Sodapop,
Anyone can see these attributes very clearly! Who would have thought three panel LCD could generate text better than the data grade DLPs?
The pictures in the article for 1:1 pixel mapping tells all and clearly refutes your claim of better clarity. Any individual who would visit me would see this difference. Like nearly all of the review this is observed science, not an opinion. Opinion is expressed in the Putting it in Perspective section.
You give no objective reason for NOT preferring the High Power screen.
Under Light Output
Bear in mind screens in the 85-110" range typically vary from .8 to 1.3 based on the projector used for a committed room for a multitude of reasons; higher gains more often than not point to a unique situation.
Under Conclusion
Having said that I must put CINEMA 1 in perspective; this is where imaging science is to be found, but you are going to have to use the oddball high gain screen and depending on your selection and viewing position that may cause sparklies and uniformity errors potentially taking a hit in detail which other products can fully deliver as well as good light output for common screens, so it does not make sense to this reviewer to use this projector for such an application.
The unique situation is this projector has some real light pass through efficiency problems whether or not you are using the Pure Color Filter Pro. Fortunately without it you can use a standard screen gain. Engaging the Pure Color Filter Pro, Cinema 1 mode as one example, creates a huge hit in light efficiency requiring a unique high gain screen.
I could not test it with a high gain screen because I do not own one since none of my projectors have a unique problem requiring a unique solution. I was not going to buy one just for this review and Panasonic was not going to loan me one either since they did not sponser the review; yours truly financed this project! Regardless of that I gave the Cinema 1 mode the merit it deserved based on observed science.
In addition to the review comments I will also add that using a special high gain screen creates limitations in replacing the light engine with other technology unless you are replacing the screen as well because it would create an image way too bright with other projectors that do not have the light output problem of the Panasonic.
As Bill states there were no side effects. Joe Kane could give no objective reasons either.
As for Joe giving objective reasons, read his article, but no, he did not specifically comment on the Panasonic review and the reasons appear quite obvious to me. I am not going to comment further on the internal politics of WSR as it is none of my business, I don't even work for them and have no vested interest. I do find it troublesome that NO REVIEW ANYWHERE will point out the warts with this product and Bill’s is no exception. Based on that only you can decide if he was forthcoming over the screen or simply playing nice since what he was subjectively experiencing would be considered acceptable by most casual viewers anyway and to make an issue would be picking nits over problems that many would overlook. That is a real concern for any publication or reviewer that wants to continue receiving free review products and maintain a favorable relationship with the manufacturer. If you are going to state there was a problem then it better be easily ID'd by the majority. Your response validates why my review would be a major problem for such a publication.
When I wrote this review I forewarned HDTV Magazine that responses such as yours would be forthcoming because NO REVIEW ANYWHERE will point out the warts with this product while rating it highly and in my opinion and the opinion of other videophiles do a public dis-service to the art and science of imaging as well as maintaining validity with a videophile audience seeking accuracy above and beyond perceptually pleasing images; for this product HDTV Magazine and I will be standing alone. No matter how pleasing you find the image that by itself does not reflect accuracy and that can only be determined objectively by using test tools and instruments. Only the other reviewers can truly answer as to why their delivery and documentation differs so much from mine but I have provided a real political and economic reason for them to play nice. If anyone would like to visit me I can reproduce the results at will. I stand by my review, the objective results, conclusion and perspective.
As for your new comments concerning the WSR reviews I also leave that to the readers to investigate the article and come to their own conclusions. You think it’s close enough to claim accuracy, the graphs themselves in the articles clearly show what is and isn’t, there is little more to discuss.
I find this situation parrallel to a little known magazine in the sixties that fought the same battle in audio, Stereophile, that came to be recognized as one of the highly respected publishers of audiophile reviews and they battled regularly with the leading mass market audio publications of the time and the misconceptions of audio performance they were providing. Unfortunately since the founder Gordon Holt left in the 90's it is not the ground breaking publication it was, the politics of business and marketing took over, but there is still some gold left
in them thar hills if you can read between the lines.
Like the early days of Stereophile, HDTV Magazine has taken plenty of hits over the years for telling the objective truth and I am grateful for the opportunity to cover this projector objectively based on imaging science for those who are looking for such documentation.
Advertise
RSS Feeds