Huh? That's because I didn't know about a contrast loss issue at the time.....
That is fair enough.....although you are a clever chap....degradation in SXRD panels in other Sony devices was already common knowledge....you could have at least postulated that as a probable factor.Or would that have affected your decision to buy(and predictably re-sell the 1100
Funnily enough, Andreas,who was defending the 1100 to the high hilt, did not(as far as i can see) raise this SXRD degradation as a possible cause with you(despite the fact he was already in contact with Sony about said issue).....interesting.
Sure they do.....they also have a ton of bright stuff.....it's yin and yang.
That you have a preference for material which is darker is fine....but anyone reading your observations should take that into account.
John Archer? The guy who uses as little science as possible when doing professional reviews? He writes fluff pieces anyone could do. The stuff Darin, Kris, and Ekki report on takes years of skilled practice and effort to learn and do properly.
And I am not knocking those guys....as I said I esteem them and value their opinions/analysis.
But not just their
In the twelve years since, John(Archer) has made a living watching and reviewing more TVs, projectors and Blu-ray players than most people knew even existed. http://www.trustedreviews.com/info/j...UvCbply336D.99
The only thing I can say about this is that Zombie and others simply have more context for what other images look like. That's not to say they haven't seen other projectors, it's more that Zombie get's way more in depth in analysis of these units than the forum members you've just quoted.
As i said ...I respect what Zombie does and he does go into depth.
I dug this out which i remember reading at the time:
It is Art Feirman giving a mini lecture to Zombie on assessing different parameters(in particular with regards to 3D) when making an analysis.
I personally try to evaluate as many different opinions as possible.
Right...and you've done an A/B comparison between an 1100ES and X500 or current gen JVC with the images brightness matched next to one another when? I just find it odd that literally every person who's done this and posted on the forum about it, now owns a JVC. Seems like an odd coincidence.
No i have not. Even if I had.....I can give my opinion....it is up to others to evaluate for themselves whether it is relevant ....or to weigh my opinion with the opinion of others.
The same dealers who make a boatload more in profit from a Sony 4K.
Right, I wonder why they're telling you that the difference in image quality is "massive". How about before you continue arguing against those of us who've done actual A/B comparisons, you go out and do the same?
Andreas did an A/B comparison between the x500 and 1100.
So did you.
You both came out with radically different opinions.
I already owned the 1000 by that point....but had I not..... I would have taken on board both of your opinions.....and the opinions of others.
.....which at that point would have favored the 1100.
It's just odd to make these arguments so staunchly without actually having seen the two side by side. And yes, the images need to be side-by-side and brightness matched. No one has a memory that good...
I see you waded in on the Panny 8000 thread awhile back.
Someone on there did a side by side comparison between the 8000 and one of the JVC-E-Shifters(I can't remember which).....they came to the conclusion that the Panny was better(which does not surprise me).
You never saw this comparison in person but still tried to convince everyone that the Panny was inferior.