Originally Posted by MississippiMan
Yes, I am, but are you, considering that my quote above essentially says exactly what you just pointed out? That being, that stated Mfg specs are not always (if even mostly) to be depended upon.
But you readily dished a segment of (lower end) projectors instead of ALL of them, and you still can't explain if a cheapo Benq with higher rated lumens is better than a $5000 JVC with less lumens because nobody is going to agree with your assessment if you say that the projector with the supposedly higher lumens is better.
Sheesh. When I refer to those people who use videos to show off their projects (...or products...) I'm not referring to Reviewers using good to exceptional Video equipment to produce such.
I'm referring to the iPhones, Google / Android, Pocket Cam crowd. All of whose equipment goes a long way down the road to process the Video image and improve it artificially.
Which is typical behaviour for consumers who look at a product and take pictures.
Cameras need light to perform at their best, so does everything else that we see in real life because without lighting we can't see them.
Projectors need to project artificial lighting off a screen in complete darkness to perform at their best. To the camera however this simply becomes a blob of excessive lighting so naturally the two was never going to work together. Can you capture the sun directly and everything around it? No, you would need a filter and you would need to step down your aperture. This is not the camera's fault, this is the camera needing to compensate for the crappy situation it is in to try and capture something. So if the picture looks abnormally bright then the source is abnormally bright, that says something about the projection not the camera which like looking at the sun is not exactly a good thing if you think about it. All the camera did was expose the very thing that is wrong with projectors.
The argument over static Screen Shots' validity is essentially based on that same thinking. Few ever bother to calibrate a Camera...Phone or Digital...to achieve images that are truly WYSIWYG. Even fewer ever use Manual...or multi-frame bracketing, choosing the image that does most closely represent what they see. Those of us who do, we do so to add weight to our own exclamations that what is being shown does in fact represent what we see in person.
So without video/photo evidence what is the next best method in assessing projected images? Word of mouth? meaningless figures which you yourself said have little merit anyway?
I mean really, how often have you seen a Poster's photos prefaced by a disclaimer that the Camera just doesn't / can't do the projected image justice? Well that door can swing the other way...and in the case of videos, many built-in programs in newer Phones and Cameras are specifically intended to improve on the images received.
That's true, the projection to the naked eye usually always look better because the eye will always compensate for the terribleness of projectors anyway, cameras can't do that but if they are used to compare projectors in the same room under the same conditions and settings then there is some validity in making these comparisons after all since all things were set equal. In this case, it isn't about looking for the best possible quality results, but for the one that came off with better results under the same crappy situation.
As for making crappy images look better, they can make it look brighter but that would make everything in the picture look brighter as well (and vice versa for images trying to show black levels). Thus it is easy to tell if someone is intentionally trying to improve images this way. In fact I saw someone tried to do this and the results looked very obvious.