Technology News

I’ve been following Ricoh’s digital camera development with interest for a number of years. The first digital camera I ever owned was a Ricoh RDC-5000 in 1999. It was one of the first 2.3 megapixel cameras to hit the market and was the most compact and powerful digital camera on the market at the time. Of course, by today’s standards it resembles a single-lens brick and could gobble up a set of four AA batteries in about 20 minutes, but even then it had some innovative features we take for granted today, such as: B. a metal body, an automatic lens cover, USB connection and 4 cm macro focusing. Ricoh has continually innovated and improved over the years, and its products have rarely strayed far from the pinnacle of digital camera design. Models like the Caplio R3, the R5 and the excellent R6 that launched earlier this year have all received high marks in reviews, although they never seem to get the market share they deserve. This must be due to bad advertising, because in terms of quality and performance, Ricoh’s cameras can compete with the best of the competition.

The Ricoh Caplio R7 is the latest in the range and was launched in August this year. It is an 8.15-megapixel compact camera with a 2.7-inch monitor with a resolution of 230,000 pixels, mechanical image stabilization with a moving sensor and a flush retractable 7.1x f/3 optical zoom lens, 3 to f/5.2 with a zoom range of 28-200mm. Despite this spec, the camera is exactly the same size and weight as the Caplio R6, measuring 99.6 x 55 x 23.3mm and weighing 161g including the card and battery. At least from the front, the body design is also the same as the R6, which is not a bad thing as it is very attractive. There are a few tweaks on the rear, however, with a new larger rubberized thumb grip and a slightly different control layout to accommodate a few new features.

There are relatively few cameras on the market that can match the R7’s specs, but one that immediately springs to mind is the Panasonic Lumix TZ3, which offers a 10x zoom lens and 28mm wide-angle but only 7.1 megapixels, is larger and heavier and has a smaller monitor. It also costs around £235, while the Ricoh R7 currently sells for around £220. Otherwise, it’s pretty much in a league of its own. There are other cameras with longer zoom ranges, but none that combine longer zoom with 28mm wide angle, image stabilization and an almost ultra-compact form factor.

As with previous Ricoh Caplio models, first impressions are very positive. The body is all metal, with excellent build quality and good fit and finish of the controls and hatch. It’s not a flashy looking camera, but it has a distinctive style that’s instantly recognizable. For some reason, possibly the relative size of the lens mount, the R7 looks slightly larger than it actually is at first glance. Sitting it on my desk alongside a bunch of Pentax and Casio ultra-compacts reveals that the R7 is surprisingly small, only a few millimeters from the Optio M40. It is slightly thicker at 23.3 mm, but still fits unobtrusively in any pocket or handbag.

In addition to the new sensor, the R7 has a few other new features. The first is the new Smooth Imaging Engine III, the camera’s image processor, the output of which we’ll discuss in a moment. Externally, the main new feature is the ADJ control, a small joystick-like four-way controller that’s separate from the main D-Pad. This allows for quick on-screen adjustment of up to four user-selectable parameters, with exposure compensation, ISO setting and white balance as default settings, although image quality, focus and metering modes, sharpness, contrast or bracketing can be substituted via the main menu. It’s an extremely effective system and much simpler than the multi-function menus favored by other manufacturers.

Some new features are also available in playback mode. Contrast and hue can be adjusted after capture, and a deskew feature automatically corrects images of text pages, whiteboards, or other rectangular objects to make the pages parallel.

Aside from these additions, the R7 retains all the features of the R6, including eleven scene modes with face detection in portrait mode, two custom shooting modes and a 30fps VGA movie mode, although like the R6 the zoom lens can’t be used when filming. It also features the same moving-sensor image stabilization system developed by Ricoh.

The overall performance of the R7 hasn’t changed much from its predecessor either. It starts up in just over two seconds, which is pretty snappy, and shuts down in under two seconds. The AF system is very fast even in good light, focusing in a fraction regardless of range and zoom setting. It slows down noticeably in weak light, but works very reliably in low-light focusing and, with the bright AF auxiliary light, focuses without any problems even in the dark at a distance of several meters. As with the R6, the firing speed is extremely impressive. In single-shot mode it can capture over one frame per second, and in burst mode it can shoot two frames per second at full resolution and keep doing this until the memory card is full. The R7 is powered by a 1000mAh rechargeable lithium-ion battery, which is larger than the R6. I couldn’t find any specific statement about battery life, but I took over 150 photos and the charge indicator was still full.

The only negative about the R7’s performance that might put some people off is how noisy it is. I’m not talking about image noise here, I’m talking about the actual mechanical noise when the camera is operating. Powering on, zooming and focusing are all accompanied by a loud whirring sound as the motors and cogs spin in the camera. It’s a lot louder than any comparable compact camera and makes the camera sound a bit clunky and primitive when nothing could be further from the truth.

With the higher resolution sensor and new processing engine, image quality is also improved over the already impressive R6. The 256-segment metering gives very accurate exposures, although I found that where it reached the limits of its dynamic range, it tended to burn out highlights to preserve shadow detail. Color reproduction is also a bit more saturated than usual by default, but a quick adjustment in the menu resulted in a more natural tone. The level of detail is overall very good, if not better than I’d expect from an 8-megapixel camera, but again the standout feature is the lens, which offers superb corner-to-corner sharpness and detail throughout the focal length range, with virtually no barrel distortion at all in wide-angle and just the tiniest hint of chromatic aberration in the corners of the frame. Noise reduction at higher ISO settings is excellent too, with usable images up to 800 ISO.

“‘Verdict”‘

Once again Ricoh proves that its cameras are among the best on the market in terms of technology and value for money. The Caplio R7 is an exceptionally versatile pocket-sized compact camera with an unrivaled list of features. It’s stylish, well-made, has incredibly fast performance and great image quality at a price that beats its few rivals. If it doesn’t sell like hotcakes this Christmas, Ricoh will have to fire its ad agency.

“On the next few pages we show a series of test shots. On this page, the full-size image at the minimum and maximum ISO settings has been scaled down to allow you to see the full image, and a series of full-resolution crops have been made from original images at a range of ISO settings to enhance overall image quality to show. ”

—-

—-

This ISO 64 shot is slightly overexposed but the overall image quality is very good with no noise whatsoever.

—-

Exposure is more accurate this time, and at 100 ISO there’s still no noise.

—-

The noise level is still very low at 200 ISO, with only a little luminance noise in the mid-tones.

—-

400 ISO and it looks like a very impressive performance from the R7, with little fine-grained noise at this setting.

—-

Even at 800 ISO the image is printable, with good color balance and very little annoying noise.

—-

Image quality drops at a maximum of 1600 ISO, with lots of color noise and a shift in overall color balance.

—-

This is the full frame image at 1600 ISO.

“On the next two pages you will find a series of general test shots. In some cases, the full-size image has been scaled down for bandwidth reasons and a crop of the original full-resolution image has been placed underneath to show the overall image quality. Some other images can be clicked to view the full-size original image.”

—-

Here is my usual detail test shot of Exeter Cathedral’s west window for you to compare with other cameras. See below for a full resolution snippet, or click to see the full image.

—-

The level of detail is good overall, but no better than most 8MP cameras.

—-

The Ricoh lens does an excellent job, with barely a hint of barrel distortion in this wide-angle shot.

—-

The sharpness in the center of the picture is very good.

—-

Sharpness is still good around the edges of the frame, although there is a slight hint of chromatic aberration.

—-

“On the next two pages you will find a series of general test shots. In some cases, the full-size image has been scaled down for bandwidth reasons and a crop of the original full-resolution image has been placed underneath to show the overall image quality. Some other images can be clicked to view the full-size original image.”

—-

There are very few compact cameras that have a 28mm equivalent wide-angle end…

—-

…and fewer still who also have a 200mm equivalent telephoto lens.

—-

Color reproduction is very good thanks to the new processing engine.

—-

The exposure system tends to burn out highlights to preserve shadow detail.

—-

Versatile zoom range allows for creative control.

—-

characteristics

Once upon a time, not so long ago, a projector like Epson’s EMP-TW1000, which offered Full HD resolution for less than two grand, almost took our breath away. But now that they’re barely £10, there are certainly other Full HD projectors under £2,000. What’s more, they’re no longer unique to the LCD world, with Optoma’s HD80 now bringing Full HD DLP into the frame.

All of this is sort of a long-winded expression of how, with so much stiff competition, the TW1000 has some work to do to really impress us, low price or no low price.

It starts off pretty well, mind you. The body, for example, is really cute with its glossy black finish and somewhat elegant curves. It also feels pretty sturdy for such an affordable Full HD model.

It’s also remarkably easy and flexible to set up. Particularly likable is the incredibly simple vertical and horizontal lens shift system, which allows the image to be moved vast distances along any axis by simply turning two ‘wheels’ built into the top of the projector. The amount of optical zoom available is also amazing, offering a zoom ratio of 1-2.1:1, which should make it adaptable to almost any size living room.

The first small disappointment comes with the connections of the TW1000, because we only find a single digital video input: an HDMI. There’s actually another digital socket, a little D4 affair, but while this unexpectedly allows a SCART cable to be connected via an included adapter, it’s only useful in Japan when it comes to digital connections.

There’s good news about the lonely HDMI, though, and that’s its v1.3 designation, which makes it compatible with the Deep Color image enhancement system – so should sources appear that actually use Deep Color.

Elsewhere you’ll find a component video input, a D-Sub PC connection, a 12V trigger output to drive a motorized screen and an RS 232 connection allowing the projector to be integrated into a full home cinema installation.

A look at the data sheet of the TW1000 reveals some impressive numbers. Because in addition to the decisive Full HD pixel count of 1,920 x 1,080, there is an enormous contrast ratio of 12,000:1 and a high maximum brightness (for this price point) of 1,200 ANSI lumens.

Stepping into the TW1000’s on-screen menus we find a neatly presented system that’s relatively easy to navigate but just a little overloaded with options. We can well imagine archery tinkerers getting themselves – or rather the images from the projector – into quite a mess if they’re not careful.

Among the most intriguing of the options available is a handy array of themed picture presets, including two “theater” modes for home theater purposes, a living room mode for viewing in low natural light, and a dynamic mode for console or PC gaming. There is also a color temperature adjustment in Kelvin; an auto iris function, in which the projector automatically reduces its light output in dark scenes in order to increase the black level; motion detection processing; noise reduction; Turn output scaling on or off (select “Off” while watching HD); gamma adjustments; and a skin tone tweaker.

The sad thing, though, is that when you put all of the TW1000’s extreme imaging flexibility in the context of its actual imaging performance, the one phrase that comes to mind is “You can’t make a silk bag out of a sow’s ear”.

In other words, no matter how much we’ve played with all the plentiful picture tweaks available, the inherent quality of the TW1000’s pictures just aren’t high enough to allow us to achieve anything truly satisfying.

The main problem is one that is common with LCD projectors: black level response. Coming to the TW1000 at the back of a range of DLP projectors, it’s simply impossible not to feel disheartened by the amount of gray hanging over parts of the image that should be black. This makes supposedly large-scale dark scenes like the giant egg chamber on the crashed ship in Alien look decidedly flat and lifeless, and obscures the kind of subtle background detail that helps dark parts of the image appear properly integrated into the image as a whole.

The gray has another knock-on effect on colour, with hues in dark scenes tending to appear rather muted and washed out by the gray ‘wall’ that stands between them and your eyes.

In fact, the more we look at the TW1000’s black level shortcomings, the more we’re beginning to feel that it’s not just DLP that outperforms it in this crucial department; even some LCD models have delivered slightly more black level capabilities than this.

So that nobody at Epson has any leeway on this topic, we can say for the record that we really tried everything to make the pictures of the TW1000 better; the auto iris, the lamp power levels, the image presets, the individual contrast and brightness settings, the gamma control, the skin tone levels… Seriously, we’ve left no stone unturned to make the TW1000’s images more personable. After all, no one could have been more interested in liking a Full HD projector that costs just £1800 than we can.

But in the end we had no choice but to throw up our arms and admit defeat. Bottom line, the TW1000’s images just don’t have enough black levels to convince and there’s nothing you can do about it.

This is all the more demoralizing because the TW1000 is pretty good in a few other key areas. For example, there is absolutely no trace of motion artifacts or blurring, giving even action-packed scenes like the Battle of the Immortals in 300’s HD DVD a sense of smooth, clear purity that is second to none.

The Full HD resolution also means there is no “screen door” effect, which causes the LCD pixel structure to show up in the picture, and there is no problem with the flickering color bands in your peripheral field of view that many affordable DLP projectors (the so-called “rainbow effect”).

LCD images can sometimes look a bit grainy and over-sharpened around contours, but again the TW1000 performs well here, with a smooth, polished, even and impressively silent display, at least when it comes to HD recording.

While we’ve seen sharper LCD images, there’s enough subtlety in textures and color blending to confirm that this is definitely a Full HD rather than just HD Ready projector.

The final string to the TW1000’s bow is that it runs impressively quiet, at least when the low lamp power option is selected.

“‘Verdict”‘

On paper, Epson has put together a terrifying offering with the EMP-TW1000. But we’re sorry to say that some fairly fundamental issues, particularly in the black level department, mean it falls short of its apparent potential.

How we test televisions

We test every TV we review thoroughly over an extended period of time. We use industry standard tests to properly compare features. We will always tell you what we find. We never accept money to rate a product.

Learn more about how we test in our Ethics Policy.

Used as the main TV during the period

Tested over a week

Tested with industry calibrated tools, discs and real world use

Tested with broadcast content (HD/SD), video streams and demo discs

When I wrote the article “A Student’s Guide to Technology” in July, one thing that wasn’t covered was TV tuners. This wasn’t due to neglect, but simply because we hadn’t looked at a TV tuner for notebooks in a long time, and since we don’t make blind recommendations, there was nothing we could do about it. Until now, anyway, as I’m looking at an ExpressCard TV tuner from AVerMedia.

The AVerTV DVB-T Express retails at just under £60 and comes with a digital tuner and, as you might expect, timeshift and recording capabilities. In the box you get the ExpressCard device itself, which is a 34mm card, a small portable antenna, and an adapter for a standard RF connector. An enclosed CD also contains the AVerTV 6 software, whereby the device is of course compatible with both XP Media Center Edition and Vista Media Center.

The installation was surprisingly painless. To test the card, I plugged it into a notebook running Vista, and then prayed while it checked for drivers. As many may appreciate, Vista driver support can be a patchy affair, but to AVerMedia’s great credit, Windows Update searched for, found, and successfully installed drivers for the card in minutes. This was certainly a good start and bodes well for the rest of the review.

Next came the AVerTV 6 software. Installation was easy enough, and running on Vista didn’t cause any real problems other than the fact that it goes into raw mode because the program can’t handle Aero Glass features. At first glance it’s quite comprehensive software with support for a 7-day EPG, Picture-in-Picture, Picture-out-of-Picture and the UK’s MHEG-5 digital teletext service.

However, as is common with many of these private label software solutions, the user interface leaves a lot to be desired. The skin panel has stepped straight out of dodgy freeware media player territory, with lots of little buttons whose purpose isn’t immediately apparent from the tiny icons. This is illustrated no better than in the 7-day EPG which, while fairly navigable, is narrow and rather ugly to look at.

Luckily, while there’s nothing fancy about the presentation, “most” things at least work. Digital teletext is a nice touch, although a little disappointing that you have to navigate through an external window as it can’t be popped up like a regular TV. However, unlike regular TVs, the service is super fast and navigating with the cursor keys is quick and easy. Unfortunately, the PiP and PoP functions were rather less intuitive, and what was worse, resulted in some dreaded “Blue Screen of Death” crashes. That’s a bit of a shame; However, the player is happy to play in an always-on-top window if you want to watch football while browsing the web or working.

Another feature that was a little disappointing was the 16 channel preview, which shows the next 16 channels and what they show in a full screen grid. While it’s a nice idea in theory, in practice it took far too long to load the 16 other channels to be practical or useful.

No such issues were encountered when using the timeshift or recording features, whether with the AVerTV software or the media center. This particular model records, or rather captures, in MPEG-2 format, the same format in which Freeview broadcasts are encoded. It’s not the most efficient codec on the market and an hour-long program produced a video file just under 2GB in size, but the picture and sound quality of the recordings and broadcasts themselves were fine – or at least no worse than what we normally expect from Freeview -shipments would expect.

It’s also worth noting that some other AVerMedia tuners, including the Express X version, which also comes with a remote control, can record in h.264 at up to 320×240; This makes them ideal for recording shows that you can later watch on your small screen iPod or PMP. Unfortunately, this version doesn’t have such a feature, although you could quite easily transcode the MPEG-2 recordings to the format you want using a number of software tools available on the web.

Alternatively, there is also a hybrid version that provides digital and analogue tuners as part of the package. This may certainly appeal to some, especially if you want to watch TV while recording on another channel, which this model obviously can’t do.

Overall, though, this is a capable and reliable ExpressCard-based TV tuner. The software might not be perfect, but it’s perfectly usable, and you can always use the far more attractive media center. Although the device does get quite warm during use, we haven’t had any issues with quality degradation or crashes due to device overheating. So if you prefer not to use a USB solution and don’t have a PC Card slot on your notebook then this is an excellent choice.

“‘Verdict”‘

A few software glitches aside, this is an excellent ExpressCard-based TV tuner that fully supports XP Media Center Edition and Vista. Installation is quick and easy, and if ExpressCard is definitely what you’re looking for, there aren’t too many other places to look right now.

How we test laptops

Unlike other websites, we thoroughly test every laptop we review over an extended period of time. We use industry standard tests to properly compare features. We will always tell you what we find. We never accept money to rate a product.

Learn more about how we test in our Ethics Policy.

Used as our main laptop during the period

Tested for at least a week

Consistent benchmarks used for fair comparisons to other laptops

Verified against recognized industry benchmarks and real-world usage

DAB radio has its critics, but at this stage in its existence, it’s now an integral part of the audio landscape, as this report confirms. DAB radios have come down in price so much these days that you can buy one for under £25. I’ve looked at high-end models like the Pure Evoke 3 with features like pause and rewind, but this sleek model from Bush is a lot more straightforward.

Well, I’ve always associated Bush more with the dedicated budget end of things, but this radio might make me change my mind. The TRO4DAB may have a somewhat clumsy title, but optically there is certainly nothing wrong with it. Instead of the traditional wood effect that Pure favors, the Bush goes for a glossy all-black finish, although it’s a bit plasticky on closer inspection. There are no hard edges, just smooth plastic with curves. The grille on the front looks deliberately retro, but the final overall effect is somehow certainly modern. You can also pick it up in white and at the time of writing this was the only version available from the Asda online shop, the only place I could find it.

Much of this has to do with touch-sensitive buttons at the top of the device. Touch-sensitive technology is ubiquitous right now and will only continue to gain traction. The surface comes to life at the touch of a finger and is illuminated by a cool blue backlight. This will create an “ooooh” the first time, and I suspect that will of itself push some of these radios off the shelves. If you think it’s just a gimmick – well, you’re right, it is. But don’t worry, the buttons are easy to use and very responsive. The only real downside is that the slick surface picks up fingerprints fairly easily, so you’ll need to clean it periodically.

In the center of the top surface is a small two-line LCD display that some may find a bit limiting compared to the Evoke 3. However, the Bush doesn’t offer any recording capabilities, so a large screen isn’t necessary. unnecessary. In fact, the display is bright and legible, and the text scrolls at quite a speed, so this isn’t too much of a problem.

The buttons above are pretty self-explanatory, with one standby and five preset buttons. There are actually ten presets, but you have to press a shift key to get to presets 6-10, which is a bit awkward but not the end of the world. There are arrow keys to switch between stations and a select button to choose what you like.

A display button allows you to toggle between different pieces of information – station name, time and date, bit rate, the message the station is broadcasting and the station’s frequency in the multiplex. There’s even a counter that tells you how many errors the signal contains, with anything below 50 being acceptable. This probably gives you a good idea of ​​how good the signal is, although I imagine you can get a pretty good idea of ​​what the station in question sounded like.

There are also volume up and volume down buttons, and I was pleased that you could use these by simply holding down your finger instead of having to keep tapping.

A menu button lets you enable or disable Dynamic Range Control (DRC), which adds or removes levels of compression to eliminate the difference in loudness between stations – although I think this will only be an issue if you switch between stations frequently change stations. There is a bass boost button to amplify the sound and a mute button.

The radio has a large antenna, which should help when the signal strength is borderline. There’s also a handle so you have to push the antenna down if you want to lift the radio. The bush can be powered without being tethered to a wall as long as you’re willing to find six large R14 batteries to fit in, which regularly seems like an expensive proposition.

What struck me as soon as I pressed the standby buttons on the radio was how quickly it turned on and started playing. The Pure Evoke 3 looks very sluggish in comparison. Scanning for new channels was very quick the first time, and switching between channels was free from lag or lag. This made it very easy to use.

There’s a proper off switch on the side, which you might want to use to save power if you don’t use it regularly. Next to it is a line-out for feeding an external source and a headphone jack for private listening.

A point worth noting is how good the manual is, well written in plain English – that seems like too much to ask of many manufacturers these days.

As well as DAB, pressing the mode button toggles to FM, which is a good backup should DAB not be available. However, there is no medium wave or long wave. In FM mode you can use the arrows to scan frequencies as you would expect and the ten presets can be used and will not overwrite your DAB presets.

FM radio performance wasn’t great, however, and I didn’t manage to get a clear, interference-free signal in testing. However, where DAB reception was present the Bush did very well indeed, with loud, clear sound that could seemingly get quite loud for the 1.5W RMS speakers without too much distortion. At normal volume, the sound was also easy and clear to hear.

The Bush TR04 doesn’t have the advanced features offered by competitors like Pure’s higher-end models, such as: B. rewind live radio, recordings or alarms. This means that it is best placed in a place like the study or kitchen rather than the bedroom. It looks great, sounds good and is easy to use, but it really needs to fit your setup to make it worth paying the asking price, which is double the asking price of some DAB radios.

“‘Verdict”‘

If you’re looking for a DAB radio that looks stylish, is easy to use and sounds great then this Bush is easy to recommend. The blue-backlit touch-sensitive keys are cool and work well, but they pick up fingerprints easily, so keep your cleaning cloth handy.

You might think that optical character recognition (OCR) software can’t do much more. As long as it recognizes documents accurately and reasonably quickly, where’s the room for improvement? In fact, Nuance claims several notable improvements for OmniPage Professional 16, probably the most well-known OCR application on the market.

First, Nuance says the new version is between 16 percent and 27 percent more accurate than before, while also being up to 46 percent faster. In addition, it is said to be able to compensate for lens distortions in images of pages captured with a camera, to automatically redact words in sensitive documents and to process electronic and paper forms. It can create documents in Office 2007’s XPS format and includes copies of PaperPort 11 (Nuance’s document management application) and PDF Converter 4 which, as you can imagine, converts documents to PDF format.

The program is also claimed to do a better job of creating accurate representations of pages without packing everything into separate text and graphics frames. This has long been a nuisance as it’s one thing to get the page looking right and another to easily edit the text within this layout. Most OCR programs struggle with the “Basic Editing in Layout” part.

After installing and activating OmniPage Professional 16, you need to set up a scanner to work with it. The scanner setup wizard should run automatically, but it didn’t in our case. The wizard downloaded the latest scanner database from Nuance, which didn’t include our HP OfficeJet 7210, a recent and popular all-in-one. We had to run the program’s diagnostics to recognize it, which involved scanning text, grayscale, and color documents — about five minutes of work.

The main processing screen offers four main task tabs at the top with three windows below; one for thumbnails, one for a graphical image of the page, and one for the OCRed text. At the bottom is a full-width area for document statistics, most of which OmniPage calculates for itself.

The tabs are for workflow, load or scan type, page layout, and export. Despite what Nuance seems to be thinking, they’re not that intuitive to use. As if that were an admission, a series of how-to guides walks you through many of the tasks that should be obvious, but aren’t. Unexpectedly, the standard 1-2-3 workflow, designed to automatically process the most common OCR tasks, is set by default to load images from a file – do most customers really want to get their input documents? You must change this behavior before the program looks for a scanner instead.

After scanning a document and recognizing its characters, the program checked it and claimed it was 100 percent correct, even though there were two instances of the same typo in the text. Just because reading “tor” as “for” still makes a legitimate word doesn’t mean it’s correct.

OmniPage completed recognition in just over two seconds, which is fast, and even a more complex page with graphics and boxed text took less than 10 seconds. This page needed more preparation before we could get an editable document with a reasonable resemblance to the original. We needed to outline the areas of the page that we wanted treated as text instead of leaving OmniPage on Automatic.

Here, too, there are clear deviations. Some are understandable, such as B. the misreading of colored text compared to the original, while others, such. B. Differences in font and text style are less acceptable. Some of the text has been placed in boxes on the Word 2003 page we created, while the rest has been converted to the main text. There is also a variety of indents and line spacing, even though all text in the original has the same left margin.

It’s easy enough to save OCRed documents to any of the supported file types, including Word 2007’s docx, Adobe’s PDF, WordPerfect X3, and WAV for audio playback. The text-to-speech conversion is particularly good and sounds comparatively natural and expressive despite the US accent.

If you don’t need PaperPort or PDF Converter and can do without some of OmniPage Professional 16’s more business-related features like form OCR, word redacting (also redacting) and the batch processing manager, the standard OmniPage 16 costs around £60 – a big saving compared to the professional version.

“‘Verdict”‘

The improvements highlighted for OmniPage Professional 16 would all be useful, but according to our testing, the software still has some way to go to meet them. When batch processing long, standard text documents, the software can undoubtedly save a lot of time, but for more complex pages with significant graphic content, it can still be difficult to get close to what you’ve scanned.

points in detail

• functions 7

• value 7

• Ease of use 6

Convergence was one of the buzzwords of the computer revolution. But although camcorders have been able to take photos for years and most digital cameras have a film recording function, no device has really mastered both areas. Camcorders are too big to compete with pocket cameras and cameras are too small to meet the storage needs of video. However, weighing in at under 200g, Panasonic’s SDR-S10 certainly looks like it could be a contender for the Convergence crown.

The SDR-S10 has been widely touted as the world’s smallest camcorder. It owes its small size to the use of SD memory for recording, which Panasonic has favored in its camcorders for a number of years. The S10 comes standard with a 2GB card, but as it supports SDHC Class 2 or higher, cards with capacities up to 8GB and larger sizes are now on the way. Videos are recorded in MPEG2 format with a normal TV resolution of up to 10 Mbit/s. So the included card is enough for 25 minutes of video in the highest XP quality setting, or a more useful 50 minutes in medium SP mode.

However, we shouldn’t get your hopes up so early in the review. The S10 doesn’t come with a megapixel CCD like you’d find in Panasonic’s Lumix range of digital cameras. Instead, it packs a 1/6-inch, 0.8-megapixel sensor. This is perfectly adequate for video, but only captures photos at 640 x 480. So in reality, the SDR-S10 isn’t the perfect crossover device, as its diminutive size would suggest. It’s really only a pocket-size camcorder, although it still offers a healthy 10x optical zoom.

The S10’s form factor is also a bit odd, and we struggled to get used to it. The idea seems to be to hold the camcorder in your hand like a dictaphone, use your thumb to control the zoom rocker and your index finger to control the recording. It’s certainly as operable as that, but it’s a novel approach, forcing you to fire from just above waist height, rather than the head height that most people will be familiar with. We also found this arrangement particularly uncomfortable when taking photos – although this will be a very rare function with 640 x 480 still images. There’s also no lens cover where a built-in would have been appropriate. On the plus side, only a few seconds separate the device from turning on and being ready to record.

The SDR-S10 has a reasonable range of camcorder features. A manual focus mode is available and controlled via the menu buttons, which is fiddly but serviceable. In the default manual mode, you can control the aperture from F1.8 to F16 and then fully close it. You can also add up to 18dB of video gain to a fully open aperture. The shutter speed can be varied between 1/50 and 1/8000 sec in film mode and between 1/500 sec in photo mode. White balance options cover the standard full auto, tungsten, daylight and manual modes. There’s also the usual five program settings for Auto Exposure, including Sport, Portrait, Low Light, Spotlight and Surf & Snow. Wind cut and zoom mic audio features can also be enabled.

The manual settings are perfectly adequate for a camcorder of this class, but that’s not enough either. There is a screw attachment for tripod use on the underside, but there is no microphone input, no headphone jack and no accessory shoe. The memory cards also load from the bottom, so if you need to swap cards when using a tripod, you’ll need to unscrew the quick release shoe first.

With its single 1/6-inch sensor, the SDR-S10 would never offer high-end video quality. But we found the results surprisingly decent. In daylight, the colors were true to the original and the noise was not particularly pronounced, even in the SP recording mode. We were also impressed with the S10’s ability to cope in low light, where it opened up the aperture and increased the gain, resulting in some grain, but nothing the average consumer would find intolerable. However, the electronic image stabilization became very sluggish in poor lighting.

When it comes to editing compatibility, the S10 does pretty well too. There’s a proprietary AV jack with breakout cable for composite video and RCA audio connectivity, but USB2.0 is the main interface for connecting to a computer. Unlike most camcorders, you can’t connect the S10 to a PC unless it’s AC powered. This is a good safety measure considering the battery lasts less than an hour. Once connected, the S10 will appear as a removable storage device and its files are easily accessible via drag-and-drop.

The Panasonic saves its MPEG-2 video in MOD format, which we first encountered on JVC’s Everio. While editing wasn’t easy back then, most mainstream apps now support MOD files, so there shouldn’t be any issues with footage from the SDR-S10. We were able to import the files into Adobe Premiere Elements 3 and Ulead Video Studio Plus 11 with no problems. MotionSD STUDIO 1.2E comes for Windows users but nothing for Mac.

The SDR-S10’s size makes it the most pocket-friendly true camcorder we’ve seen. The video quality is still perfectly acceptable for the intended market, although there are insufficient features for the enthusiast. The low digital camera resolution also feels like a missed opportunity to create a killer convergence device, and the 25 minute recording time at top quality settings is a bit paltry too – you’d still only get 100 with an 8GB SDHC card get minutes.

“‘Verdict”‘

However, at under £300 the SDR-S10 pulls off a bit of a coup. Normally you would expect to pay a premium for the gadget desirability of a camcorder like this. But the price is on the lower end of the DV camcorder market. Now that you can pick up 8GB SDHC cards for just over £50, the format is beginning to look like an affordable option. So, for a very reasonable price, the SDR-S10 really is a respectable camcorder that you can carry in your pocket without people asking if you were glad to see it. And it’s waterproof too!

points in detail

• picture quality 7

• functions 7

• value 10

image processor

lens functions

video recording

general characteristics

“Platform: PC, Xbox 360. Verified version. Xbox 360.”‘

I have to admit that I ignored Call of Juarez when it first came out on PC last year. Maybe it was because we were going through a glut of first-person shooters at the time, or maybe it was because it was developed by Techland: the producers of Chrome Specforce, one of the most boring sci-fi FPS games I’ve been into met years ago. Whatever the reason, I’ve been wondering if I made a mistake ever since. A lot of pretty sane people have praised Call of Juarez. It has been described as innovative and compelling; as a better attempt at the video-game western than either Gun or Red Dead Revolver. Ubisoft obviously saw something in the game too and picked it up for this revamped, improved Xbox 360 conversion and an improved DirectX 10 PC version for the US.

Graphically, the 360 ​​version falls somewhere between the original DirectX 9 Call of Juarez and the DirectX 10 update, with overhauled textures and improved HDR lighting and effects. Regardless of the changes, the game looks great most of the time, with some of the most natural-looking outdoor environments we’ve seen since The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and scenes bathed in a kind of warm light that wouldn’t have embarrassed John Ford’s elegiac western classics. From frontier towns to grassy highlands to spectacular desert canyons, Call of Juarez bends double to live up to the expectations formed by a handful of Sergio Leone films and every western Clint Eastwood has directed since The Outlaw Josie Wales became. Character modeling is solid, and if the game struggles to create convincing interiors and dusty mines, it’s still a million miles from the abysmal, bland work that Techland produced in Chrome Specforce. To be honest the screens on these sites don’t do it justice: apart from a slightly exaggerated depth of field effect, Call of Juarez does a damn good job of eye candy.

Additionally, these other reviewers rightly praised Call of Juarez for its innovation. Too many shooters have been interested in making the same rut lately: take the classic Doom template, add squadmates and vehicles, throw in some standard Halo-style battles, and spice them up with the best visual effects on that money can buy . Call of Juarez takes a schizophrenic path that is less well known. On one side, you play Billy – a misunderstood half-Mexican youth who can’t help but get into trouble. He’s framed for murder in the early stages of the game, spending the rest on the run, sneaking through towns, mines and homesteads, avoiding badass bandits and renegade Apache fighters. On the other hand, you also play as Reverend Ray – a gun-toting preacher straight out of Clint in Pale Rider School who deals about equal parts lead and will.

The fact that Ray is on the trail of Billy is what gives the game its most interesting dynamic. While Billy can fight with a whip, pistol, rifle, or bow, his relative weakness makes stealth a more viable option. That means you’ll spend about half the game hiding, sneaking, pot-shotting from a safe distance, and engaging in a little first-person platform-jumping action.

Ubisoft has apparently made changes that make these levels more action-packed and less frustrating than the original PC version, and to be fair they rattle through at a pretty decent pace, with enemy AI forgiving enough to allow for success , but not so indulgent that it becomes inevitable. For those of you who prefer the smell of gun smoke to all that belly crawling, the Ray levels deliver it in spades. Everywhere Billy goes he seems to leave a trail of lawless vermin in his wake, and bringing them the justice of the Lord is what Ray does best.

Thanks to decent – if not quite FEAR-level – enemy AI, a fine selection of hard-hitting pistols and rifles, and a solid understanding of how to stage a gunfight, the Ray levels are a blast. The revolver, your main weapon, is dual wieldable with the left and right triggers, and with limited ammo in each weapon, you’ll need to think about your shots and use tactics to survive. Additionally, revolvers come in a variety of forms with varying levels of accuracy and damage, and weapons become unreliable – even dangerously flawed – after prolonged use. Also, this isn’t a game you can afford to get caught out on with no ammo. Though Ray is armored, he’s not invincible, and the game uses a Call of Duty 2-style health recharge system to keep you on your toes. Putting all of this together, you have some of the most satisfying firefights I’ve enjoyed since FEAR

I don’t make the comparison randomly either. Call of Juarez’s gunplay requires the same considered approach as FEAR, and the game even has its own equivalent of FEAR’s slowmo feature. Holster your revolvers, then click a trigger to draw and the game will enter focus mode. Time slows to a crawl and a crosshair moves slowly towards the center of the screen. You can move slowly to aim perfectly and – when the reticle marks a target – fire off a barrage of rounds. Wait for the crosshairs to line up and the game will return to normal speed, and (hopefully) any vile sinner in sight will fall to the ground, suffocating. It’s the perfect way to simulate the kind of antics loved by The Man with No Name or Django. One minute you’re the target of every good-for-nothing, the next you’re the last survivor.

So up to a point, Call of Juarez is an excellent FPS. I really can’t say that enough. If you are bored of your standard sci-fi or military shooters and are looking for something with a different feel and vibe, it comes highly recommended. It has looks, it has brains, it has atmosphere. It even has a pounding, finger-plucked, guitar-heavy soundtrack and very respectable vocal work. In order to enjoy it, however, you must be willing to deal with some rough edges, some of which will spoil your overall enjoyment.

The biggest problems arise with the sequences in which Billy has to jump from ridge to ridge or swing his whip over chasms. The jump controls just aren’t precise enough to make tricky jumps and you’ll constantly fall to your doom and have to repeat long stretches. The checkpoint save system is excellently implemented most of the time, but it always seems to fall off at these points. We’re not talking ninja gaiden frustration here, but be warned. The whip pieces are actually worse, partly because the whip itself is a nightmare to aim and control, and partly because the game physics seem to have taken a vacation when it comes to swinging. It’s hard to predict your swing and ridiculously unrealistic.

And it’s this lack of polish that spoils the game as a whole. Every now and then there’s something – a cutscene, a badly staged battle, an impossible section in an Indian country – that reminds you that you’re not dealing with a top-notch triple-A product. Now and then there is a bit amateurish production design that breaks the atmosphere and brings the mood back down to earth. You’ll be amazed at the sniping skills of outlaws and Apaches, who, as you’ll learn later, can hit you from miles away with a rusty rifle. You’ll suffer the same dialogue every time you fail certain stealth sections, no matter how many times you’ve heard it before. You might even be put off by a pathetic initial level of amazing craftsmanship. Someone should have spotted these things while testing and sat on them quickly.

Those aren’t my only complaints. The environments aren’t particularly interactive, leaving you wondering why you can set fire to a saloon full of outlaws but not a wooden structure full of bandits, and many of the levels are as linear as anything in Call of Duty 2 or Medal of Honor. Sure there are horseback sequences, but these seem limited and never give you anything more than increased perspective and speed. In fact, the whole game has a floating quality of movement that goes against its gritty, run-down, and dirty feel. For all its innovation, Call of Juarez just isn’t as refined or well-executed as Gears of War, GRAW2, or 360’s other top-notch shooters.

That’s why I was relatively stingy with the score at the bottom of this page. Despite its merits, Call of Juarez isn’t quite the game it could have been with just a little more attention to detail. It shows considerably more imagination and ingenuity than a number of bigger namesakes, though, and it’s a good platform on which Techland could – if given the chance – build a fantastic sequel. Given the leap in quality between Chrome Specforce and this one, I wouldn’t say that’s out of the question. More specifically, should Call of Juarez 2 come out, I’ll be far less inclined to ignore it. In fact, I’ll be one of the first in line to take a look.

“‘Verdict”‘

Enhanced for the Xbox 360, Call of Juarez scores highly for its exploration of an underexplored genre and its interesting game mechanics. Only a lack of finishing touches and polish keeps it from becoming a full fistful of dynamite.

characteristics

A 42″ HD Ready TV from one of the most respected brands in the flat screen world for just £650? What’s not to like, for goodness sake? Um, quite a bit, actually…

Uncertainties about the Philips 42PF5521D begin to accumulate as soon as you see it. Because while it’s not exactly ugly, there’s no doubt that the striking contrast of the jet black screen bezel with the slightly cheap-looking silver speaker area certainly lacks the refinement and build quality of many TV rivals these days. However, we reckon we can live with aesthetic compromises for £650 provided the performance quality is right.

The connections of the set are also mixed. Providing two HDMIs actually seems quite generous, but the shine is diminished by the fact that there is no dedicated analog PC interface, meaning that one of the HDMIs can be used as both a digital PC input and a socket for dual Tasks must serve HDMI video sources.

The 42PF5521D’s feature count is frankly disappointing. You get at least a built-in digital tuner – something we don’t really think you should expect on a £650, 42-inch TV. Aside from that, the only things that are even remotely interesting are a Virtual Dolby Surround audio processor, which delivers a pseudo-surround sound performance from the TV’s two speakers; a contrast enhancer; picture-in-picture options (single tuner of course); and a very limited version of Philips’ Active Control system, which analyzes incoming images and automatically adjusts one or two facets of the image to always keep the image looking its best.

You’ll find that there are two Philips features that the 42PF5521D doesn’t offer: Pixel Plus or Ambilight. In terms of the former, highly acclaimed Philips picture processing engine, the 42PF5521D doesn’t even have an old version of the technology like some of Philips’ other portable flat screen TVs. So the 42PF5521D’s images can’t take advantage of Pixel Plus’ remarkable abilities to improve image detail and color saturation. darn.

Now, in terms of Ambilight, it’s always disappointing when a Philips TV doesn’t have pools of colored light spilling from its sides. But then we suspect this really is a luxury feature that would probably never make it that far in the Philips range.

The 42PF5521D’s specs throw up a sky-high – and obviously very promising – claimed 10,000:1 contrast ratio, along with an odd-looking native resolution of 1024 x 1080.

Of course, this ratio does not mean that the TV is actually taller than it is wide! The key to the apparent mystery lies in the use of a technology called ALIS – or ‘Alternate Lighting of Surfaces’ to give it its full name – in the 42PF5521D. Without blinding you with unnecessary science, ALIS uses an extended phosphor coverage and electrodes positioned between horizontal rows of pixels, rather than directly below, to effectively double the screen’s horizontal resolution. Which would be all well and good if we hadn’t felt significantly overwhelmed by other current ALIS-based screens. We hope the 42PF5521D can restore our confidence in technology.

Unfortunately it can’t. Not for a long time.

Its images are plagued by a whole host of issues, which actually mean the £650 asking price looks anything but a bargain. For starters, the device’s black level response is strikingly poor for plasma standards. The claimed 10,000:1 contrast ratio looks nothing short of ridiculous as the dark background of the Berlin factory attack sequence disappears under a gray haze in Mission: Impossible III on HD-DVD. In fact, getting anything like a true representation of black on this TV is far more impossible than anything else in the movie!

Inevitably, this gray over parts of the image that should be black also serves to hide background detail in dark scenes, reducing their depth and sense of scale. We wouldn’t go so far as to say that turning Gears of War into a 2D scroller instead of a 3D shooter on the Xbox 360 is bad enough, but, well, you get the point.

The other really big issue with the 42PF5521D is that its color reproduction is way below average. Instead of the vibrancy we always get with LCDs, and increasingly expect from plasmas, we get a really drab palette that just doesn’t grab your attention and doesn’t pull you into the action. It also doesn’t help that many of the tones on display look far from natural. For example, actors in dark scenes mostly seem like they’re about to throw up, such is the odd pallor of their skin. Also, reds look orange and rich greens just look weird, to be honest.

And there’s more. During the battle between Smeagol and a friend for the ring in The Two Towers, distinct trembling sounds can be clearly seen across the ridges and crests of the characters’ faces. This is an old-school plasma issue that we really don’t expect to be that obvious these days.

The 42PF5521D’s final major disappointment is that its images don’t look sharp, even with HD footage. In fact, sometimes even pristine HD sources like Pirates of the Caribbean on Blu-ray look more like upscaled standard definition than true HD perfection.

With the 42PF5521D’s striking silver speakers proving to be far less powerful than they look, producing a tinny, underwhelming soundstage, is there anything good we can say about the 42PF5521D at all? Just this: it’s pretty good at upscaling standard definition sources to match the 1,024 x 1,080 resolution, making it look cleaner and smoother than usual. courting.

“‘Verdict”‘

Once upon a time, many years ago, the 42PF5521D’s performance would have been acceptable for a budget product. But today, with new plasmas from Panasonic and especially Pioneer setting new performance standards almost weekly, the 42PF5521D just isn’t good enough – at any cost. And not for the first time we think it’s high time to put ALIS on weed.

How we test televisions

We test every TV we review thoroughly over an extended period of time. We use industry standard tests to properly compare features. We will always tell you what we find. We never accept money to rate a product.

Learn more about how we test in our Ethics Policy.

Used as the main TV during the period

Tested over a week

Tested with industry calibrated tools, discs and real world use

Tested with broadcast content (HD/SD), video streams and demo discs

points in detail

• value 6

• image quality 4

• sound quality 4