Hmm, it does give out a more neon effect, though it is accentuated by my Canon A70's saturated red flaw. However, I've gone back down to No DVC to see how it looks like on a red intensive image, and saw indeed a huge difference. I went down 2 notches, BTW!
Dunno though, while it helps correct that saturated red problem, it also makes it all so pale, it's not pleasing. I guess it's also the true image quality to be expected too, so I can't really sugar coat my pictures on my PC with DVC and think that's reality when everyone else seeing them is using no digital vibrance. It also now makes sense why Neutral is not supposed to be used unless really needed. Turns out in No DVC, it is really bad. Under DVC, it becomes obvious it is the needed option to correct the saturation issue. Daym, now I know that my pictures were actually taken and viewed with much paler colors than without DVC, by others.
Although, saturated red aside, I DO think DVC is an excellent feature. It definitely breathes a whole new life to your Windows, especially XP. I don't mind the slightly more accentuated color transition appearance in pictures though. It's generally not noticeable (I just noticed it when you talked about the differences) though.
--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.php" target="_new"><font color=red><b>The THGC Photo Album revision Eden, faster updated than ever before!</A></b></font color=red>