Originally Posted by smokarz
Screenshots proof NOTHING. I thought we're over that by now.
A skill photograher can make a crappy image looks exceptional.
Now don't get so confounded you let spelling, sentence structure and composition slip!
While some do continue to doubt that Photographic depictions cannot accurately convey what the eye is seeing in a real life situation, those who actually practice doing such things know better.
Yes...absolutely proper thought must be given to composition (...Distance from the screen, Zoom amount, Auto F-Stop and spot metering etc...) but those are supremely basic things, items that do not involve convoluted manual pre-imaging adjustments at the Camera, and certainly not post=processing.
The fact is that if a screen is well balanced in it's performance, the job becomes much easier. Screens that do in fact "Hot Spot" in the truest sense are extremely hard to capture good, saturated images off the screen. Any representations I take involve a wide variety of lighting conditions and varied angles of shooting. I do not practice the art of taking "Eye Candy" by zooming only into the perimeter of the screen.
It's the very fact that I do not have to do so that spells out the difference. Bluntly stated, if the ability to take / make any screenshot look great was solely based on being a "skilled Photographer", then how does one explain the raft of great pictures our basic membership w/ SF screens can produce without extensive knowledge, or expensive D-SLR Cameras? How about those who manage to get good shots on normal screens?
Oh...I guess I already did.
Anyway, your sidestepping the question..."Why are there not other photo representations of other DIY Screens performing like SF examples?" cannot mean much at all when proof otherwise is is so easily found...and created by anyone with a basic Camera, a little instruction, "and" a SF screen. No, those who really know something about it all know that while zooming in to capture a image from within the boarders of a screen might indeed involve over-compensation by the camera, including a appreciable amount of the room and it's lighting within the composition effectively denudes the argument that the Camera is "playing favorites".
Even the best cameras come up against their limitations when a subject matter presents ungovernable conditions. SF Screens, combined with ample ambient light do the opposite....present a tableau that can easily be captured by a basic Camera set to basic Auto parameters.
Dark Room Eye Candy Screenies are really quite simple....everyone does 'em. SF photo results in moderate to high ambient light conditions are reserved for those fortunate enough to have such screens. And let us not forget that with effective guidance and suggestions on how to optimize a room for Front Projection, that too also makes things get easier. A very large part of having a successful DIY project involves receiving help from those who do in fact have enough knowledge and real world experience to help make a difference to the uninitiated DIY'er. SF users are seldom cast adrift to be on their own...and truthfully, the ones who do go off and try things without much if any questing for advice are the ones most likely to have issues. Those people are the hardest to help, and unfortunately the most likely to take issue with their end results.
Lastly...and perhaps most important....if such is to be believed....that using a Camera to present visual results of any projected image is to be considered "worthless" and inaccurate, then that must also apply to the photos of such examples as the Checkerboard representations above. Why...who knows what "adjustments" were made that would skew the results to be what the "skilled photographer" who wants others to believe what they want them to see?
The same can also be said about posted test results, and conclusions drawn from inappropriate examples.
Sauce for the Goose, if you will. But the real question is, who is getting "Basted" and who is getting left to dry out?.