears and my enjoyment."

    Bert
    www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  24. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    Well I could just as easily argue that his equipment was perhaps more correct at his preferred settings than at neutral Bert. He also might have been only too happy at someone suggesting practical ways to improve his aural experience rather than haughtily suggest he was doing something incorrect with his own equipment.

    The personal preference issue is one of those all encompassing circular issues that crops up quite often when people talk about accuracy and standardisation: it almost borders on the meta-physical .( zen and the art of video calibration) The procedure for designing standardisations I outlined earlier is an attempt to average out any differences that may arise from individually differing preference. You might argue this is homogenisation and you may well be right to a certain extent however the prospect of designing a custom set of imaging science criteria for every person on the planet from capture to display is completely unworkable. Personally I 'm quite glad we have a halfway decent home system that even bothers to attempt adequate calibration.

    You could also argue that your set-up when calibrated will involve your own visual system in the process so in effect I could argue that you have calibrated for your own personal preferences.

    I personally regard calibration as important as it only ever helps to improve the experience I get from watching my system(s) and I am merely trying to provide some easily understood practical examples as to why this would be so : as opposed to jumping on the elitist bandwagon of merely doing it because it says so. ( I probably wouldn't have bought an ae100 if this was my m.o.).

    Calibration is a good thing. It will help to give you a picture that blows you away with vibrancy and detail one minute then has you peering into the creepy ill defined dark the next. It will optimise the range of images that your equipment is capable of showing.

    Personal preference is fine ( I have myself been known to take sugar in my coffee) and my personal preference is to employ calibration with accurate target material.
     
  25. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    Keith,

    Personal preference is fine ( I have myself been known to take sugar in my coffee) and my personal preference is to employ calibration with accurate target material.

    I hope you don't think that I was somehow attacking your stance on this, or questioning your judgement; that certainly wasn't my intention and I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that it was.

    Many thanks for an interesting and stimulating discussion.

    Bert
    www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  26. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,113
    Not at all most fun I've had all week.
     
  27. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    Most fun I've had all week.

    Your week must have been about as action-packed as mine!

    Bert
    www.bertcoules.co.uk
     

Share This Page

Loading...