http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/ Engadget Comments for Sharp XV-Z3000 DLP projector reviewed http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/Sep 13th 2006 3:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/Sep 15th 2006 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/Sep 15th 2006 5:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/Sep 15th 2006 8:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/15/sharp-xv-z3000-dlp-projector-reviewed/
Secondly, Engadget blogger and HTMag Editor, posting specs that don't really show the brightness of the projector does not help the consumer. "A brightness of 27 ft-Lamberts" measures the brightness of the projected image on the screen, which is a result of projector brightness AND screen size AND screen gain ratio. So, the ft-Lambert result you posted doesn't directly describe the performance of the projector. 27 ft-Lamberts is fairly bright (similar to a CRT television), but is it because of the projector or the screen?

Using this calculator ( http://www.carltonbale.com/ht/calculator/index.html ), you can backwards calculate the actual projector brightness. It requires an 800 ANSI lumen projector to produce that brightness level when using an 87" wide screen with a 1.0 gain (the screen used in the HT Mag test). Not bad at all for a calibrated projector, but not quite the light cannon the post makes it out to be.]]>Sep 15th 2006 1:46PM