Use this form if the comment contains offensive or otherwise inappropriate content. An email message will be sent to our moderators who will take appropriate action if necessary.
 |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Use this form if the comment contains offensive or otherwise inappropriate content. An email message will be sent to our moderators who will take appropriate action if necessary.
|
|||||||
I believe both Mike and Mark have very valid points. I also did not have any problems reading Marks comments.
From the reviews conclusion.
"But for home theater enthusiasts, in all but the rarest cases the Studiotek 130 G3 or the Grayhawk RS G3 will still be the best choice."
This conclusion does not explain why it is made. The review compares the Joe Kane screen to the Studiotek 100.
People with dedicated rooms do have the theater room set up properly which includes taking care of reflected ambient light.
Also from the review..
"In very low indirect ambient/reflected light that is typical of what most home theater users will experience, there was a 15% increase in dynamic range when the image was shown on the JKP Affinity as compared to the Studiotek 100."
Perhaps some readers understand how this was measured. I sure had no idea what the writer did to measure this to make this determination. If I was reading the review on the basis of making a determination of a purchase 15% improvement is a very substantial number. The vagauries of putting in a number with an undefined variable as dynamic range and not discussing what the meaning of this is does more to confuse people than to have them understand what is being stated. It appears to me that of the biggest differentiation in a projector price between brands is the real world contrast levels. So if the JKP screen is notably better in "contrast" isnt this a huge consideration.
Note that others were discussing the benefit of putting in the measurements and wishing to have the equipment that was used for testing. Most respected reviews include this information and it usually is a paragraph or two footnote in the review. It isnt a book these people were asking for. Just some simple explanation of what the tools were that made the measurements.
For the reasons described I have to say this is a bad review. Skirting the issue of not providing the technical information people are asking for raises more questions than it answers.
Perhaps the regular schmo wouldnt understand the equipment or relevance to the review. On this same note let the regular schmo explain what you mean by a 15% improvement in dynamic range. You can't have it both ways if your target audience is uninformed individuals.