Any update on this?
Labelling a system ‘conservative’ just because it is artifact-free doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think we should assume that the engineers have deliberately left any artifact-free performance on the table. While I agree with having the system account for max brightness (given peoples’ screen sizes will vary), I don’t believe that adding in more aggressive, artifact-prone options is the right call. Each to their own, but I think engineering effort should focus on ensuring that the system is well and truly optimized (rather than trying to add more options).
My suggestion is to have two separate iris modes: 1. The current mode as the default. Let’s call it ‘Bright Iris’ 2. A darker mode to improve blacks and contrast, where the iris moves from F4.5 to F7.0. As for DBLE, I’d like to see four modes, as on the Nexigo: 1. Low – the current mode 2. Medium – slightly more aggressive 3. High – aggressive mode 4. Ultra – black is everything
Can you clarify if DBLE is only functional with Dynamic Iris, or if it can be enabled with a locked iris? If it’s only possible with Dynamic Iris, then please separate these as some users have concerns with their image being too bright!
I tested exactly this last night. DBLE is independent of dynamic iris. So you can turn DBLE on and off under any combination of iris and laser power setting.
Thank you 😊
I think more control over the irises would be nice. Maybe something like the following. For static iris: Iris 1 F2 ─── F3 ─── F4 ─── F5.5 ─── F7 │ F2 Iris 2 F2 ─── F3 ─── F4 ─── F5.5 ─── F7 │ F5.5 Dynamic Iris example where a range could be set: Iris 1 F2 ─── F3 ─── F4 ─── F5.5 ─── F7 │===========│ F2 F4 Iris 2 F2 ─── F3 ─── F4 ─── F5.5 ─── F7 │=====│ F5.5 F7