NicolasB
Distinguished Member
The main benefit you get from Lumagen scaling is that it is "ring-free". Look at a normal TV and try turning up the sharpness control much too high: notice how (for example) a dark object against a moderately bright background gets an even brighter "halo" around it? Poor quality scaling tends to have much the same effect as excessive sharpness or edge-enhancement.I understand the scaling is better, how does this look to the eye.
The reason this tends to be a problem (especially with poor quality sources) is that it exaggerates digital compression artefacts. When you switch to using a Lumagen you may actually not notice much difference; but if you try switching back again you suddenly think "ugh! where did all that macro-blocking and digital artefacting come from?!"
So it's not that it improves the picture as such, it's simply that it avoids making it look worse than it needs to by not exaggerating the artefacts.
I have to say, if your main gripe is image softness then it is unlikely that you will feel much happier with a scaler in place. If anything, the scaler may make it look even softer. Image softness can sometimes be the result of poor deinterlacing (film deinterlaced as video) and you should make sure you've switched off any "noise reduction" settings too. But it may well be that you simply can't tolerate an SD image blown up that large: upscaling cannot add any detail to the picture, it simply blurs the boundaries between adjacent pixels.
My own solution to softness is to use my Lumagen HDP to avoid upscaling. For a standard-definition image (especially on Sky) I have the programme playing in a 1024x576 window in the middle of an otherwise-black 1920x1080 screen. I find that looks much nicer.
However, I'm probably the only person in the world who does this. Most people insist on having a picture that fills the screen!