Projector light output is measured in Lumens because its independent of screen size, lens zoom and screen gain, yet SteroNet use Nits in the “review” which is irrelevant to a projector and totally incomparable between them, deliberately I suspect.
I’m far from alone using this method to measure light output, there are calibrators/reviewers with many more years’ experience under their belt using the same method.
It’s generally agreed the recommended light output for projectors general falls somewhere between 12-16 fL (SDR). This can vary somewhat and targeting one ‘absolute’ number can have a detrimental effect on picture quality. Regardless, light output generally falls within this range and the W1700 was assessed on its capability to achieve this.
Of course, there are always variables and there’s far more than screen size and gain to consider, including the type and size of pattern used for measurement (APL, Window Size).
Both the review and accompanying measurements will allow any technically savvy reader to draw conclusions about the W1700's light output on a larger screen.
Looking back on the review, there could have been more information on light output for HDR and this is an area I will endeavour to explore further in future reviews. It’s always easy to criticise your own work after it’s been published, but this is the way we improve as reviewers.
To suggest there was a deliberate attempt to ‘cook the numbers’ is just plain silly.
The StereoNet's “review” reads like a manufacturers advertisement not a real review, its carefully avoids providing useful or directly comparable information and plays down the projectors deficiencies. Benq will no doubt be very happy with that approach to “reviews”, but smart consumers should look elsewhere for reliable and useful information.
I’m used to working with projectors that typically cost much more than the W1700. This alone makes it hard not to judge the W1700 against higher-end offerings. Despite this, I always attempt to remove myself from this and judge products based on their price-point.
It’s always my goal to provide a balanced review and present both the pros and cons.
No DLP projector has ever been capable of anything like 10,000:1 contrast so that number is total and utter BS. Real world contrast will be around 1000:1, or around one tenth of the manufacturers claim yet SteroNet failed to point that out or make any attempt to take an accurate contrast measurement to present to readers. Thats a MAJOR FAIL as contrast is top of the list of importance and StereoNet's so called “review” lets people believe the ridiculous manufacturers claim.
I would love to be able to measure the contrast ratio of the projectors I review. However, measuring contrast ratio on a projector requires black level readings, which can’t be done with any reliability when measuring from a projector screen.
Measuring a checkerboard pattern for ANSI contrast from a meter mounted on a tripod back from the screen is a nightmare. Light scatter from the projector, light bouncing around the room and even dust in the air is going to affect the reading. The reality is that you’re not going to get an accurate reading.
Measuring FOFO contrast ratio gets around some of the light scatter from an ANSI checkerboard pattern, however it does nothing to address the room itself or the light coming from the projector.
While there’s always going to be a little fluctuation in meter readings, any fluctuation in black level readings can wildly distort contrast ratio measurements.
For this reason, I doubt you will find any review that presents this information.
Benq quote 10,000 hours lamp life on Eco and 4000 hours on full power. These are absolutely ridiculous numbers for any lamp based projector and will never be achieved in actual use, unless the user is prepared to put up with a very dim image. Why did SteroNet not point that out?
Maybe, once upon a time.... As pointed out in the review the W1700 was easily able to yield sufficient light output with the lamp in lower power mode and the contrast dialled back significantly.
BenQ’s projectors may not offer the best in terms of black level performance, but they do offer high light output.
As to if the lamp can hit these numbers, only time will tell.
StereoNets, colour measurements are equally deficient and provide no useful information to consumers. Colour gamut tracking is very important and yet StereoNet's “review” doesn't provide that information. A single measurement point at 100% stimulus tells us nothing, its the 25, 50 and 75% tracking that matter most. Where is that information?
Measuring at 100% is useful and it’s a case of how far do we go in measuring the colour gamut. Having said that, I do agree that 25, 50 and 75 stim measurements would be useful and as such will be included in future reviews.
The post calibration gamma performance in the review is very poor. Is that the best that could be achieved? If so its worth mentioning as good gamma tracking is up there with contrast when it comes to picture quality and has a MAJOR influence on how the picture looks. Again StereoNet glossed over this, well done.
If it’s in the post-calibration results it’s the best result that can be achieved. Gamma does have a MAJOR influence on how the picture looks. Having said that, it’s a big mistake to draw conclusions about how the image will look based on graphs and numbers alone.
Numbers don’t lie, but it’s not uncommon for them to not match what’s happening on screen. I have observed numerous displays that look a whole lot better with actual viewing material than they do on paper. This extends to gamma as well, I have seen far worse gamma readings than the W1700 yet the picture exhibits a beautiful depth of field, without any of the problems you would expect to manifest themselves based on the readings.
One of the things you’re taught early on in ISF training is never to rely on your equipment alone. Verify everything is doing what is should do with your eyes as well. More often than not everything matches what your gear is telling you, but you always need to check.
This is why you will see calibrators always checking their calibration with actual viewing material and if often do some fine-tuning.
I could go on and on but there is no point.
As could I..
I’m always happy to receive feedback. Negative feedback is an opportunity for me to grow and improve as a reviewer.
However, I would ask you to refrain from personal attacks and speculative judgements on people’s character. If you feel it’s wrong call it, but please do so in a manner that is both polite and courteous.
For “enthusiasts” with $2500 to spend I strongly suggest they look at used JVC projectors that will provide MUCH better picture quality for your hard earned money.
It’s obvious that you’re a fan of JVC projectors and I agree they make great projectors, especially when it comes to black levels. However, please keep in mind that the W1700 is in a much lower price bracket.
The other thing to keep in mind is that a second-hand projector may not be able to play back UHD content. A lot of people reading the review are specifically in the market for a UHD projector and making broad generalised recommendations may see them end up with the wrong product.