Originally Posted by tryingtimes
I like the use of them on projectorreviews.com where they intentionally over-expose to show shadow detail. I think they can communicate chromatic aberration, convergence and things like that too.
But there's lots of things read into screenshots which shouldn't be all the time on this forum.
Like any case of trying to compare one pj against another.
Actually, while I enjoy the screen shots on projectorreviews too, it appears to their reviewer, Art, seems to be placing a dubious level of emphasis on them. He often seems to me to be evaluating projector differences based on his screen shots
. I know he obviously actually evaluates the actual projectors too but...
For instance, in his review of the JVC RS1 he actually measures the luminance difference of screen shots themselves
from the RS1 and the Sony Pearl, and determines the JVC has much better black levels. "the Sony isn't even close when it comes to black levels
, " and "the JVC black levels are 60% lower
The conclusion that the JVC black levels kill the JVC black levels is seriously at odds with pretty much every professional review I read (or account by people who have had them side by side, calibrated). I certainly have nowhere else seen someone measure the JVC as 60 percent lower black levels vs the Pearl, when measuring the actual displays calibrated side by side
. The consensus is generally that the black levels were extremely close between the JVC and Pearl - essentially a toss-up - but rather that the JVC was able to allow objects within darkness to be brighter, due to not using a dynamic iris.
So, while I like screen shots as much as the next guy, the emphasis of screen shots on that review site leaves me a bit dubious about some of the conclusions.