Originally Posted by glennQNYC
It's difficult (if not impossible) to get an accurate representation of the image using an iPhone 4. This was the best I could make happen...
That image shows the 80" Zero Edge getting walloped by a 5000 lumen BenQ.
(previously mentioned) In the first image, the Center metering on the IPhone was biased toward the projected image, and crushed down all the other room lighting.
I have a couple others that show the same thing using my own camera. One can expect such to happen when there is too much light reflecting off a screen...and the use of the 5K lumen BenQ set just 6 feet away was counterproductive to capturing a decent shot..
As seen below:
Obviously, intense brightness was desired to show a "Plasma-like" image under the lighting conditions that prevailed (...although they had 50% of the Overheads turned off...) but that's taking it too far on too small a screen IMO when your supposed to be touting ambient light performance.
One can always make a good showing in a Bicycle Race if one rides a Ducati.
Now when you swing away from that blazing image and over toward the same screen getting hit by 1000 lumens, this is what you see.
If you peek at the left edge of the last shot where you can see the other ZE screen on the left, you can see just how much difference the 5000 lumens makes.
The last photo does a good job of showing real life existing light levels and screen performance on the 80" ZE screen. If they had used a 2000 lumen PJ the balance needed might have been achieved. With just 1000 lumens, the ZE BD is at least accomplishing more than one would expect normally. I can respect what I saw in that image as being a reality-based result.
However this next image of a 84" DNP Supernova
getting just 600 lumens shows something else entirely.
Next up...a couple shots of the "Inside the Booth" Demo.
The Demo did NOT include any imagery of dark content, so any effective determination as to how well black levels were /could be preserved wash literally "a wash".******
The shot below was the darkest content shown in the Demo. A obvious "Hot spot" exists in the center.
This next image is a screen set to the left side of the main Demo Screen. They only showed a static image. It had to be a "Still" because it never changed the entire time of the show. The overhead lighting was all set behind the screen, so it's effect was inconsequential. Under the sideways directed sconce lighting...contrast obviously suffered. Not bad though....credit where it's due must be given.Post Script:
After dwelling on the above fer a spell, I thought I'd venture a assessment:
Now let me make one thing perfectly clear....the BD3 did look splendid as showed. And I saw no sparkles. I did see plainly obvious speckles
in brightly lit sections of the image, especially in panned scenes, from a 15' viewing distance. (I wear glasses too...) . The dreaded "Dirty Window" effect. But lemmie' tell ya this. It was as noticeable as it was primarily because 90% of all exhibited material was not "contrasty" programming. More confusing is that when there was some contrasty content...a scene with some real black content(...and I never could catch any because it didn't stick around long enough and came along so infrequently...) the screens absolutely looked their best. Maybe they didn't blaze, but the looked very good...and that's a truism there.
Sadly, much of the above is a repeat of what happened at last year's CEDIA. Promotion took precedent over showing the real deal. Almost every location that used a BD screen took pains to at least mitigate worst-case lighting scenarios. Some did use Light Howitzers (5000 lumen jobs) but some, like Epson used the BD screens to their best effect. Of course they don't sell 'em, they just take advantage of them.
The BD lineup has serious competition, and cannot hold any claim to being the definitive ambient light solution. A really good one for certain....but certainly not the only one worth of note...or in a problematical sense, the Best performing...or the best value. That's a "IMO" so others are free to differ, absolutely.
Lastly, please note that I'm extremely critical about particular aspects of screen performance...perhaps more so than any Reviewer ever would be. I expect perhaps too much owing to my own degree of belief of what constitutes performance and appearance as relates to value. So understand that your own experience and satisfaction may, and most likely will not match up against my own. I heard plenty of "That's amazing" ....and "That's Incredible!" coming from my Peers around me, so by all means take that into consideration as well.