It's spectacle vs. non-spectacle. Everything's tilted towards spectacle right now. It's not to say that it isn't cinema, but is more like an amusement park rather than exploring the human condition.
One more quick thing to add:
The most important value of a test like this (in my opinion), is to see how closely you can mix these lights with true daylight and tungsten, NOT to see how well they render color.
At 8:00 minutes he says,
“When you actually white balance the camera to the light itself, the results should be exact, but it’s (this test) a good way to just sort of see the difference of what they are putting out naturally and how far off from the mark they are.”
With that being said, is there really truly any significant difference between lights that are beyond a certain CRI value? It seems to me that once you're past 85 CRI you're golden because your camera can compensate for the unbalance from there. Just be sure to always white balance your camera instead of dialing in kelvin values.
Thanks for the heads up Joe!
Making something out of nothing. Ad agencies anyone? Seriously filmmakers, you're better than that. Choose good stories and let them speak for themselves. Having to incorporate lots of manipulation is a tall tale sign your story sucks and can't hold it's own.