J
Josh@dvdo
Guest
Josh@dvdo said:As I have stated, significant means 'huge', meaning an untrained eye can easily see the difference, which in my opinion is not the case.
Josh@dvdo said:As I have stated, significant means 'huge', meaning an untrained eye can easily see the difference, which in my opinion is not the case.
Likvid said:How fun is it to let the dealer do all stuff? not very much i say.
It's like letting the car dealer drive the car for you.
That is the passion of this hobby to do everything yourself, not paying insane money for other people to do the same job as you could do after some time.
Fair enough.Nicolas your speculation is wrong I'm afraid.
LOL didn't quite mean it to sound like that!!NicolasB said:Fair enough.
Liam @ Prog AV said:Hell yeah!!!
Although it's not gonna be quite the same job. Would be like entering that new car in a race, but driving it yourself instead of handing it over to the professional racing driver.
Liam @ Prog AV said:Hi Mark - an ISF calibration would get the most out of a Lumagen, or of an iScan. Both require professional setup to make full use of their facilities. But that's not say you couldn't get a massive improvement just using your eye and a setup disc. I usually supply units with timings preinstalled so the hard work of pixel matching and setting up the inputs and memories is all but done already.
It's going to the next level so to speak that would require professional calibration, where the calibrator will use specific tools to measure the light output from the display, enabling fine adjustment that simply isn't accurate/possible by eye. Again both processors would gain from this and have functions specifically there for the calibrators use only. And both would produce an even greater picture. But the Lumagen is still the better imo
Mark_a said:And is it not also true that these de-interlacer/scalers really work best on interlaced standard definition feeds? By the time you're getting up to digital feeds from the likes of the next year's HiDef Sky+ STB the need for these boxes will diminish somewhatMark
Mark_a said:Thing that bothers me is that none of them seem to have sufficient inputs for the amount of things I would want to plug into them. So you'll always be having to use some sort of switch box. Now the question is, should you switch as many things as possible, prior to the box of tricks, or use up all the inputs and just externally switch the least used things? If the former, then a box of tricks with minimal inputs would do, but if the latter, then one with as many inputs as possible is required.
And they don't seem to have dual outputs either, so that you could feed both a TV and a projector. I know they have analogue and digital, but if you wanted to feed both digital, say, then that's yet another switch box or buffer required after the box of tricks, is it not?
And is it not also true that these de-interlacer/scalers really work best on interlaced standard definition feeds? By the time you're getting up to digital feeds from the likes of the next year's HiDef Sky+ STB the need for these boxes will diminish somewhat, I would have thought. Why spend thousands trying to improve on something that exceptionally good already? Would not the law of diminishing returns be severely biting them in the backside by then?
Regards
Mark
Joe Fernand said:If you get the opportunity to view your 'Standard' 720P Displays with an all Digital front end with all sources processed via a decent quality Video Processor with everything optimised and calibrated by an experienced technician with proper calibration tools you'll be wondering why you took so long.