Screenshots from ProjectorReviews

I am considering buying a new projector and I have it narrowed down to the HC4000 and the Epson 8350. Out of curiosity I opened up the two reviews from ProjectorReviews on both models in two seperate browsers windows. I found the similar screenshots and clicked back and forth between the two. I was very suprised at the difference especially the Casino Royal shots. In the 8350 review it looks like Bond has a tan and in the HC4000 he looks pale dead white by comparision. I realize that screenshots have to be taken with a grain of salt but shouldn't the color be similar. Doesn't ProjectorReviews accurately calibrate these projectors before they are reviewed. Why is there such a difference and which one is accurate compared to what the movie director was seeing that day.

In the narrative I believe that he is talking about the lighting source when the movie was shot and not the lighting source in his home. Each pic looks different across the same projector but the same pic across the two projectors should be more similar in my opinion if they are both calibrated. I would assume that when ProjectorReviews does these reviews that as many variables as possible are eliminated (same camera, viewing environment, image source, etc.). These are not slight differences in my opinion, they are major differences with regard to color. In one shot it looks like Bond is blushing and in the other it looks like he is deadly pale. Is it really possible that two calibrated projectors could produce such a difference? If the answer is yes then what is the point in doing a calibration?

According to the site this is the equipment that he uses;

Test equipment first: I use the Avia Pro Test Suite of disks, and the Optic One light meter (about $2500 worth of hardware/software) and a tripod for mounting the meter. I also have the basic Avia calibration disk that consumers buy ($49.95 retails), mostly used quickly to see if that basic package will allow a decent calibration for end users. In addition I use the Silicon Optix HQV test disks, and the beta version of their 1080 HQV test disk, for checking image noise, motion artifacts, jaggies, cadances, etc

In my opinion if the images being projected are that different to the viewer due to lack of proper calibration then there is no point in reviewing them.

In my opinion the HC5500 looks the best or most life like. To me that should be the goal of any projector or display device which is to accurately render the images so that they appear real. Again, without proper calibration of each individual projector, reviewing them becomes a complete waste of time. The most popular projector on this site right now is the 8350 but to me it looks the worst out of the three screenshots. In comparision to the HC5500 it just looks bad. The question then becomes, is this real. Is this actually what the reviewer was seeing and is this the optimum performance of both machines. If the answer is no to both questions then this review site is worthless.

I would go even farther. If all projectors aren't properly calibrated, reviews become about as useful as "tits on a bull". This is a hugh variable which will significantly bias the reviewers opinion. I would equate it to an automobile comparision where some of the cars have insufficient tire pressure.

I really wish there was a major electronics chain that sold projectors and had a viewing room where you could demo calibrated projectors. To me this is the major obstacle with this technology is that you have to buy equipment sight unseen. Imagine having a dedicated room with the top five projectors in your price range and you could scroll through them as you played your favorite Bluray.