After 5 minutes of watching anything your eye adjusts anyway. That's why TiVo works. It's crap quality. But if you watch it all the time you get used to it. It's just like when you were in grade school and you went to play at your friend's house and it was smelly. Within 15 min you don't smell it anymore and you can get on with shooting GiJoes in the basement with BB Guns.

Now, this is on a very different level. Nothing about my setup is smelly (except maybe that I need a better amp and speakers). We're talking about it MAYBE being 5% or 10% brighter because the screen reflects light better. But the contrast ratio of this projector is 30,000:1.. and that stat WAS probably measured on a real screen – by a manufacturer who will stretch the truth. So maybe I'm getting half that? Either way it's a BS stat because it depends on the scene and how you have the auto iris set. Plus, like I said, your eye adjusts. If anything you eye adjusts really well to light levels. screw this.. I'm going to blog about this today.. read the rest at http://www.michaelsmith.tv/2008/12/30/

Thanks also to Techguy, I was just about to talk about that… There is a difference between film stock and the way something is shot. Take 35mm, you can shoot 3 perf, 4 perf, Cinemascope – which was anamorphic, or VistaVision which runs the film through horizontally using 8 perfs per frame. Each of these methods use the film in different ways and theoretically result in a different "quality" for the final image. Ever seen an old Paramount VistaVision film? They're stunning.

65mm is a shooting stock. 70mm is a projection stock – as kevin said, the extra 5mm are the sound tracks. No one shoots 70mm. Panavision 70 is still 65mm film – but uses an anamorphic lens.

There is a difference between shooting 65mm and IMAX. A HUGE difference in the cameras. I've been on a set for a 65mm shoot when they used the Panavision camera. I was a film assistant editor on that movie. In 65mm, the film goes through the camera vertically, 5 perfs per frame. IMAX uses the same 65mm stock but the film travels through the camera horizontally, like VistaVision, and is 15 perfs per frame. So IMAX has more than twice the frame size of 65mm.

In 1080P you can see film grain on some 35mm transfers. Depends on how it was shot, what kind of transfer was done, etc. I can see huge differences between some films and other films. Even though 1080P is less pixel resolution than the grain density of the film, or say, a 4k cineon file, you can still see enough detail and clarity to tell that the one source is better than the other.

True, I should have researched how Dark Knight was shot before stating that it was IMAX and 65mm. It was an assumption. But nonetheless, with my setup you CAN see a difference in the quality of IMAX, albeit a subtle difference. But honestly both are amazing.

As for this being a serious review or not… this is an honest review and the kind of review that I look for before shelling out $3k on a piece of equipment. If you want specs and measurements check out sony's website. OR.. if you have a link to that kind of review please post it here. I'd love to read it.

I know that AV-philes disagree with me on my stance on screens. Screens are over-rated and they limit your image size, aspect ratios and viewing options. I stand by that. A $3k screen won't add $3k worth of quality. In the real world of working within a budget, you have to make allowances. The screen simply isn't going to improve the quality enough to justify the cost and all the negatives.

http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/July2008/T…

For an equipment review, I was little disapointed that there were no hard facts, measurements, or comparisons and that your evaluation didn't even use a serious (any) proection screen. (BTW, yes there are relatively inexpensive solutions for long HDMI connections)

I blame Engadget. You are probably just a nice guy blogging about his experience with his latest tech toy, where as they sold you as a serious review.