I just don`t think this reviewer has compared these projectors under the situations he postulates. He has measured them probably under low lamp hour conditions. iThis machine is 18.5% brighter. As if that means anything. Throw 18.5 more light on the screen. Does it look 18.5% brighter. Yes Sir. BS. Increasing the light by 18.5% at the base levels we are at might make it look a tad brighter to the eye. Let`s be generous. To ones eues maybe 5% brighter. Try a test. On an ajustable iris machine adjust the iris for a 20% cut in light. You fiqure out how many iris digits that would be. One F stop cuts the light by 50%. Its a log function, its not linear.
Suppose one machine gives you 12ft lamberts on your screen and another gives you 14 ft lamberts.. That`s about a 17% increase from 12. it will only look a tiny bit brighter to your eyes. Now put out 40 ft lamberts. That will look a lot brighter but will it look double the brightness. hell we over trippled it and I bet it looks maybe 30% or so brighter. I do not have a number. Someone can look up the Planar numbers on Tom Huffman`s sight. I believe he linked it on the Planar thread. On my screen he maesured hugh Lumens. Of course the machine was low bulb hours and close throw.
Suppose one machine gives you 12ft lamberts on your screen and another gives you 14 ft lamberts.. That`s about a 17% increase from 12. it will only look a tiny bit brighter to your eyes. Now put out 40 ft lamberts. That will look a lot brighter but will it look double the brightness. hell we over trippled it and I bet it looks maybe 30% or so brighter. I do not have a number. Someone can look up the Planar numbers on Tom Huffman`s sight. I believe he linked it on the Planar thread. On my screen he maesured hugh Lumens. Of course the machine was low bulb hours and close throw.


















, and the tons of options like CFI or dynamic iris that I know I have paid but will never use (unless they fix the dynamic iris I mean, but I doubt it)