Quote from: 10basetom on April 26, 2023, 18:41:12I'm glad they reviewed it with a non-UST screen. No one I know is rich enough to splurge $2400 on a projector and another $1000 on a UST screen. Most normal people, me included, settle with a cheapo $200 screen (though to many people even $200 is too much). This makes the review more relevant to the majority of consumers who might be looking to buy this.

As I said, it's good they reviewed it with a "poor" screen, but it still should be reviewed with an appropriate screen as well, or at the very least a flat one.

Wake me up when these are < $1k and small. Right now they're obviously prototypes.
By the way, nobody except germanpeople calls these "beamers," it sounds dumb (although "handy" is winning).

I'm glad they reviewed it with a non-UST screen. No one I know is rich enough to splurge $2400 on a projector and another $1000 on a UST screen. Most normal people, me included, settle with a cheapo $200 screen (though to many people even $200 is too much). This makes the review more relevant to the majority of consumers who might be looking to buy this.

While it's good to test how well a projector handles a subpar screen, it shouldn't be judged solely on that. It's very likely the sharpness issues, i.e. not being able to sharpen it at the top and bottom, were caused by the screen, not the projector. Also, UST projectors require a very specific type of screen, and so this review really handicapped it in terms of image quality and especially brightness by not doing so.