I also just read the review in UltimateAVhttp://www.ultimateavmag.com/videopr...07epsonprocin/
and I respect that magazine and Shane Buettner greatly. I find the review quite fair, and accurate, except for one, HUGE aspect of it, and a second I will speak of later, both of which have me greatly concerned. I have to say that I completely at a loss to explain the biggest issue. From the day the first Cinema Pro 1080P started being reviewed and right through the the Cinema Home 1080P's release, commentary was almost centered on this projector being the brightest, and often by quite a margin, all of the sub $10k 1080P units.
Note this quote from projectorreviews.com from their recent review of the "Home"
"The Home Cinema 1080p's strengths that earn in our award, focus primarily on: Brightness (the brightest of the 1080p LCD projectors by a significant margin, and, important to many, the 1080p projector that produces the brightest image in it's brightest mode"
Now we have the review from Shane and UltimateAV stating "Compared to the better, and to be fair, more expensive 1080p projectors I've seen the Epson's image is noticeably softer and while the blacks are excellent the light output is noticeably dim.
" That is followed later by "However, I can't downplay that its primary shortcoming- that soft image
- is one that might well hold the trump card for many potential buyers."
Now I have seen the most of the 1080P contenders demoed many times (excepting the RS1, which, frankly, I can't afford anyway). Certainly, the Pearl and Epson I have seen the most as they were my two finalists. If the Epson is dimmer than the Pearl, and the Pearl is sharper than the Epson, then apparently pigs are flying too! That's about as believable. Surely, the Pearl has better contrast, but to say it's both brighter and sharper than the Epson should be a mistake only Stevie Wonder could make!
Again, please note earlier when I led off this post announcing my respect for this reviewer and UltimateAV. I have to "believe" they saw what they claim. My real concern now is whether Epson has compromised the standards of recent production in order to meet the much lower price points such that the performance is truly suffering to this degree.
Any other possible explanation???