DARBEE Visual Presence DVP 5000

DARBEE Visual Presence DVP 5000

Home Forums General Chit Chat and Other Stuff DARBEE Visual Presence DVP 5000

Viewing 11 replies - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #2716
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    It selectively enhances or sharpens the image. Some people seem to like its effect. It is not calibration. It does not calibrate to any known standard. Not as the director intended … but hey … it’s your TV and your money.

    Regards

    #2717
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    #2718
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I would Like to know more about the (DARBEE Visual Presence DVP 5000) would it better then using say the DVDO edge green. I am used to seeing video form my lumagen Radiance video processor I have hooked up to my TV downstirs. I now have another tv in my bedroom that I an looking for a video processor to use. should I buy the DARBEE or get the DVDO unit?

    #2720
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The Darbee box is NOT a video processor. It has no controls at all except for 3 modes (HD, Game, and Full Pop) and an “amount of effect” from 0% to 100%. It doesn’t do ANYTHING to make the picture more accurate. It tweaks contrast and saturation (increases both a little bit) and it sharpens the image and produces the same sharpness artifacts you can see in any sharpness evaluation target that we use to determine the position for the Sharpness control so that it DOES NOT “sharpen” the image. I have to set the HD mode to about 40% (0-100 range) in order to not have it degrade cable/satellite images. It can be set a little higher for Blu-ray before negative effects set in. What I don’t understand is… why do people feel the need to PAY for this box when they can achieve the same result by setting gamma a little higher (numerically) to bump contrast, add a click or two to the Color control setting, and raise the Sharpness control slightly… to the point where you are barely seeing Sharnening artifacts. You can do that for FREE. Why pay $250-$350 for an external box that does the same thing and has a single input and output and is loaded with handshake bugs that may make it annoying to use in your particular system. There are tons of complaints online about the handshake issues. I have handshake issues with the older system we have, but no problems with the newer system YMMV.

    Then there’s the whole philosophical argument… we spend 3 or 4 or more hours calibrating a video display to make it as accurate as it can be. When we are done, what we see on the calibrated video display is very very close to what the director and cinematographer saw when they were checking the mastering of the Blu-ray version of their movie. If we then insert the Darbee box, the images now look different and by definition, they are LESS ACCURATE than the calibrated display without the Darbee box. Because the most accurate the video display can be is the calibrated result without the Darbee box. Anything you do to that calibrated display makes it less perfectly calibrated… period.

    #2721
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @Doug Blackburn 3777 wrote:

    and it sharpens the image and produces the same sharpness artifacts you can see in any sharpness evaluation target that we use to determine the position for the Sharpness control so that it DOES NOT “sharpen” the image.

    I’ve tested both a plasma and an LCD display and there is no evidence of sharpening artifacts being added. Both displays show severe artifacts using the internal sharpening control but when set where sharpening is not evident and then increasing the Darblet to 120% adds no new content.

    Buzz

    #2873
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    What are peoples thoughts on this?

    DarbeeVision Licenses HDMI Video Processor Design to Lumagen: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1742519.htm

    #2874
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @kevinmaj 3972 wrote:

    What are peoples thoughts on this?

    DarbeeVision Licenses HDMI Video Processor Design to Lumagen: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1742519.htm

    Since you asked. It alters the image. Some users find the effects “pleasing.” The fundamental goal in display system calibration for program reproduction is to approach or achieve image fidelity. The manufacturer has made official statements that they do not regard image fidelity to be a legitimate goal in program reproduction. They regard the implementation of their technology as a better result for viewers. Scene sharpness and depth of field are fundamental and legitimate compositional image elements that make up the “look” desired by a cinematographer. They select specific tools such as camera type, lenses, filters, lighting, digital intermediate processing, etc., to do this. Until the content creation community consistently recommends this type of image “enhancement” technology, after their work is done, for program reproduction, I’ll pass. Thus far, I haven’t encountered such recommendations.

    I have read comments in the user forums that report it can help compensate for the inherent softening characteristics of LCD and LCoS projectors in a “pleasing” way for some viewers. I don’t have personal experience with this, so am not able to comment further on it.

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

    “Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging”

    #2875
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    You’re not forced to use the Darbee processing in the new Radiance processor(s), you can use it or not use it. There have been recent (unsubstantiated, but possibly true) claims that Darbee processing has been used by (pick 1 or more) directors / cinematographers / mastering houses during preparation of 1 or more Blu-ray releases. I don’t have a problem with that if the images look like the director/cinematographer want them to look after the processing is applied. But if the Blu-ray release was produced with Darbee processing, you would NOT want to Double Darbee the disc by using more Darbee processing at home. How do you know what disc titles have already been Darbee’d? I’ve never seen anything listed on a disc package (so far, but I don’t see even half the Blu-ray discs that are released) that would alert you to the disc already being Darbee’d. Unless there’s some metadata in a Darbee’d release that would temporarily disable Darbee processing at home, it would be difficult to avoid the Double Darbee problem. I find it difficult to watch cable/satellite programming without Darbee processing now… it helps a LOT as long as you don’t use more than 45% and stick with the HD user mode. For Blu-ray, it can often be set to 65% without seeing any problems in the images but I can’t stop thinking that the director/cinematographer didn’t see their movie this way and I get antsy to turn it off. In the Lumagen processor(s) that have Darbee processing, you can turn the processing on for all inputs or only for selected inputs so if you choose to stay a Blu-ray “purist” you can still do that very easily. Many times I have the Darbee box connected upstream of the Radiance processor connected only to the cable/satellite box where it does the most good and doesn’t bother me psychologically at all since everything is a bit off anyway and since cable/satellite programming doesn’t look much like real/full HD anyway.

    #2876
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hi Alan & Doug. Really interesting to hear your views and information on Darbee processing. It is being marketed here in the UK from some suppliers as something that really improves images from projectors such as the Sony HW30 and JVC X55 etc. I wanted to understand exactly what it does because it goes against what we are taught in THX calibration in that something is being added. Very interesting to hear how it’s being used.

    #2877
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @Doug Blackburn 3974 wrote:

    You’re not forced to use the Darbee processing in the new Radiance processor(s), you can use it or not use it. There have been recent (unsubstantiated, but possibly true) claims that Darbee processing has been used by (pick 1 or more) directors / cinematographers / mastering houses during preparation of 1 or more Blu-ray releases. I don’t have a problem with that if the images look like the director/cinematographer want them to look after the processing is applied. But if the Blu-ray release was produced with Darbee processing, you would NOT want to Double Darbee the disc by using more Darbee processing at home. How do you know what disc titles have already been Darbee’d? I’ve never seen anything listed on a disc package (so far, but I don’t see even half the Blu-ray discs that are released) that would alert you to the disc already being Darbee’d. Unless there’s some metadata in a Darbee’d release that would temporarily disable Darbee processing at home, it would be difficult to avoid the Double Darbee problem. I find it difficult to watch cable/satellite programming without Darbee processing now… it helps a LOT as long as you don’t use more than 45% and stick with the HD user mode. For Blu-ray, it can often be set to 65% without seeing any problems in the images but I can’t stop thinking that the director/cinematographer didn’t see their movie this way and I get antsy to turn it off. In the Lumagen processor(s) that have Darbee processing, you can turn the processing on for all inputs or only for selected inputs so if you choose to stay a Blu-ray “purist” you can still do that very easily. Many times I have the Darbee box connected upstream of the Radiance processor connected only to the cable/satellite box where it does the most good and doesn’t bother me psychologically at all since everything is a bit off anyway and since cable/satellite programming doesn’t look much like real/full HD anyway.

    This comes closer to describing for me a legitimate purpose for such a device. I function on a very restricted equipment budget. The only time I conduct really critical viewing of video programs, on my own time, is watching Blu-ray movies on the DLP front projection setup at my office. Both projector and screen are used in large-format post production QC applications. My cable TV viewing is mostly news and baseball at home, on a low-end 50″ plasma, at a non-critical viewing distance. The only way I would experiment with a Darbee product is if it was free.

    I’m glad there are discriminating reviewers I find credible that have experience with the device. Most of the reviews I have read from trusted sources have said it isn’t necessary to use it on a high-performance display system with Blu-ray. Therefore, I haven’t considered it a priority for my budget. I’m also not swayed by anecdotal observations/opinions or popularity, most especially among the so-called videophile hobbyist community. Consumer video is still dominated by the thinking that if it dazzles the masses, it will sell. My focus is on authentic depiction of cinematic art, technical merit, and the truth, not if something can be sold.

    #2878
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    There’s no denying the Darbee processing makes 2D images look like they have a better sense of depth, and it does make detail more obvious (the increase in contrast at work). I have experienced handshake problems with older HDMI components, but it seems fine with newer HDMI components. Also, I don’t think it will even pass 3D unless there has been some kind of update to the original model I have. But there’s no USB or serial port for updating so I’m not sure how you would update it at home… does not appear to be update-able to me. The photos they run in ads for the Darbee processor are “fair” IMO… what they show in the with/without split screen fairly well mimics what I see. I find it easier to over-do the Darbee processing than to keep it from being way too obvious. When you use the Full Pop setting, for example and crank up to a high value, I’ve seen it produce the same artifacts as too much sharpening… edges appear around things that did not have edges. A shot with an older building with a lot of identical-size large windows was a good example… cranked up, every window had multiple sharpening-like artifacts around it with Full Pop mode turned up fairly high. Switch to HD mode and drop down to 45% or so, and the artifacts disappear and there’s no obvious artifacts anywhere in images, but images do appear to have more depth and detail stands out a bit better.

Viewing 11 replies - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.