Ok. It was worth the 18 bucks and not anywhere as bad to figure out and
navigate through as the reviews indicated.

Best thing to do is just watch and listen to the various information
sections before diving into any adjustments.
I didn't bother with all of it, but it was worth doing some of the basic
setups like black level, color (using the blue filter) and sharpness setting
which is not very well understood by most consumers and was explained well
in the narrative. Most sets have all three set way too high. Even doing
the very basic setups resulted in a nicer, sharper and more natural picture
on the 50" plasma.

I spent more time testing my system with the audio tests. Turns out I had
it well adjusted, just by ear.
Also found out my hearing drops off at about 16,000 Hz, but Sam Adams
confirmed the Martin Logan's go up over 21,000 Hz based on his cocked head
while staring at the speaker under test. 16,000 Hz isn't too bad for an old
fart. The subwoofer test sweeps from 15 Hz to 150 Hz and my ears could just
begin to detect them at 22 Hz. Below that, all that was noticeable was a
slight vibration in the floor.

I'll play with it some more, but it was worth the money.

Eisboch

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:30:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Ok. It was worth the 18 bucks and not anywhere as bad to figure out and
navigate through as the reviews indicated.

Best thing to do is just watch and listen to the various information
sections before diving into any adjustments.
I didn't bother with all of it, but it was worth doing some of the basic
setups like black level, color (using the blue filter) and sharpness
setting
which is not very well understood by most consumers and was explained well
in the narrative. Most sets have all three set way too high. Even doing
the very basic setups resulted in a nicer, sharper and more natural
picture
on the 50" plasma.

I spent more time testing my system with the audio tests. Turns out I had
it well adjusted, just by ear.
Also found out my hearing drops off at about 16,000 Hz, but Sam Adams
confirmed the Martin Logan's go up over 21,000 Hz based on his cocked head
while staring at the speaker under test. 16,000 Hz isn't too bad for an
old
fart. The subwoofer test sweeps from 15 Hz to 150 Hz and my ears could
just
begin to detect them at 22 Hz. Below that, all that was noticeable was a
slight vibration in the floor.

I'll play with it some more, but it was worth the money.

Eisboch


Yeah, but did it fix the blinking 12:00? :-)

Cool, glad it worked out for you.

I assume you got the new "digital" edition. Without seeing the "analog"
version can you see where it is specifically aimed at digital video? I
don't care about the audio setup parts. My ear works fine for me.

Are some of the video shots of a lady in a produce department, Buckingham
fountain in Chicago, a kid in a straw hat. Just curious if they used the
same material from the analog version.

I knew you could work your way through it. The reviewers must have been
real klutzes, at least the ones that knocked it.

Thanks for the input.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...


I assume you got the new "digital" edition. Without seeing the "analog"
version can you see where it is specifically aimed at digital video? I
don't care about the audio setup parts. My ear works fine for me.

Are some of the video shots of a lady in a produce department, Buckingham
fountain in Chicago, a kid in a straw hat. Just curious if they used the
same material from the analog version.

I knew you could work your way through it. The reviewers must have been
real klutzes, at least the ones that knocked it.

Thanks for the input.


Having not seen the "analog" version, I'd say the whole DVD is geared
towards digital equipment. It briefly demonstrates the difference between
the older, "PAL" video standards and the newer digital NTSC standards from a
historical point of view but that's about it for analog. In fact, it pretty
much announces the demise of analog.

I don't recall seeing any of the video shots you mentioned. There are
several of a couple at a restaurant and a montage of images, including the
NASA video.

Not bad. Even Mrs.E. who usually watches everything in "Dynamic" factory
mode was very impressed with the improvement in picture quality,
particularly High Definition, and I didn't play with any of the advanced
setup adjustments .... (yet).

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...


I assume you got the new "digital" edition. Without seeing the "analog"
version can you see where it is specifically aimed at digital video? I
don't care about the audio setup parts. My ear works fine for me.

Are some of the video shots of a lady in a produce department, Buckingham
fountain in Chicago, a kid in a straw hat. Just curious if they used the
same material from the analog version.

I knew you could work your way through it. The reviewers must have been
real klutzes, at least the ones that knocked it.

Thanks for the input.


Having not seen the "analog" version, I'd say the whole DVD is geared
towards digital equipment. It briefly demonstrates the difference between
the older, "PAL" video standards and the newer digital NTSC standards from
a historical point of view but that's about it for analog. In fact, it
pretty much announces the demise of analog.

I don't recall seeing any of the video shots you mentioned. There are
several of a couple at a restaurant and a montage of images, including the
NASA video.

Not bad. Even Mrs.E. who usually watches everything in "Dynamic" factory
mode was very impressed with the improvement in picture quality,
particularly High Definition, and I didn't play with any of the advanced
setup adjustments .... (yet).

Eisboch

Sounds like something I'll have to get when I finally make the move to a
HDTV. I think one of the greatest improvements comes from backing way off
on the factory "sharpness" setting. Then getting away from the so called
torch mode.

Most people are used to the factory provided torch mode/excessive sharpness
and just realize how really good a toned down picture can look, be it analog
or digital TVs.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...


Most people are used to the factory provided torch mode/excessive
sharpness and just realize how really good a toned down picture can look,
be it analog or digital TVs.


In digital, the sharpness control does absolutely nothing to the program
material or monitor. All it does is to introduce artificial "edge"
artifacts to the display that are not in the original program source, giving
some people the false illusion that the picture is "sharper". It reminds me
of using a loudness control or over-emphasizing treble in an audio system.
Increasing sharpness on a digital source program not necessary and can
actually make the picture worse.

Eisboch

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:52:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
m...


Most people are used to the factory provided torch mode/excessive
sharpness and just realize how really good a toned down picture can look,
be it analog or digital TVs.


In digital, the sharpness control does absolutely nothing to the program
material or monitor. All it does is to introduce artificial "edge"
artifacts to the display that are not in the original program source, giving
some people the false illusion that the picture is "sharper". It reminds me
of using a loudness control or over-emphasizing treble in an audio system.
Increasing sharpness on a digital source program not necessary and can
actually make the picture worse.

What's the process of making the picture better?

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Ok. It was worth the 18 bucks and not anywhere as bad to figure out and
navigate through as the reviews indicated.

Best thing to do is just watch and listen to the various information
sections before diving into any adjustments.
I didn't bother with all of it, but it was worth doing some of the basic
setups like black level, color (using the blue filter) and sharpness
setting which is not very well understood by most consumers and was
explained well in the narrative. Most sets have all three set way too
high. Even doing the very basic setups resulted in a nicer, sharper and
more natural picture on the 50" plasma.

I spent more time testing my system with the audio tests. Turns out I had
it well adjusted, just by ear.
Also found out my hearing drops off at about 16,000 Hz, but Sam Adams
confirmed the Martin Logan's go up over 21,000 Hz based on his cocked head
while staring at the speaker under test. 16,000 Hz isn't too bad for an
old fart. The subwoofer test sweeps from 15 Hz to 150 Hz and my ears
could just begin to detect them at 22 Hz. Below that, all that was
noticeable was a slight vibration in the floor.

I'll play with it some more, but it was worth the money.

Eisboch

You may also want to check the TV's current draw again. My 50" Kuro went
from an average of 325 watts down to 220 after a professional calibration.

"Sam" wrote in message news5nmj.5$z_6.1@trnddc06...


You may also want to check the TV's current draw again. My 50" Kuro went
from an average of 325 watts down to 220 after a professional calibration.

It probably did go down. I fixed that problem though. I found another,
dedicated 15 amp service nearby (it was installed for an unused chairlift).
I have the 50" plugged into it and now there's virtually no voltage droop on
either the audio system or TV AC supplies. It's obvious that I was pretty
much maxing out the single subfeed before.

Eisboch

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:52:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
om...


Most people are used to the factory provided torch mode/excessive
sharpness and just realize how really good a toned down picture can
look,
be it analog or digital TVs.


In digital, the sharpness control does absolutely nothing to the program
material or monitor. All it does is to introduce artificial "edge"
artifacts to the display that are not in the original program source,
giving
some people the false illusion that the picture is "sharper". It reminds
me
of using a loudness control or over-emphasizing treble in an audio system.
Increasing sharpness on a digital source program not necessary and can
actually make the picture worse.

What's the process of making the picture better?

Basically adjusting the drives to the NTSC standards that the programming
was originally recorded in.
Black becomes black instead of grey (that used to look like black). Color
and contrast is much more authentic.
And that's without going into the advanced control setups.

The value of the DVD is having the reference test patterns and an
explanation of how to use them, along with the filters they provide to see
the effects of your adjustments.

Eisboch

On Jan 25, 6:30*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Ok. *It was worth the 18 bucks and not anywhere as bad to figure out and
navigate through as the reviews indicated.

Best thing to do is just watch and listen to the various information
sections before diving into any adjustments.
I didn't bother with all of it, but it was worth doing some of the basic
setups like black level, color (using the blue filter) and sharpness setting
which is not very well understood by most consumers and was explained well
in the narrative. *Most sets have all three set way too high. *Even doing
the very basic setups resulted in a nicer, sharper and more natural picture
on the 50" plasma.

I spent more time testing my system with the audio tests. *Turns out I had
it well adjusted, just by ear.
Also found out my hearing drops off at about 16,000 Hz, but Sam Adams
confirmed the Martin Logan's go up over 21,000 Hz based on his cocked head
while staring at the speaker under test. *16,000 Hz isn't too bad for an old
fart. *The subwoofer test sweeps from 15 Hz to 150 Hz and my ears could just
begin to detect them at 22 Hz. Below that, all that was noticeable was a
slight vibration in the floor.

I'll play with it some more, but it was worth the money.

Eisboch

Got a link? I saw several products, was wondering which you got.