http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/screens.jpg

Welcome to my third screen review. This review will demonstrate three professionally manufactured materials that are White, Grey, and Silver. I hope to demonstrate the differences of what these different screen colorations can offer and how you may benefit.

The White screen will be a white uncoated PVC vinyl that many manufacturers carry and is most similar to the Draper 1300/ Vutec Brite White. The Grey screen that will be demonstrated will be the Stewart Firehawk. This is a hybrid screen made on a tensionable grey PVC vinyl backing. And finally, I will present a Silver screen known as the SilverStar from Vutec.

I have lived with all three of these screens in my home theater. This is not a trade show review where a glimpse of a product and limited first impressions are stuck in my head. I have run all three of these screens through a battery of tests and am fairly confident of their abilities and limitations. They all represent their coloration characteristics to the highest available performance. As a reminder, this review is for fun and will be full of my observations and opinions. I will not use any special instruments in the review process (only YOUR eyes), and I will try to present all information and pictures as accurately as possible. My camera is also not perfect or calibrated for color accuracy; however, all pictures are untouched and were taken from the same manual setting. Unfortunately, there is no one perfect screen surface so you will likely have some tradeoffs. This review will show you images that are possible with these three different materials but not how they can be integrated into your theater.

Also, I get paid nothing to do this. I do not endorse or work for any manufacturer or even have any ties to the AV industry except as a hobbyist. I also do not claim to know why each manufacturer does what they do except that they are in business and they likely choose products that they can sell. Finally, and most importantly, I am not an expert. I will attempt to pass on my impressions and will try my best to call them as I see them.



Now, on to the screens!


1. Draper 1300 or similar Vutec Brite White 1.3

This, like all other vinyl/pvc material, needs tensioning. It is very white. With the slight surface sheen created from the manufacturing process it brings the gain up slightly above 1. It also does not suffer from any hot spotting. This screen has basically and unlimited viewing angle with virtually no noticeable drop-off. This material is actually light transmissive so you can see the image on the backside. This allows the material to illuminate and may help in the light diffusion process.

2. Stewart - Firehawk 1.35

The Stewart Firehawk is a grey pvc/vinyl material that also needs tensioning. The grey material is slightly darker than the Vutec Greydove/Draper HiDef Grey and it has a reflective emulsion carefully and lightly splattered on. The grey material is designed to give you good blacks and the reflective emulsion boosts the whites bringing the gain up to 1.35. This, of course, reduces the viewing angle.

3. Vutec – SilverStar 6.0

Material is some kind of silvery angular reflective paper laminated onto a solid composite foam board. Screen surface is silver in color and pretty smooth. Very bright, but not too bright for HT. Super vibrant colors and over the top whites. The SilverStar somehow has a better viewing cone horizontally than all the other high powers. It’s hard to estimate the gain of this screen but it is definitely very bright. It feels like about 3+?. Remarkably, it doesn’t seem to suffer from hot spotting. However, I bet if you went with screen sizes larger than what Vutec actually manufactures, you likely would see something.


Both the White and Firehawk screens are made with a PVC vinyl backing so they need to be tensioned to remove the wrinkles. The SilverStar comes as a solid fixed screen so it has no wrinkles at all. All three of the screens are Angular Reflective in nature so are ideal for most projector mounting applications including the ceiling.

How do they compare?


White

A standard white screen has been the AV industry standard now for a long time. Why? In offers accurate colors, great looking whites and the most generous viewing angles of any screen. Basically, no nonsense. Plus there are numerous materials to fit the bill for a matte white screen material. All standard or “Matte White” screens are basically neutral gain or 1. Some manufacturers say their product is 1.1 or 1.3, but this slight bump in these numbers are considered ”false gain” and usually attributed to a slight surface sheen from manufacturing the product. There are white colored screens like the Da-lite Cinema vision or High Power that offer increased gain but from an emulsion that is put onto the screen backing. Don’t expect to see noticeable differences in gain within the 1-1.3 gain range.

The white screen that I will be showing is extra white pvc/vinyl tensionable material with no surface texture or emulsion. This material has been in my own HT for years. The cool thing about this material is that light penetrates it allowing the illumination effect. This illumination effect diffuses and blends the light a bit hiding some source material artifacts and provides spot on linear color accuracy and whites. Also, since the light is able to penetrate the material, it may defuse the light in such a way as to lighten up the area between the pixels known as “screen door” and possibly soften some source material artifacts. Basically this screen is low enough gain and forgiving enough to hide many of the flaws of your system. In reality, it’s about the same as all the other matte white screens but is tensionable to eliminate any wrinkles.


Grey

As we start thinking about grey and what it does we enter into negative gain territory. Obviously the darker the grey gets the less reflectivity it has and thus its ability to hide your system flaws increases. Of course what’s really happening is you are just reflecting less light/image! Grey has just recently become popular and this can primarily be contributed to the fact that digital projectors are gaining in popularity, they typically have problems providing the deepest of blacks, and there are enough higher lumen projectors available now to make using grey possible.

Keep in mind grey reduces the reflected light and thus causes coloration changes. Some people don’t mind this, others just can’t get used to it. And of course, if it’s the only screen in your theater, you may not even notice, as you have nothing to compare it to. In some applications grey screen may be necessary to tame a projector with lots of lumens or if your projector suffers from lack of contrast range it may also be of some benefit. How does it change colors?

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/greyblend.gif
Thank you Movie Bear for this illustration.

I will be showing the Stewart Firehawk for grey. This is not your typical grey screen. It actually is a grey “hybrid” screen that has reflective emulsion on a grey backing to give it the darks of a grey screen and the whites of a 1.35 gain screen. The Stewart Filmscreen team came up with this screen combination that essentially offers the deepest of blacks, a reflective coating for the punch of 1.35 gain in addition to rejection of ambient light via a viewing cone. Viewing on the Firehawk is a little like having an equalizer on your stereo and pushing up the bass and the treble. If you’re a purist this may bother you. The casual observer will likely love it.
The Firehawk sheds ambient light better than any product I’ve seen, but the best picture is definitely obtained by watching on-axis. You do have some amount of leeway from side to side without noticing the drop-off and this should be fine for most home theater environments. I actually think this product performs it’s best with a little ambient light. In total darkness blacks tends to lose shadow detail and whites tend to look crushed to me. If you like some ambient light in your viewing environment the Stewart Firehawk may be for you.


Silver

Silver, it’s back and Wow!
The movie industry started out with silver for a reason… low light projectors. This is similar to what some HTs experience. You can significantly boost gain through silver as high as ~10 gain! Unlike greys, colors and whites are vibrant and almost leap off the screen and yet it can still offer the perceived blacks of a grey screen. Silver however obviously has the highest probability for hot spotting. The trick is to find a surface or emulsion that offers the properties of silver with the excellent diffusion of a standard white screen. Enter the Vutec SilverStar… and as far as I know they are the only company that offers such a screen.

I've been living with a 122" SilverStar for a few weeks now and can’t stop getting excited about what it does. It's hard not to like this screen right from the get go. Colors are beautiful and almost leap off the screen! Whites are white white white. The dynamic range is in a totally different league, response is linear throughout the range, and the viewing cone is remarkably much wider than the Firehawk at 1.35 gain. Unfortunately, the biggest screen they manufacture is only 122” diagonal as I would love to have one even bigger! Trick question…how do get a 122” plasma? Match a 1000 lumen projector with the SilverStar! Seriously though, I love watching stuff on this thing. Perfect screen? Of course not, there are tradeoffs with everything. One thing is the viewing cone/light diffusion efficiency. Hey this thing sets new standards for light diffusion efficiency. It is so good it has a hard time shedding ambient light. Make sure you have NO direct ambient light hitting the screen. You will see it. Even though you can still obtain a great image with low indirect lighting, no lighting will yield the most impressive results for Home Theater. Also because this thing is ~3+ gain (no, it’s not too much) you may see flaws of your system more easily(projector, source, component etc.). Compression artifacts may become noticeable if sitting too close etc. Bottom line, this screen surface is very sensitive to light. Feed it the right stuff and you will be rewarded with a stunning image that other screens are just not capable of producing. People say this screen surface also has a characteristic behavior of being kind of sparkly/active in some scenes(sky). This is compression artifacts from the source material. How can you alleviate this? Sit at least 16 feet from the screen. My closest viewing puts me at 18 feet, so I can’t see it but if I move closer to the screen it does become evident if I really start to look for it. Kids, this screen is like a high performance sports car. You will feel every pit, bump and piece of gravel on the road. If you’re looking for a Ferrari this is probably the screen for you.

From the few weeks of viewing the SilverStar I have been very critical as I am a skeptic with every thing. However, the good definitely outweighs the bad in my system and it would be very hard at this point to go back now to anything with less gain and/or performance.


Now for the testing…seeing is believing!

My Home Theater for testing

The projector being used in the test is a JVC G1000 (D-ila), producing approximately 600 true lumens right now. It is "ceiling mounted" and aligned with the top of the screen. Center couch seating is 18' from screen, projector is 26' from screen. Screens are approximately 9-10 feet wide and all 16:9 aspect ratio.


Pixels?

One interesting test I put these three screens through is the examination of a single pixel. I really wanted to see if I could illustrate my theory that a white uncoated PVC screen actually “diffuses” screen door effect in digital projectors slightly. What I found was something even more remarkable. I fully expected the SilverStar to exacerbate the screen door as it is much higher gain than the other two screens. What I found was that it actually minimized it? Huh? I’ll let you decide, but I think it is actually harder to see the screen door and pixel dimple on the SilverStar… Here are some pictures. Pull back from your screen a bit and see if you concur…

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/pixels.jpg


Screen Shots

Hey, I could go on and on about how great each one of these screen materials are or I can let you see for yourself. As they say “A picture is worth a thousand words” so… I offer these full screen shots of these three different materials and same source material. These shots were high-resolution shots taken from the Kodak high resolution digital website. I apologize for those taken a little off center and I’ve been testing out my new camera. All pictures were taken from a subcompact digital camera (Canon Powershot S400). The lens is very sensitive to geometry issues compared to my other camera. I think you’ll get the idea… Enjoy!

Also, all shots will be presented in order of White, Grey, Silver for reference, and were taken in very low lighting conditions. Not total darkness but very dim. It would be impossible to read a newspaper under these lighting conditions without the reflection of the screen.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS0.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS2.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS3.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS4.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS5.jpg




Conclusions


White, Grey or Silver…

What’s best for you? Of course it is important to match the best product with your own equipment and environment. In my case I went from a white screen which I loved, to a grey screen which took me a long time to get used to, and finally a silver screen which I’m having more fun with than... It’s kind of like the first time I started watching High Definition material…I’m still watching in awe.

If you want no-nonsense performance and accurate delivery of colors and whites I highly recommend a white-based screen. If you are trying to overcome some limitations of your equipment or environment, like poor black level, a grey screen may be for you. If you want what is possibly the best of both worlds and an awesome punch to your image, you should really consider what Silver could do for you.

I hope that others manufactures will consider the benefits of silver and start working on their version of the best of both worlds… Until then, bravo Vutec! what a screen!

Okay, one final White, Grey, Silver split screen shot of all the tested screens in one shot. I thought I’d bring back your favorite…

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGSGGG.JPG
Sorry about the green shading in the background on the right...that's from my D-ILA.


Again, Thank you AVScience! and…

Vutec Corp for the SilverStar
Stewart Filmscreen for the Firehawk

For further information screen info you can contact:

Vutec Corp (FL): www.vutec.com (954) 545-9000
Stewart Filmscreen Corp. (CA): www.stewartfilm.com (310) 784-5300
Draper, Inc. (IN): www.draperinc.com (800) 580-1560
Da-Lite Screen Company (IN): www.da-lite.com (574) 267-8101

What About Contrast?

Can a Gray or Silver screen offer different contrast? Yes, and No.
A screen is just a passive device so it's really only capable of showing you what your projector is displaying. However, this is only true in perfect conditions (total darkness). Enter ambient light into the equation...

Let's assume that we have a room with perfect light control---all walls painted black, for example. (I say this because I don't want to have to deal with secondary reflections off non-white walls in this analysis.) We're going to be looking at how 5 different screens work in this room:
--- an 0.75 gain gray screen
--- a 1.0 gain white screen
--- a 1.5 gain gray screen
--- a 2.0 gain white screen
--- a 3.0 gain gray screen
Let's assume that all screens are angular reflective, and that all of the gray screens are exactly the same base color of gray.

First, let's turn off ALL ambient light, and look at the brightness vs. gray level response of all the screens. The result is shown in the FIRST graph below. As you can see, all of the lines intersect (0,0) at. If your projector is capable of 2000:1, this perfectly dark room would achieve 2000:1 contrast on any of these screens---each with a different peak brightness, of course.

Now let's turn on some ambient light and see what happens. We're going to turn on enough ambient light so that, with the projector off, the matte white 1.0 gain screen is registering a brightness of 5 lumens. Performing the same experiement, we get the results in the SECOND graph below.

As you can see, the two white screens bottom out at 5 lumens, just like we expect. But the gray screens bottom out at 3.75 lumens, a 25% reduction. This is no surprise: the gray color absorbs some of the ambient light. At the high end, the ambient light is overwhelmed by the projected image, and everything looks normal---also no surprise.

In these very poor conditions, the contrast ratios are horrible:
-- 0.75 gain gray: 3:1
-- 1.0 white: 3:1
-- 1.5 gray: 5:1
-- 2.0 white: 5:1
-- 3.0 gray: 9:1
Obviously nobody would want to watch under these conditions. But, I purposefully chose a lot of ambient light so that the differences would actually be visible on the graph. Also, let's not forget that the ambient light is additive, so it not only reduces contrast but it shifts all colors slightly towards the color of the ambient light.

But the point is clear: if you don't have a "black hole" for a theater, your choice of screen can make a difference in the contrast ratio you experience! Perhaps the reason the SilverStar works well is that it makes the blacks look darker than the ambient light, while giving you enough gain so that the whites are still nice and bright.

http://www.stanford.edu/~mcgrant/perfect.jpg

http://www.stanford.edu/~mcgrant/perfect2.jpg
Thanks Michael Grant for that Contrast explanation and Illustrations!

How about this viewing cone thing?

We all know a passive device can't create light. So how can the SilverStar have Higher Gain and Wider Viewing Cone?

First off, I think the substrate which is used is just more efficient than painted on emulsions. When you paint on emulsions, regardless of how good you are, you will have differences is particle alignment and consistency. These reflective particles are what make "gain" screens get their gain. The SilverStar is different in that it uses a manufactured reflective paper of some sort. This manufacturing process apparently yields incredibly consistent results and therefor more efficiency.

Secondly, the SilverStar substrate seems to have a wider viewing in the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is still wide, but it's very noticable the horizontal axis is MUCH wider than any other higher power screen out there. This is very good for home theater as it gives the full effects of the gain from all seats in the house, and there is no noticable dropoff if you tend to move from side to side during viewing. Wide is good!

How exactly it does it? I don't know. But it does it!

What about Shadow Detail?


Okay, you probably think by now that I'm a little biased toward the SilverStar. The truth? You bet I am. The thing delivers.

You also probably think I just tried to pull a fast one on you by Wowing you with colors and other explanations. What else do you need to be wowed by? Hey, if your not saying Wow by now you either just bought a grey screen or you're wearing your sunglasses.

If you look closely, not only are the SilverStar pictures outright stunning, but there are numerous things in every image that just cannot be seen in the white and grey screens. For more shadow detail examples I'll submit these pics.... Enjoy!

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS6.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS7.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS8.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS9.jpg

More testing to come...

Let There Be Light!

This Post is a Supplement to the testing done for the WHITE, GREY, and SILVER Review.


First off I would like to thank darinp for dismantling both his home theaters and bringing them down to my place about 100 miles away. We had quite an arsenal of equipment, screens, and theater room flexibility to really give us a good idea of what we liked and what we didn’t like. On another note, after seeing all this equipment over a 4-hour period, and late at night, your mind starts to get a little foggy on even what’s good and what’s not. In the end I think we both probably came to some similar conclusions.

Keep in mind when reading and viewing we are looking and examining some high-end stuff. All of these screens are very good and will likely please any average human. Our real quest, I guess, is to be total nerds and over analyze the best of the best.

Our mission? First off, was to have a little fun and get to know each of the screens. Then our job was to:

1. Demonstrate black level.
2. Reexamine viewing angles.
3. Test the SilverStar with DLP

Fortunately my theater room/living room/lab has enough space that throwing around 10 foot wide screens can be accomplished with ease. Also, my front screen frame system allows for easy swap out of any material you want in about 5 minutes. This can be ideal for somebody that wants different screens for different occasions.

Okay, for all the test pictures we will still be using my system which should be evident as my D-ILA has a fairly obvious shading issues on the right side of the pictures and it only comes in at about 700:1 contrast after calibration.



Demonstration of Blacks

1. SilverStar vs. Firehawk

Here’s a good test. Certainly a screen that’s about 3 times the gain should have significantly elevated black levels, especially with this projector. But, what are the shadow detail differences? All these split screen shots will have the SilverStar on the Left, Firehawk on the Right, and are all about 10 feet wide.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/sf01.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/sf02.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/sf03.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/sf04.jpg


2. SilverStar vs. Da-Lite High Power

Another great test. We compared the SilverStar to the Da-Lite High Power because people asked us to, and we had one available. Which has better blacks? Better detail? These two screens actually turned out to be much closer in gain than we expected. We actually thought the high power might be slightly brighter perfectly on axis. All these split screen shots will have the SilverStar on the Left, High Power on the Right, and are all about 10 feet wide.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/sh01.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/sh02.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/sh03.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/sh04.jpg


Comparing the viewing angles

This will be another demonstration of viewing angles and light sensitivity. The SilverStar will be on the left and the Da-Lite High Power will be on the right. We will go from 0 – 40 degrees in 10 degree increments. We both thought the High Power was slightly brighter on axis but the SilverStar with it’s unusually large viewing cone pulled away from it as we went past 15 degrees.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/anglesSSHP.JPG

SilverStar with DLP?

Yes, as you go to higher gain like the SilverStar, or any screen, you are going to start to see the flaws of your system and source material. One question is…Can a DLP look good on the SilverStar with it’s limited resolution and other potential artifacts?

We used the NEC HT1000.
The HT1000 is a native 4:3 format DLP-based projector which uses the new standard XGA-resolution (1024x768) 12-degree high contrast DMD chip. It is rated at 1000 ANSI lumens of brightness in normal operation. It can be reduced to 800 ANSI lumens in eco-mode to extend lamp life and reduce fan noise in operation. The specifications indicate a contrast ratio is over 2000 and even higher when the unique IRIS feature activated. This projector is a little powerhouse with an extremely small foot print.

Does it match these specs? No, but it is equally as bright as my JVC G1000 and has a damn good image for only an XGA projector. It definitely beats my D-ila in contrast but not in smoothness as the D-ila has 77% more pixels, 3 chips, and virtually no screen-door.

Now, we kinda cheated in watching this DLP because we used a DVD player that had DVI connections and thus the picture was REAL good. We got so wrapped up in watching only good content on good equipment that we kinda forgot to try to find out where a DLP projector might break down on viewing with the SilverStar. Generally, I’d say it’s not going to be an issue. The SilverStar will give you back exactly what you feed it. Feed it junk and you may be disappointed. Feed it quality material from proper equipment and it should sing.

Also, the HT1000 has a 4X color wheel. This minimizes the rainbow artifact to some extent but having a higher gain screen I think probably exacerbates this. I saw a lot of them in our dark scene testing.

Final Conclusions

Gain of a screen can be confusing at times. Generally, If you have a very intimate HT and sit close to the screen you’ll likely be happier with a lower gain screen. It helps hide the flaws and does a little better job of “removing” the screen from the image. This shouldn’t be that much of an issue because your irises in your eyes will adjust to the lower lighting intensity and still deliver a fine image to your brain. Will all the detail be there? No.

If you sit a little further back like 13 feet or more. You will likely enjoy a screen with more gain. It’s really about viewing preferences. One thing that’s pretty clear is that the further back you go the more the horsepower of higher gain becomes favorable. Go far enough back and it's no contest.

Back to the sparklies issue. I’m fully convinced now that it is entirely compression artifacts from the source material. The sparklies which I’m going to now call “active screen” really doesn’t sparkle at all. This is just a compression artifact that can be viewed on any higher gain screen and is most visible in blue sky scenes. It looks a little like the screen is crawling with tiny insects or something. The same artifact was equally as visible on both the High Power and the SilverStar.

Which screen did I like better?
The Da-Lite High Power is a great screen material. However, it does have a very noticeable viewing cone. When viewing straight on it can be stunning and provide even better whites and maybe contrast than the SilverStar. One thing that makes the SilverStar different from other high power screens is it’s unusually large viewing cone. As you walk from 0 to 60 degrees off-axis the diminishing gain is very smooth, consistent and subtle. It really makes watching something and walking around the room at the same time a pleasure.

Of course, then the High Power sheds ambient light better. This is definitely attributed to it’s obvious viewing cone and under the right conditions, like higher ambient light and watching sports, it would be an awesome product. For watching movies, I would definitely take the SilverStar. It felt like it had more depth and the screen tended to just disappear more. I’ve heard people say this same thing when going from a matte white screen to a grey screen. The SilverStar exhibits this same quality but at a gain of over 3. High gain, detail, and depth. It’s pretty awesome, and in many ways a stunning combination.

You mentioned that the silver screen has 'sparkles'. How badley? I saw a glass bead screen (pretty sure, looked close at it) with a sharp9k and it has sparkles that bugged me. Do you think it has less or more sparkles than a glass beaded screen?

BTW, another excellent review :)

I picked up an old dalite silver screen from goodwill for 5 bucks, I don't use it its not very big but I just wanted to see what it looks like. The image is very sparkly but it is indeed very bright, I'm guessing the sparkles would be similar to teh silver screen in the tests

Was I correct in reading somewhere that the SilverStar was something on the order of $60/sq. ft.? (it does look stunning, BTW)

RG

Holy...is that a huge difference! I want one.....off to look up prices! (shudders to think.......$1000!??)

Couldn't find any prices online........
Any dealers in Canada?

Is there any other screen product on the market like it?

Wow - what can one say? Thanks again for the excellent review. I wonder what us DIY screen makers can do about making a silver screen?

Outstanding review, Tryg. Was the purchase of the Vutec Silverstar inspired by your findings from your previous review of DIY screens where you lauded the performance of silver spray paint?

In addition, yes please to posting the cost of the SilverStar.

I guess it depends on your priorities. I'm into black levels, and for that reason would still go for the grey screen, which appears to have notably better blacks than the silver.

Steve

Great post! Kudos for the time and effort. - CP

Steve,

I think we all like good blacks. But good black really is a function of the darkness of your Home Theater and the limitations of your projector. Trying to cheat this with a grey screen is really only cheating yourself out of the real image. Check this out..

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGScomp1.jpg

Did you even notice the green leaves in the left pictures on the grey screen? Did you even notice that there was a red flower on the grey screen? This is mostly because this is a grey screen reflecting less light/image.

However, If you look at the full images above it becomes obvious these areas that I chose are actually starting to fall outside the viewing cone of the Firehawk. Yes, and this is only a 10 foot wide screen with a very long throw to my projector. If my projector was closer it would look even worse as the angles would be greater. If you're a Firehawk owner you probably never even noticed this.

For everyone else... I can only guess on prices of this product. I suspect you might be able to get the SilverStar for around $50 a square foot. Call Alan or any AVS rep for pricing...I'm sure they will equally wow you with a good price. Maybe a powerbuy?

Originally posted by Andrikos
I'm thinking dalite high power... LOL :D
We will compare them on Saturday, but one thing for people to remember is that the Hi-Power is retro-reflective, so really requires the projector to be somewhere around the viewing level (either low on a table or mounted pretty low for ceiling mount) to get the advantage of the gain. The Silver Star sounds like it is really for ceiling mount, being angular-reflective.

If your projector is right above your head then it would seem like the Hi-Power would be better at reducing hot-spotting, but it will be interesting to see.

I've said this before, but I think the extra gain on this thing might bring out the artifacts from DLPs even more. I predict that this screen gives more of an advantage for LCOS projectors, which tend to show less artifacts in general.

How about a Sony 1920x1080 SXRD with one of these things? Then you'll really wish they made this screen bigger. Looks like the Hi-Power can go to 6' high and whatever width you want before adding a seam. That's 169"x72" for a 2.35:1 screen or 128"x72" for a 16:9 screen.

--Darin

Tryg: You are truly the Marquis de Screens.

Please, please, please give us some ambient light shots and opinions. I really want to know if this thing makes daytime viewing tolerable, decent, whatnot. And I want to know what happens with a few lamps off the sides not hitting the screen.

Thanks again for the review!

mark

OK, I'll jump in with a counterpoint. At least within the limitations of the camera and jpeg compression for internet posting, I find the whites on the SilverStar to look a little crushed. For instance, the shot of the outdoor cafe: the central pillar's sunny side is washed out so that some of the horizontal lines disappear, and the boat on the near bank has less visible detail on the SilverStar compared to the FireHawk. But I agree the shadow detail is outstanding. Always tradeoffs. ;)

Tyrg,

Your review was wonderful. This review really gave me better impression how different screens would look like in my setup. The timing is just right as I am about to order one.

Great work! Hope to see more in the future.

Tryg, thanks for the great info. I am planning my first HT and hope to buy either the Virtoso that Mr Wigggles is demoing or maybe the Optima H76 after it is reviewed. Both are HD2 dlp projectors. I hope for a 100" (diag)16x9 screen. Seeting would be 12' first row and 16' second row. Would the Silver work for this set up? (I hope you say yes because after seeing your pictures I will not be happy with anything else)
thanks
Dan Brown

I agree with gesundheit, the whites look a bit blown out in some places. Would this be something that could be compensated for with a touch of calibration specifically for the screen? I am assuming that the exact same settings were used for each screen for comparison purposes.

Also, is the material available in a roll up version or only for fixed screens?

These pictures trace the history of my experience. The white and gray screens show what my prior setups did. Crushed blacks, ordinary colors, typical image (but it was big and artifact free so I was impressed). The Silver Star shows exactly what I now enjoy on my HD20/PLV-70 with 120" diag. 16:9 Hi-Power. This makes perfect sense since my pj is about 3 times as bright as Tryg's but my screen (with a ceiling mount) is probably 1/3 the gain of the Silver Star.


My experience parallels Tryg's current revelation. Fabulous colors, better shadow detail, and generally much more obvious overall visibility of all the content. What he says about watching in awe is absolutely true. I can still feel it.

You DLP Mustang Chip guys ought to be going nuts. Your picture on this screen would be incredible. You have more than double my contrast ratio and better fill ratio. Think of the shadow detail. Tryg is showing you dramatically improved shadow detail on D-ILA for kripes sake.

I understand that this screen can be had for even less than the FireHawk. I smell a production rate/backorder problem in the making. They are going to sell really fast.

I just got a digital camera yesterday, so with any luck, over the weekend, I'm going to get you some screen shots.

This screen means that we can have bright pictures on extremely detailed and QUIET projectors. How cool is that? This could change the landscape. DLPs won't need to be ashamed of any inherent limit in brightness. They won't need it. Heck, they can now concentrate on increasing contrast ratio further. Those luminous colors that I once thought only direct views, crts and some plasmas had can now be had by all.

Tryg has done us a great service. Here's to spreading big stupid grins all around!

rogo - I will try to take some shots with ambient light of all three screens. I'll even leave the Firehawk in the sweetspot (middle) where it performs it's best.

geundheit - yes there is camera JPG compression when you shooting these these brighter areas. take a look at me in the very first pic. I couldn't even get a good one of me cause everthing around me was so bright. upon compressing the picture file it got even worse. so yes the whites suffer a bit from the camera.

D_B_0673 - The sparkly/active characteristic of the screen needs to be commented on more. This to me is the only relevent downside of two. I really noticed it at first but as I started watch the content I started getting more immersed in the film. I now have adapted and have a harder time seeing it or even explaining it. I don't notice it now. Hopefully I can get some comments from some fresh eyes on Saturday and we'll try to define it. Remember this baby is like a sports car. If you've been driving a nice cushy cadillac for the last couple years then you hop in a Ferarri it may feal a little foreign/ugly. You might complain about how much you can feel the road and how twitchy the stearing and throttle is. After a week of driving though you probably can't imagine going back the mushiness of the Caddy. Your senses are elevated, you are now finally in control.

The other downside? These things need to be bigger. 9 feet wide for me is not enough. The thing looks puny on my 32' x 16' wall ;) Seriously though, they need to start thinking bigger if possible. 10 foot wide is the sweet spot for me. When a 1920 x 1080 projector comes out, I expect to go a little larger. Please Vutec send me your prototype 14' x 6' 2.35 screen to study;)

Free - I hope to do just that. I'm fairly confident you can calibrate your projector from the screen and eliminate any crushed whites and still get all the rest. My projector is currently calibrated right on the edge for my white screen. I finally stopped when I could almost see a little crushed whites during calibration. Now apply it to the Firehawk and SilverStar and of course your gonna get different results. A projector with the right capabilities and calibrated to the SilverStar should look breathtaking.

I've heard a rumor they are working on a fabric version. But, of course, I don't believe rumors I just spred them.

Only fixed screen.

Yes, you can adjust the gray scale on the white end.

After playing with home made screens I settled on a Firehawk because it was the best compromise for my situation.

Why not white or silver.
White looks horrible in ambient.
Silver is extremely sensitive to any imperfection. The "sparklies" finally got to me. Stewart makes a silver high gain screen for 3D viewing that is quit good because it is very very uniform in texture., but it has got to be perfectly flat.

Tryg..this is great reading. Even though I already have my set up installed I find this absolutely fascinating.. This is the type of stuff that make this forum so amazing.

The HT rags can only dream about publishing stuff like this.

Out of curiosity could you please elaborate on the "other" parts of your system. What pj did you use....DVD player...video processor if any...HD source...interlaced or progressive...yada yada yada!!!

Thanks

For me, the only way I could make a fixed screen work would be to suspend it from the ceiling.

How heavy is the screen and what type of a board is it mounted to? Could you use 2 or 3 cables and hooks in the ceiling and put it up and take it down pretty easily?

Where do you mount the projector to maximize the gain of this screen? Does it have to be above the top of the screen; at the top of the screen; below the top or in the middle of the screen to get the 6.0 gain?

I might have to get me one of these screens. The pictures look wonderful

Tryg,

Thanks for such useful research.
How and why is the Silver Star better than the old curved foil screens?
Can it be easily cleaned?
How is it shipped so as not to be damaged?

Tom

Thanks again Mr Tryg, This is going to be my first HT, first projector, first dvd player and on. I can't wait. I am remodeling a small basement room now. I cannot go any bigger than 100' diag (16x9). The War Department (wife) is going to kill me when I show the cost of the screen, but I think your comparison pictures might keep alive. I could catch a bus to Olympia and move in with you...

Originally posted by TomJones
How and why is the Silver Star better than the old curved foil screens?

Tom A downside (and it may not be enough to disuade the potential buyer) of this highly reflective type of screen is the falloff of the projected light at the edges of the screen. The curved silver screen attempts to ameliorate this by directing that edge light back to the viewer.

Oh, and that IS my favorite. Thanks.

But talk about poor product placement, AVS has a lot of GAUL!

What would you estimate you are getting in foot-lamberts with the silver screen?

Nice review Tryg.

How's the black level when the scene is primarily composed of dark elements? If it's super bright, the black level should be nice during high contrast scenes, but dark scenes would look pretty foggy, no?

I love the increased detail thanks to the higher brightness, but I'm concerned how it will affect dark scenes. I have an SX21, which has a black level at least as good as film from what I can see using a matte white Da-Lite, but bumping the blacks up a couple notches could make it too bright at the low end. And the Vutec isn't exactly cheap or easy to ship, so buying one just to try it out isn't an option.

I called Vutec to answer my questions and I would be able to suspend the screen from the ceiling by cables quite easily and since it is very light.

Unfortunately they are only able to make it 107" wide without a seam so that is very unfortunate :(

Originally posted by Jetlag
What would you estimate you are getting in foot-lamberts with the silver screen?

Yea, who knows the formula for that?

43 square feet of screen. 600 total lumens. 6.0 gain.

Is it 600 divided by 43 times 6?

MAN, what do you want? Isn't 107" wide a little more than a 10 foot diagonal 16:9 screen?

That's what I have now, and it is pretty darn big!

It's all relative. My 80" wide screen seems huge to me, but that's because my theater room is 17' x 9' and a 92" diagonal screen is what I could fit. If my room were twice as large, I'd want a screen that's twice the size :D

MAN, what do you want? Isn't 107" wide a little more than a 10 foot diagonal 16:9 screen?

I told my wife that I was thinking of getting a screen that was about 6" narrower than the one we have now and she didn't like that one bit :(

Yes, I suppose since the resolution remains constant, you can get closer to the screen and have the identical field of view covered by a smaller screen and loose nothing.

The big break through of the SilverStar is the fact that it's FLAT.

The curved screens (foil) are/were great for CRT because most of them allowed for compensating (adjusting) for the bow at the top or bottom of the image.
Digital projector owners now have the ability to have a very high gain screen and not have that "bowing" artifact.
Another advantage of flat is even focus on the surface compared to the curved gain screen.
Electric remote screen drop down is a wonderful thing in my HT with the HiPower. If I'm getting the SilverStar $$$$ then electric center opening, and s l o w moving maroon drapes in front of this screen are in my future. :)

Free, she will be so blinded by the color and detail, she'll think it's bigger.

Size isn't as important as what it does. (I've been told).

One more advantage of silver screens: They preserve the polarization of the light souce.

If you every want to do 3D projection with polarized sources, this is crucial.

We do 3D projection on our silver screen from slides and from an LCD projector. (LCD projectors typical have green polarized 90 degrees from red/blue. Take a pair of polarizing glasses and see.) By making 3D images into green/magenta anaglyphs, and projecting them onto a silver screen, viewers with polarized glasses can see 3D images. This effect really impresses visitors to our HT.

For 2D viewing, we use a DLP projector, which outputs non-polarized light.

One more advantage of silver screens: They preserve the polarization of the light souce.

If you every want to do 3D projection with polarized sources, this is crucial.

We do 3D projection on our silver screen from still slides and from an LCD projector. (LCD projectors typical have green polarized 90 degrees from red/blue. Take a pair of polarizing glasses and see.) By making 3D images into green/magenta anaglyphs, and projecting them onto a silver screen, viewers with polarized glasses can see 3D images. This effect really impresses visitors to our HT.

For 2D viewing, we use a DLP projector, which outputs non-polarized light.

Tryg,

can you please give us a detailed review on these 3 screens you're talking about?

Did you read the original post? Brian

Tryg, Nice job. How about some pictures of commonly used movies like the Fifth Element , So I can compare the shadow detail of my 9000-Firehawk combo to yours.

Come on TRYG, SOME PHOTO'S PLEASE!

Great review!

Tryg,

How about some images of the three screens from various angles when off axis similar to how you did in your previous reviews?

It is fairly easy to have gain when on axis, but many of us have wide viewing cones in our theaters.

More pictures please...

Joe L.

Tryg, Thankyou.

I'll take that silverstar when you're done with it. ;)

very nice and very interesting, its nice having comparisons done right in front of the old peepers, that siverstar wins hands down as far as i can see , but some side shots would be helpful to judge how wide of a viewing cone there is before the pics looses a little of its punch, so tryg howsa bout some more pics?................

I've personally always felt that high gain screens are the way to go, and I have kept on enjoying my 2.5 gain Draper M2500 with my G1000 DILA even while everyone else had been getting darker and darker screens. I would love to try out a truly high power screen like this.

Brighter is better. The more photons hitting our eyes, the greater the feeling that we are right there outside. And the more photons, the more information our eyes get, so we can see subtle gradiations of colors more.

And this review is great to read. The most important part is hearing the actual viewer impressions.

From my photography background, I know that the pictures posted are meaningless. You simply can't evaluate brightness of different full range images with photographs. The reason is that the photo taking process clips the dynamic range of the actual source. Either the blacks are clipped or the whites are clipped or both. If as Tryg did you take pictures of different illumination levels with the same camera settings, the pictures will end up showing you how the camera clips the blacks of the dimmer images, and clips the whites of the brighter images. None of that has any relation to what you see when you actually look at the images. Of course all three images are still full range; the screen can't change the gamma curve or clip blacks or whites because it reflects all levels equally; it would have to be an "active" screen to reflect different levels differently, and none are. One easy way to understand that the pictures are not accurately portraying reality is to notice that in all the pictures black is black; in actual reality none of the screens makes the projector's almost black be completely black.

I appreciate Tryg's work, and he seems to have done the best possible job of taking the pictures, but you really can't make comparisons based on these kinds of pictures. The only thing you can conclude is that none of the screens distorted color significantly (assuming Tryg left the white balance fixed), and that none of the screens exhibited noticeable hotspotting in his setup.

-Tom

Guys thanks for all the great words of praise. It really does make going through the trouble of digging deeper and presenting the findings worth while. I hope that we all can learn from this.

Jhouse - higher gain is definately a plus. It just delivers more of the image to the viewer. This screen just happens to take it one notch higher and with a MUCH wider viewing cone than anything else out there.

I'm sitting here laughing as I'm calculating the ft lamberts for your setup. If this screen doesn't make you happy... well then nothing will. ~150 ft lamberts...Make sure you are smiling when you turn the projector on. It may burn your face permanently into that position;)

Free - this screen is very light. Mounted to a foam board. I suspend it with just two pieces of 2 mil cord. However, it comes with a slick mounting system built right into the frame

Jetlag - About 40

third kind - Yes, like the white screen the contrast range is linear. So as you go into dark scenes your eyes adjust BUT now you actually get to see the detail. WAY more detail that many people are paying an extra $5k more for the step up from an HD1 to an HD2 projector. An HD1 with this screen should kill an HD2. It is very noticable.

Take a look at these shots again..

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/WGS2.jpg

One thing that I really never got use to in the Firehawk is it's non linearity. By capturing the darks with the grey backing and boosting the whites with the reflective emulsion, is it really only looks good during balanced contrast scenes. Once you entered into the midrange it fell flat like what is exibited in this picture. This is where the viewing cone kicks you in the teeth. What especially concerned me is when I viewed it compared to the Da-Lite HCMW (basically same as HCCV but not tensionable). As a movie trasitioned from a bright scene to a dark scene and vice versa this mid range really fell flat compared to the HCMW. It's just not linear and your eyes have a hard time adapting through the range. Your eyes are supposedly only capable of about 100:1 contrast so as you move up and down the scale with a linear screen your perception can also stay linear and not confuse your brain/irises. I hope I'm not just confusing everybody. I will try to explain this better later as I don't mean to beat up on the Firehawk. I have personally just had a hard time adapting to it and I have no other way of making these comparisons.

third kind, I actually wasn't sure if I could take Vutec seriously when they said they could ship me a screen. I sat there thinking...but you're 3000 miles away and it's a big board. Hey, it came to my doorstep without any problems. They deliver.

callipygian - I must learn how to do 3D! I will contact you.

Chris Dallas - I'm working on it.

J.L. - My other reviews really cover light sensativity at different viewing angles better than anything. To compare products you really need to look at them.

High Gain / Exotic Screen Review (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?
s=&threadid=228371)

A Screen Showcase and DIY Review (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=240074)

I'll bump them for ya!

PerfKnee - After I read "I know that the pictures posted are meaningless. You simply can't evaluate brightness of different full range images with photographs." I really couldn't take you seriously. And, your explanation is quite the opposite of what is true. The camera from a fixed setting does not change. It is a piece of hardware and only captures exactly what it is presented. Now, human perception does change. Look at the white screen in one room and then take a break and walk into an identical setup with the SilverStar in the other room and the differences will will become a bit less noticable. Will you still see a difference? of course! you do have relative memory to relate to. But, your eyes will adapt a bit to the new bightness levels since your iris does change/adapt.
The camera doesn't change.

Meaningless?

Tryg,

Believe me, I spent plenty of time looking at the images in your previous reviews of screen materials. In fact, they made my task of choosing screen material for my own DIY screen much easier.

I have a very wide seating area, therefore, I cannot use a screen where gain noticeably falls off once you are 20 degrees off axis.

I just finished building a 96x54 inch DIY screen using Vutec Brite-White 1.5 gain material. At the most extreme off axis seat in my theater, the image is about as bright as it was with a blackout cloth screen. All the other seats have a brighter image. It was your screen review and sample images that helped me to decide it was a good screen material for my needs.

You keep talking about the wide viewing cone of the Silver Screen from Vutec, but you have not yet posted any images of it from various angles. It is much harder for me to see the difference from center to the side when viewing head on.

I would like to see images on the silver screen at 10,20, 30, and 40 degrees off axis. Others might be interested as well.

Unfortunately, there is no way to get a solid screen down the stairs and into my basement theater. Until the Silver screen material is made on a vinyl surface that can be rolled, it can't be a choice for me, even if it has a wide viewing angle and tons of gain.

Thanks again for your hard work pulling all this together.

Joe L.

Joe, You can't cut a slot in the floor? The carpet will cover it!

Is this how it works?

Projector Lumens = FL x Screen Area /Screen Gain

2200 = FL x 43/6

Projector Lumens x Screen Gain/Screen Area = FL

2200 x 6/43 = 306 FL

2200 x 2.8/43 = 143 FL

2200 x 2/43 = 102 FL

So it looks like I'm watching a minimum of 100 FL right now. Got to change my tag line now.

I don't know if Tryg's pix would be meaingless in a vaccuum. But when combined with his prose, they tell not just 1,000 words, but 10,000. You can see -- even if compressed JPEGs sent through the net -- what he is saying with ease.

In fact, while he is not sitting there with instruments -- an exercise I often find entirely useless in magazines -- he is telling us what is good and not-so good about a product.

I await those ambient light pix and comments because they will actually influence whether or not I buy a screen like this. Whereas the precise number of footlamberts the screen offers is entirely uninteresting to me. Of course, things like viewing cone performance are also issues, but Tryg has already told us all that the viewing cone of this appeared to be better than the High Power (see other review). So unless I heard differently, I can judge whether that cone is enough for me. [Note: I was days away from ordering a High Power 3 weeks ago.]

I'd still love to a see a scene with real black areas such as spce or the sky at night as I'm a bit of sci-fi buff.

Steve

can you get this screen in Oz

Thanks for the great review Tyrg! It's guys like you that make us newbies much more informed about this way of life......I mean "Hobby". :D

Tryg,

Did Vutec indicate how the screen was to be oriented (did they mark "top" on one of the two possible edges)? I notice there is a difference in reflective properties as I rotate my sample.

I guess this is where they got the term "The Silver Screen".
Anyway, I am using DIY blackout cloth screen with my DLP projector. Can this cloth be painted with silver spray paint to get similar results?

I'd still love to a see a scene with real black areas such as spce or the sky at night as I'm a bit of sci-fi buff.

Ditto on that. I know those pictures would be more difficult to capture and the camera may compensate more, but perhaps along with Tryg's observations, I think some really dark scenes would be very interesting.

Here are some suggestions:

Dark City
Pitch Black
ATOC space scenes
LOTR mine scenes

BTW Thanks Tryg. It is so cool what you are doing for all of us :)

JHouse if you get poor JL to cut a "slot" in his floor I'll give you free pizza and beer for a year.

Rogo I have the sample 6.0 here but it won't cut the mustard compared to the 13g curved screen your picking up. We'll put the Sanyo 20HD on it then you can tell JHouse he hasn't a clue what "BRIGHT" is. :)

The biggest that they offer is 48"X85" in 16:9 and 48"X112" in 2.35. 58"X104 would be nice. The wife now wants a silverstar after seeing this. She won't go for the 85" though. :D

Jhouse,

If you want, I can send you my 9.5 gain sample and you can just use that for your screen. It's only 1.5 square feet though... lets see

2200/1.5*9.5 hey, almost 14,000 foot lamberts. You should be able to see the image then.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/9.5.jpg

For all you guys deathly concerned about black levels, you can always flip the screen around and use the back side...It's totally black, you'll love it!
Make sure you remove the sticker. ;)

Seriously though, again Black Level is a function of how dark your surface material is when you start out (HT lighting level), and the CR limitations of your projector.

Even a white screen looks black in the dark. Now if your projector doesn't project any light to an area of the screen, it will still be black.

There are no magic pills!


I will try to do some testing tonigh with black material and post the pics...

The biggest that they offer is 48"X85" in 16:9 and 48"X112" in 2.35. 58"X104 would be nice. The wife now wants a silverstar after seeing this. She won't go for the 85" though.
...............................................
Randy, sure you can make you wife happy.
These sizes should be available.

16:9

30x53
40x71
45x80
48x85
50.5x89.75
54x96
60x106.75

4:3 viewing Area

30x40
40x53
48x64
60x80

Jim

How is the off axis viewing? Is the 6.0 gain good for only one seat in the house?

Free/Phil, you aren't reading closely. It is full Magilla off axis. That's the coolest part.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong.

Tryg,

Does that mean I got the math right?

So I AM watching 100 Ft.L.!

COOL!

Tryg....

Truly an awesome post. The silver screen is remarkable, but it seems like it would give me a headache it's so bright! It does appear that it does slightly crush whites in some instances....I noticed it on the clouds. The image looks awesome otherwise. The colors leap off the screen and the detail is exceptional. I thinks it's out of my price range, but THANK YOU for the pics.

MQ25

Originally posted by JHouse
Free/Phil, you aren't reading closely. It is full Magilla off axis. That's the coolest part.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong. It is not full Magilla off axis. It is best if you can get a sample yourself and move it around to different points on your existing screen while projecting an image. That way you can compare it something you know. I have about a gain of 1 screen and the sample looks great when I place it dead center and I place myself in the prime viewing spot in the room. When I move the sample to edges/corners the gain drops precipitously; sometimes below the unity gain of my existing screen. These are early observations; I'll try to elaborate as I do more experimenting. Remember all these observations are taking place from the prime viewing spot; with ceiling mounted projectors (one LCD, one CRT; both short throw). I still have to check out more carefully what happens when I move off horizontal axis.

Tryg, you say that you are living with a 122", but if the largest they make is 48 x 85, am I missing something?

DM

I was told when I called Vutec that the largest size was 107x60.

Originally posted by Robin
It is not full Magilla off axis. It is best if you can get a sample yourself and move it around to different points on your existing screen while projecting an image. That way you can compare it something you know. I have about a gain of 1 screen and the sample looks great when I place it dead center and I place myself in the prime viewing spot in the room. When I move the sample to edges/corners the gain drops precipitously; sometimes below the unity gain of my existing screen. These are early observations; I'll try to elaborate as I do more experimenting. Remember all these observations are taking place from the prime viewing spot; with ceiling mounted projectors (one LCD, one CRT; both short throw). I still have to check out more carefully what happens when I move off horizontal axis.

Robin,
How's the visibility of screendoor compare with the LCD between the silver sample and your 1.0 gain screen? What is screen you are comparing against?

Tryg- GREAT JOB!! Thanks!! This is what makes these forums GREAT!!

Gordon
Also fascintaed by the screenshots.

Is anyone using a SilverStar with an LCD PJ? (I think there are a couple of PLV70 people on this thread) I like what I see but am wondering if a filtered/tweaked LCD would really shine (no pun...) on the SS.

There seems to be some contradictory info in the thread about black levels. It appears from tryg's pictures that blacks have more detail (sounds good) but then there are other posts implying caution for us LCD owners.

It would be great if I could get more black detail with my HS10. Anyone using the SS with an HS10?

Phil

I have added the Supplemental Testing to the Review. It can be found on the third post in this thread. It covers:

1. Demonstrations of black level.
2. Reexamination of viewing angles.
3. Testing the SilverStar with DLP

Many thanks to darinp who brought his NEC HT1000 DLP over, three anamorphic lenses, A JVC D-ila M20, a Da-Lite High Power screen, DVD player with DVI, JVC DVHS deck for HD material, HTPC and a ton of other toys. We had a great time testing all the stuff and got to play with some of the finest products in HT available

Hopefully he will share some of his thoughts on the SilverStar.

You can be directed to the supplement by clicking HERE (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2245087#post2245087)

Wow Tryg, Fabulous supplement! Thanks.
You answered all of my questions :)

Thanx for a really good review... If you'd compare the High Power to the Firehawk... Do you have any pictures of those three together???

Shovven

Tryg

In your previous review on high gain and exotic screens, you pointed out differences in optimal reflection angles between the Da-Lite High Power (retro-reflective) and the Vultec Silver (angular reflective). When you were doing this latest round of testing, where were you putting the projectors relative to normal? Is the vertical choice of projector mounting (e.g. table or ceiling) of significance in the performance yielded by these screens?

Great work Tyrg. I guess you're now way beyond comparing the parkland plastic and other diy screens to the commercial ones. :confused:

First off, thanks to Tryg for being a great host. He's definitely figured out how to take price/performance to a new level.

Although his G1000 would be considered ceiling mounted, it is way back and therefore leaves viewers within the Hi-Power sweet spot vertically. When we first started watching things there was quite a bit of ambient light coming in, as it wasn't completely dark outside yet. At this point I preferred the Firehawk and the Hi-Power to the SilverStar. One reason is that I saw a kind of sheen on the SilverStar that I also see on my Da-Lite High Contrast Matte White. Up close the Firehawk has just a few sparklies, but not nearly the amount of sparkle of the SilverStar and HCMW and none of this sheen. I don't see the screen itself with the Hi-Power, but it does tend to bring out the artifacts when they are there.

Tryg's living room is much like mine, as far as having white walls, etc. I have found that what I prefer in my living room is different than what I prefer in my dark walled theater room. High black levels don't seem to bother me unless they get too high in my living room, but seem to really stand out in my theater room.

Both the Hi-Power and Firehawk do a really good job of rejecting ambient light. However, I saw more depth to the image on the Firehawk. At times I felt that the image was bright enough on the Firehawk and at times I wanted more, though.

I think that Tryg's observation about viewing distance and gain is a really good one. When close to the screen reducing artifacts becomes important and a low gain helps for this. However, when viewing from a ways from the screen the artifacts disappear anyway and the extra brightness becomes a big advantage, IMO. So, if you've decided to go with a bigger screen and therefore have calculated that you need a brighter screen to get the ft-lamberts that you want, consider this effect if your seating isn't moving back. You may still prefer the darker screen.

JHouse posted somewhere else that above 50 ft-lamberts your iris closes, so there is only so much brightness that we can see. So, with a small screen viewed from a distance the extra brightness might not be an advantage beyond a certain point for whites, but could be a disadvantage for black levels.

Later on after it got dark the effects seemed to be a little different (or maybe my eyes where just getting tired). I should note here that for our early testing with the SilverStar we had it turned 90 degrees from the way Vutec recommends. By later on and before Tryg took any pictures we had turned it the way they recommend. I don't know if this really made any difference with his long throw, though. I had felt that the SilverStar had a lot more hot-spotting with an all white screen than the Hi-Power, but this was before we turned it and I don't remember noticing this or looking for this after it was placed the other way. When we tried the SilverStar on the left and the Hi-Power on the right with some space scenes I felt that the blacks were a hair brighter on the SilverStar when viewing inside the cone. Outside the blacks are definitely darker on the Hi-Power, since everything is. The strange thing is that all white squares are definitely brighter on the Hi-Power, so I found the brighter blacks on the SilverStar to be a little bit perplexing.

One thing I had noticed earlier is that the Hi-Power seems to give a sharper picture. When viewed up close it was easier to make the pixels out on the Hi-Power and I think the SilverStar was diffusing things a little bit. At the end of the night I agreed with Tryg that the SilverStar seemed to have a more saturated and 3D look when we played the arena scene (chapter 40) from the last Star Wars movie. At that point I would have picked the SilverStar screen, but I would have to do more viewing. One thing I've noticed at home is that I defocus my D-ILA just a little bit on my Hi-Power and maybe this has the same effect as the SilverStar, but we didn't try this.

At the very end we tried my HT1000 on the SilverStar. At his viewing distance of maybe 2x screen width it looked pretty incredible to me. We tried it in low lamp mode and it still looked plenty bright and it is pretty amazing how quite it gets. I thought I was hearing his fridge over it since I couldn't hear the HT1000 in this mode at all, but it was actually the fan for his hushbox that was a bit behind us. We tried Dark City and LOTR with this one. As Tryg said we were using a DVI DVD player (the Bravo D1) and in some ways this could be considered cheating when looking for artifacts since these DVI DVD players are such a huge leap beyond any other way I've seen for viewing DVDs on this thing, but I can't imagine why anybody would go any other way at this point. Maybe if DVI cable runs are a problem or you really need an analog player for its audio capabilities, but IMO you'll have to live with more image artifacts if you do. My HPTC with TheaterTek doesn't even come close IMO, and that doesn't even include how loud my HTPC is.

Anyway, I didn't notice any dithering or bad artifacts with Dark City or LOTR. The extended version of LOTR is one of the cleanest DVDs I've seen, but Dark City is not and it looked very good. However, we were sitting back far enough that I probably wouldn't have noticed dithering in the blacks anyway and I know that others are more likely to see it than me. I did stand up at one point and move closer to the screen. There is a point where the images started to look very bad (digital) to me and moving back just a few feet makes them smooth out and look incredible. I didn't map out where that point was, but I'm guessing maybe 1.5x screen width. For reference I've moved back to 1.8x screen width in my theater room and feel that my 1.4x viewing distance in my living room is too close for the HT1000, but not for my M20 D-ILA.

We probably should have tried some of my other DVDs I use for testing mosquito noise in clouds, but it was getting late. I don't know if it would have been better or worse on the SilverStar compared to the Hi-Power in the dark. Earlier with ambient light coming in I probably would have said the Hi-Power was better because of that lack of sheen, but I didn't notice the sheen on the SilverStar later on. Tryg said he had noticed something like it at first but didn't notice it anymore.

I guess I should try to give a quick summary. With ambient light I preferred the Hi-Power (when inside the cone) or Firehawk. By the end of the night I was liking the SilverStar with bright stuff as the images seemed more saturated and 3D (more like what the Firehawk does but without going so dark) than the Hi-Power. I will be sticking with my 116" wide pull-down Hi-Power in my living room where I sometimes need to deal with ambient light and where I still marvel at what this screen does for the approximately $10/square foot that I paid. The bright blacks on the SilverStar concern me and for my dark theater room I am looking to buy a Firehawk. I already have a pull-down 92" wide Hi-Power for in there for sports, etc. I will follow pricing for the SilverStar and consider it, but I think I would want to see it again before committing that much money.

BTW: For those who recommend the Hi-Power for ceiling mount I have to say that I disagree unless your projector is fairly low. Other than price, the only advantages I see to it in that setup are the lack of waves and the lack of hot-spotting. But if waves are a problem then I think making/buying a fixed screen is a better choice. The lack of hotspotting is good, but I don't think it outweighs the disadvantages of the Hi-Power if you aren't going to be viewing inside the cone where you get some gain advantages.

Also, Tryg and I did prove one thing. There is no such thing as a fixed cutoff point for what is white. We put a pure white PVC screen next to the Hi-Power and the whites on the PVC looked pretty gray. If the Hi-Power is removed, then the white screen looks white again. So, white is relative.

--Darin

Thanks Darin.

If the Silver screen has about the same black levels as a High Power that puts it out for me. I used to have a High Power and could only use it for casual TV watching because of the elevated black levels.

Cheers

Steve

Most interesting stuff. Darin, were the black levels w/the HT1000 too high because of imperfect ambient light control or because of its high gain coupled with the black level of the pj?

Tryg,

I'm surprised to hear you contest Perfknee's statements about cameras compressing dynamic range. Virtually every screen shot I've seen, including LCD pj's with really high black levels, has blacks rendered as inky.

I just saw Tryg's supplement. Boy am I confused. My Hi-Power is sounding better all the time. You almost had me sold on the Silver Star.

Originally posted by noah katz
Most interesting stuff. Darin, were the black levels w/the HT1000 too high because of imperfect ambient light control or because of its high gain coupled with the black level of the pj?
Noah,

I'll answer that in relation to my experience in my theater room, since I don't remember much about really black stuff at Tryg's place with this projector (most of the black level testing was with the G1000).

In my theater room I orginally had the HT1000 on a table and tried the Hi-Power screen. I'm not a black junkie, but with really dark stuff (some Nova star field scenes) I found that we have a ways to go to get blacks to look black on the Hi-Power. I tried it in low mode and the iris closed and the blacks are still reasonably bright in these scenes. I have pretty good light control, but some LEDs and front panels aren't covered (I'll try that later). However, it looks like almost all the light on the screen is the projector, since turning it off makes the screen go very dark.

Later I put my HT1000 on the ceiling and used my HCMW screen. Here the blacks are much darker. At this point I only have about a 3' square piece of Firehawk material, but the blacks do look better on there. I am looking into buying a used full size Firehawk and it will be interesting to see how that works with a full sized dark image. I think it will look good, but there are some scenes where I think the grey blacks will show. I should point out that this isn't in very many scenes though, as most scenes have at least some bright objects in them and these will make blacks look black.

With ColorFacts I measured something between 1300:1 and 1400:1 CR with the iris closed and something like a couple hundred less than that with it open. I do need to cover up the small light sources on DVD players, etc, and test again, though. I also want to try my method of testing 0 IRE and 10 IRE while pointing at the lens and 10 IRE and 100 IRE while pointing at the screen, but I haven't gotten around to trying that. I think William said that he couldn't measure anything above 1800:1 one time until he found a small LED that he had to turn off.

I tend to use the HT1000 in full power mode with the iris open most of the time, since I would like it to be even brighter. I don't know if that will change if I get a full-size Firehawk, but I'm guessing it won't. In the past I have noticed at times that when I thought I wanted something brighter so that I could see things, it was more that I wanted a larger contrast range.

--Darin

Jhouse,
I really cant get into the psychology too much on what is better. I would spew a bunch of BS for about 10 pages then end up back where I started.
What's better Porsche or Ferrari? Blondes or Brunettes?
The psychology of buying different products has always baffled me. Bottom line? If you want it, you'll pretty much figure out a way to get it. Humans are very emotional thinkers....and buyers. All I can say is they are both great products and they do slightly different things.

I'm definately not a gimmick guy as when darin brought over his 3 different anamorphic lenses I put each one in front of my projector and basically said NEXT. If there isn't drastic noticable differences right off the bat for me it simply adds too much complexity/nonsense and I'll pass. However, I sit very far back so the compression with the lens really doesn't do much for my setup. The brightness can easily be handled in other ways for much less $$$. With that said, the SilverStar in my mind is a real product. It's not a gimmick. It delivers a fine image with higher gain and without some of the limitations that other high gain screens have.

The High Power to me had a great image too. Clean, bright and is a bargain. I think I would love this screen for watching HD sports and such as the image would just snap off the screen. Darin and I kinda joked that if we showed the Superbowl in my place to a bunch of AV nerds like us we would all probably congregate toward the middle for viewing. It's best image is definately on-axis. With the SilverStar this isn't a problem. You can walk all around the room and get a great image. It has the slightly softer look of a grey screen. Well, because it's silver. Don't forget the surface color of the screen does play a roll in image delivery. I found this very satisfiying especially for movies as it tended to add more depth to the image. Just make sure if you have some lighting it must be low and indirect. This is the only way to get the screen itself to totally disappear(as with all high powers).

Noah,

I'm not really discounting what PerfKnee said about compressing the black or whites etc. The post just came out with a strong flavor of not seeing the forest for the trees. To say the comparisons are meaningless is itself a joke.

Yes, you can see slightly larger dynamic range in person. However, not everyone in the world can come to my living room. I think it's mind blowing that I can take a few controlled pictures and share them via this method and explain some of the findings with people 20,000 miles away. With that said, think about the path that is being taken for these images. Someone took the original picture with a piece of hardware. Put it on the net. I downloaded it to my computer which I then display through my projector onto a screen material. I then use another piece of hardware to take a picture of what's happening, then imported it into my computer, croped and resized it, then post to this server. You then bring the image up on your monitor and see with your own two eyes. An amazing overall journey. Yet you can still see basically what I'm seeing right here in my living room. In fact, in some ways I find the pictures that I post are even more representative because they don't confuse the viewer from all these nonsense subtleties that often distract us from just examining the obvious. It's true, some people get so wrapped up in the details of things they can't see what's really happening. Nobody's accused us high end AV geeks of that right?. ;)

I can tell you one thing, there are probably some manufacturers and sales people all shaking their head at these pics and if you showed up in their store they would probably give you some convoluded disertation on why it's totally irrelevent and such. All the while playing directly into their sales pitch.

Look, the images I post on the forum are excellent examples of what I see with my own two eyes here in my living room. If they weren't, I wouldn't post em. I am not a sales agent for anybody. I'm actually a economic researcher for an insurance company. The SilverStar is a solid product. I highly doubt Vutec would send a full screen 3000 miles to some no name joker on the internet to review if the product didn't perform valiantly. Imagine the risk they took. No risk at all really if it's great product.

My agenda? call em as I see em.

Tryg,

You have done some great work here. This really is exactly the kind of stuff that you can't find in the magazines and your commentary is exactly the kind of info we need to make good decisions.

I'm sorry if I came across as dismissive when I posted about your photos being meaningless. You are right that they do illustrate what you describe, and it is helpful to have pictures to see what those words are all about.

But lets be clear that the pictures do not show the dynamic range of the images that you observe. The camera can capture a dynmic range much less than what the human eye can see. In the dimmer pictures where you say shadow detail is not as great, the blacks are being clipped by the camera. That does illustrate your point of what you experienced, but a viewer who was actually there would see more shadow detail in the dimmer screens than your pictures show.

There's an easy way to verify this. Put up a greyscale test pattern, with bars at 0 IRE, 5 IRE, 10 IRE.... 95 IRE, 100IRE. Take pictures in the same way that you did before of the different screens (all on one manual setting). You will notice that even though in person you could see a difference between the 0 IRE and 5 IRE patches, that in the pictures you won't be able to see that difference on the dimmer screens. You may also notice that on the brighter screens you can see a difference between 95IRE and 100IRE in person but not in the pictures.

So just to be clear, I'm saying the camera is overemphasizing the effects that you describe, and that in person the effects would be more subtle.

By the way, I think it's a great idea to take pictures of the off-axis response, and those side by side pics are tremendously useful!

-Tom

tryg i noticed in almost all of the screenshots there was a blue/blackish tint on the right side of the screen is this dropoff? from the lower lumens or is it something else?

Stoney

Yes, the green shading problem is from the D-ILA projector. To get rid of it you must hand calibrate it out at this time. It really stands out with higher gain and projecting white. You generally cant notice it in a normal image.

There's plenty of DILARD owners out there waiting for the Shading Wizard so we can alleviate the picture of this annoying discoloration around the edges.

Mark...are you still working on it? Hurry up, they are making fun of me!

Shading Wizard
Shading Wizard
Shading Wizard
Shading Wizard
Shading Wizard

please

Great insights Tryg. I really appreciate the bottom line candor.

JHouse
It may be more fun than working, but it sure is more confusing than working.
Dan

darinp,

I saw that you were considering the Firehawk/similar screen for your theater room. Is there any reason you would want that over a flat white, or retroreflective off-white like the Cinemavision (1.3)? From the pictures on the first page it appears that the white screen has just as good black levels under controlled lighting and more brightness with these new HD2 DLPs.

I have been debating between the High Power and Cinemavision for a while now and have dropped the High Contrast CinemaVision (Da-Lite's Firehawk) from my consideration after seeing that blacks looked just as black on the CinemaVision.

Max,

Pictures crush blacks. There is no way that the blacks on a white screen are going to be as dark as the Firehawk blacks when viewed live. With bright scenes you won't notice this because the eyes can only see so much contrast ratio at a time.

--Darin

Tryg - Thanks for all your input and hard work in putting this together! Thanks to darinp as well for your input.

There is full light control in our basement but we will be using it for watching sports with the lights on in addition to movies in the dark. I was thinking of a 106" Hi Power before reading this. The projector choice has not been made yet (probably DLP2) but it will be ceiling mounted.

After reading darinp and Tryg's comments, it seems I would be better off with the Hi Power because of our viewing with the lights on even though I am ceiling mounting the projector.

Am I right in my assumption?:confused:

Anyone have any idea about the science of how the silverstar can get such high gain and wide viewing angles?

A theoretically perfect matt white screen has gain 1.0 and reflects light equally from 0 (on axis) to 90 degrees (the hypothetical viewer who is directly to the side of the screen).

The only way to increase gain is to direct some of the light that was directed off axis in the general on axis direction. For instance if a hypothetical screen directed all the energy between 45 and 90 degrees back to between 0 and 45 degrees, it would have a gain of two.

So the following are hypothetical max gains for a hypothetical screen which has "brick wall" falloff at a particular angle:

90 degrees gain 1
45 degrees gain 2
30 degrees gain 3
22 degrees gain 4
18 degrees gain 5
15 degrees gain 6
13 degrees gain 7
11 degrees gain 8
10 degrees gain 9

The average gain between zero and 90 degrees is always one or less, because you cannot make light.

But Vutec seems to be violating that rule of physics with it's high gain screens somehow. See the gain chart at:

http://vutec.com/vuteccatalog/ultrahighgain.pdf

and you can see that the average gain of their curved screens from zero to 90 degrees is something like maybe 5 or so. How can this be?

-Tom

Actually looking at the chart, I part of the answer to how they get those amazing viewing angle charts: They measure at only 2x the screen width. My numbers had assumed they were measuring much further away so that the size of the screen didn't make a difference.

Still, it seems amazing that they could get such a viewing angle curve, or even the viewing angles that Tryg is reporting... I'm curious how they could be doing that?

-Tom

The scattering and diffusion of light within a substrate causes an effect called optical dot gain, also known as the Yule-Neilsen effect. As shown in the picture below(very much like the SilverStar), a photon entering the surface will scatter and diffuse within the paper and exit the paper from a point that is different from the point at which it entered. The average distance a photon diffuses before exiting the paper is called the scattering length.

http://www.matrixcolor.com/diffusion.gif


As with other screens the light enters the surface and exits from closer to the same point. With the SilverStar, it exits at a further point.
When there is no diffusion, a photon always enters and exits the surface from the same point. This gap is just significantly larger in the SilverStar material. This is why this screen looks ever so slightly softer than the High Power. But, the rewards are an enormous viewing cone. Basically double.
This may also explain why screen door seems to be diffused more. This may also help blend pixel edges thus minimizing stairstepping artifact.


http://www.matrixcolor.com/scatter.gif


Actually, I think it's probably just Magic. ;)

BTW I smell a powerbuy coming on :)

Very interesting thread. I too would love to learn more about this silverstar.

Eventually I need a motorized screen...and in the short term would need a fixed screen that could be quickly rolled-up or folded and put away if we needed access to the door that resides behind it...so a large fixed-board style screen wouldn't be practical.

-dave

Tryg,

Are you saying that light is permeating the silver coating on the SilverStar bouncing around in the substrate and then repermeating the silver coating when exiting?

Robin

Originally posted by PerfKnee
Anyone have any idea about the science of how the silverstar can get such high gain and wide viewing angles?
Tom,

I don't know the answer for these other claims, but I think we found one answer for the screen that Tryg has. I think we showed that it is a lower gain screen than the Hi-Power on axis, regardless of Vutec's claims. Whites are brighter on the Hi-Power inside its viewing cone.

--Darin

a large fixed-board style screen wouldn't be practical.

David, I also need a roll up because I have cabinets behind the screen that I need to access occaisionally. I am still thinking of getting this screen and hanging it from the ceiling on hooks so that I can easily take it down if I need to. From what I hear it is pretty light and wouldn't require much to hang it and move it out of the way.

I think we showed that it is a lower gain screen than the Hi-Power on axis,

So Darin, what would you estimate the actual gain of the Silverstar is? Isn't the highpower about 2.8? If Vutec is claiming 6.0 then maybe their 9.0 is the one to get :)

Free, as far as I know they only manufacture the 6.0. At least that is what they have told me.

For all I know they may have sent me the 4.5 gain(maybe I shoudl look at the back of the screen instead of the front ;). Regardless, I would estimate this screen at just over 3 gain. I think the High power is more like 3.3.

I'd consider haning my screen on hooks too. My only problem there is that I can't imagine where I'd store the screen if I needed to take it down for a dinner party etc. Something that could "roll up" would work much better. Then again...maybe just stashing it in the guest bedroom for the evening once in a while wouldn't be a problem...

-dave

Originally posted by Free
So Darin, what would you estimate the actual gain of the Silverstar is? Isn't the highpower about 2.8? If Vutec is claiming 6.0 then maybe their 9.0 is the one to get :)
Tryg might be right about the gain. Someone did post a graph that showed the Hi-Power at something like 3.3 right at the lens and then trailing off to 0.6 at some angle. You could probably guess how these compare as well as me by looking at Tryg's pictures of the white and black squares in this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2245087#post2245087) post. Whites are just a little hotter on the Hi-Power near the lens. It's enough that there really isn't any question which one is brighter white, but I wouldn't say it blows the Vutec away in this department.

--Darin

I am catching a whiff of that powerbuy too... Of course, the devil is in the details....

Mark

Hey guys,
I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to retract a rigid screen into the ceiling (assuming there is enough clearance in the attic). I figured it wouldn't be too hard to attach a rigid screen frame to a "cable climber" much like Stewart shows on this page:
http://www.stewartfilm.com/product_information/projection_screens_13.html
The one trick would be to make sure it's not going to swing too much when raising it back up, lest it get banged around. Perhaps the solution is to combine this cable system with some rigid guides, kind of like the rails of a pull-out drawer.

Michael-

That's a way cool idea. It seems so much more dramatic for the whole thing to go up into the ceiling. If I were doing it, I'd probably go the DIY approach and use an automotive winch or something to get it up.

Actually you might want to look at home pocket doors... that is the same idea only rotated ninety degrees. But then again the gravity issues might make the pocket doors not work.

-Tom

I think with the right design you could virtually eliminate any swinging.

Originally posted by darinp
Max,

Pictures crush blacks. There is no way that the blacks on a white screen are going to be as dark as the Firehawk blacks when viewed live. With bright scenes you won't notice this because the eyes can only see so much contrast ratio at a time.

--Darin

I have samples of the HighContast CinemaVision (1.1 gray) and the CinemaVison (1.3 slightly off-white) and the black on both screens are virtually identical while colors and whites are a bit more bright as illustrated by tryg's pictures. This is a side by side comparison of the two (plus the High Power) on space and other black scenes.

I own the Sharp Z10000 and attribute some of the solid blacks to the higher contrast of this HD2 projector. This is why I was asking if you, if you noticed the same with your Nec HT1000 and if so, why consider the Firehawk over a white screen.:D

Some higher gain can be due to the shape/structure of the coated material and how the light reflects off one partical and onto a near by partical for an addative gain effect...? :rolleyes:

For instance on glass beads: Some light goes through and is reflected back, while other is scatter to nearby beads and is reflected in different directions...adding to the overall brightness.

Max,

The blacks on the Firehawk look blacker than the blacks on the HCMW (pulldown version of HCCV) to me. Are you doing these comparisons in a really dark room where your iris is allowed to open and perceive the black level? One reason I ask is that differences in blacks would be hard to see otherwise or if the background screen is bright (like 2 samples pasted to a Hi-Power). I haven't seen the CinemaVision, so I can't comment on that, but with my HT1000 I can see that the HCMW has brighter blacks than the Firehawk (whites are close) and that the Hi-Power has much higher blacks than either, when viewed on axis. On a small screen while watching a movie the blacks on the Hi-Power look great to me, but on a big screen with a close viewing range in my dark walled theater room they are higher than I would like on both the HCMW and Hi-Power.

--Darin

Sounds like your saying that the firehawk produces better black level than the HCCV. So there's really no affordable "firehawk clone" that performs almost as well (in regards to blacks and ambient light) for less cost?

:(

Yes David. The black level on the Firehawk is the blackest. Why? It has a darker grey backing than anything else I've seen out there. You could of course take this to an even more extreme level by making a screen backing that is even darker. Then of course you are reflecting even less light.

Michael,

Interesting concept. Maybe if you had a Medieval theme to your HT you could make something like this to present your SilverStar :)

Originally posted by darinp
Max,

The blacks on the Firehawk look blacker than the blacks on the HCMW (pulldown version of HCCV) to me. Are you doing these comparisons in a really dark room where your iris is allowed to open and perceive the black level? One reason I ask is that differences in blacks would be hard to see otherwise or if the background screen is bright (like 2 samples pasted to a Hi-Power). I haven't seen the CinemaVision, so I can't comment on that, but with my HT1000 I can see that the HCMW has brighter blacks than the Firehawk (whites are close) and that the Hi-Power has much higher blacks than either, when viewed on axis. On a small screen while watching a movie the blacks on the Hi-Power look great to me, but on a big screen with a close viewing range in my dark walled theater room they are higher than I would like on both the HCMW and Hi-Power.

--Darin

I am not familiar with the HCMW (is it 0.8 gain?) but the HCCV is a medium gray screen. I am doing comparisons in a completely dark room and my background screen is a High Contrast CinePerf (gray) screen.

Originally posted by MaxC
I am not familiar with the HCMW (is it 0.8 gain?) but the HCCV is a medium gray screen.
Max,

As I said, it is the pull-down version of the HCCV. Same gain. Almost exactly the same color. The HCCV is tensionable and the HCMW is not.

So, I can't explain what you are seeing unless it is just that these things are very close and it is harder to differentiate small differences in blacks than in whites. At least that would be my guess. I think if you got a Firehawk sample you would find that the blacks are darker than either of these screens, though.

Just to be straight, these 1.1 and 1.3 gain screens that you compared both have darker blacks than the Hi-Power, right?

--Darin

Oh yeah...much darker.

I'd love a power buy but I would need it to drag on for a while. I currently own two houses and am paying both mortgages. I need to sell the other house before I pay +-2k for a screen that would be used with a 2.5k projector.

How many of us would we need for a power buy? I'm guessing that it would take time.

I'm confused...on their website I see HCCV available in a drop-down (electric). Do they use a different material for a manual pull-down screen?

As I said, it is the pull-down version of the HCCV. Same gain. Almost exactly the same color. The HCCV is tensionable and the HCMW is not.

I am following this thread with great interest.

RE: DaLite HCMW - check out my experience with this and my comments on the last page of this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=261643&pagenumber=3

I am VERY interested in how the SilverStar would compare to the Grayhawk for my PLV-70 in light of what I've been going through lately (per thread above). It appears to me (newbie guessing here) that the HCMW exacerbates screendoor/lines due to 0 diffusion and the sharp-edged, rectangluar, straight rows of the dimples used to texture it. Any comments Tryg??

Thanks again for your GREAT work here!!!

Gordon

Interesting concept. Maybe if you had a Medieval theme to your HT you could make something like this to present your SilverStarVery funny, and yet of course the mechanics are roughly the same :)

Tryg,
I am leaning heavily toward purchasing a SilverStar. You recommend that you have some indirect lighting. Do you think a totally dark room would be a detriment? My lighting will be a few recessed lights in a suspended ceiling that could be dimmed during the movie. Is that what you mean.
Dan ( I feel like the village idiot)

Originally posted by Gordon Groff
It appears to me (newbie guessing here) that the HCMW exacerbates screendoor/lines due to 0 diffusion and the sharp-edged, rectangluar, straight rows of the dimples used to texture it. Any comments Tryg??


This kind of sounds like a similar problem that occurs in perforated screens where the grid lines and the holes kind of coordinate and add to one another in certain circumstances.

I didn't mean to imply you need some lighting. Obviously the lower the lighting with any screen the better the results.

Now at 3 gain some people might find sitting in the dark with this kind of foot lamberts coming back at your eyes too much. In this case, some mild bias lighting would be great. Since the screen is solid, just a small light behind the screen is all you need. This will shut down your irises a bit, add a little indirect ambient light to the room and allow for a very enjoyable image and viewing. Check what bias lighting does for percieved blacks.

You get all the detail and image from higher gain, excellent percieved blacks from the bias lighting, accurate colors and whites and all the viewing angle you need. hmmmm

Gordon, I wouldn't say it exacerbates it. This would imply it makes it worse than normal. What is normal? If a white screen is normal then yes I think you can see the screendoor more on grey screens as shown in the illustration in the initial post. I use a D-ila so there is virtually no screen door anyway. I don't even think about these things like screendoor. Had I taken this picture with a DLP things would look much worse. LCD, you guys would run and hide ;)

Also, what you see at the screen is not what you see at your seating positions.

I think these pix and comparisons would be much more useful if the projector was recalibrated to match each screen. Many projectors have their brightness turned below max on high gain screens. I realize it's not reasonable to do this in a comparison of this sort, however.

I'd also like to see similar pix with a higher power, LCD projector. I agree with the findings herein for D-ILA and perhaps even DLP, but are they correct for high-lumen LCDs like the PLV-70 and the HS-10?

Digital projectors generally don't need any calibration adjustments to be used on different screens. The reason is that they all need all the contrast ratio they can get, and any adjustment you would do for a particular screen will lower the contrast ratio. Once the black and white level have been set at the one and only value that gives the best contrast ratio, you would be silly to change that.

If there is too much brightness, you might consider using a neutral density (grey) filter because that would preserver contrast ratio. But you wouldn't adjust the projector brightness because that would lower the contrast ratio.

Your point is well taken however that high lumen projectors might be too much for high gain screens. I have seen a 20HD be way too bright on my Draper M2500 screen which works great with my JVC G1000. Personally I would try increasing the image size or using neutral density filters if that were an issue.

-Tom

Tom,

But Vutec seems to be violating that rule of physics with it's high gain "screens somehow."

They've managed the same thing with their Prismatec rear screen material. The sample I have is way brighter at all viewing angles than any of the various types of other samples I have.

David,

"My only problem there is that I can't imagine where I'd store the screen"

How about swinging it up 90 deg and sticking it to the ceiling with magnets or cabinet latches? You could put some artsy fabric on the backside.

It does seem like they're violating the laws of physics, doesn't it? The light has to come from somewhere, so if the viewing cone is large in the horizontal direction, it must be small in the vertical direction. One way to test this: turn the screen 90 degrees on its side :)

No, this material doesn't violate the laws of physics it just takes it to a new level that we are not familiar with. Yes the viewing cone is twice what the other high gain screens are and it is a very smooth transition. All the other screens seem to go to about 20 degrees max then drop off very noticably and rapidly.

I really got my curiosity up tonight when I was pondering why this screen really only measured about 3 gain. Had they sent me the 4.5 gain material? Well I busted out my samples of 6 gain and 9.5 gain and put them up to the screen. Lo and behold...It's definately the 6 gain material.

The 6 gain material seems to be the sweetspot for this material as the dropoff rate is so slow and smooth it's almost not noticable even when projecting white only. If you notice the 9.5 gain material actually drops off fairly rapidly(yet smooth) and it's about the same as the 6 gain material at 25 degrees. As we get out to 50 degrees the 6 gain stuff still looks great and the 9.5 gain stuff is no longer reflecting much light.

This is probably why they have decided to just manufacture the 6 gain stuff. Definately a winner for home theater.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/SSA.jpg


Michael, I thought for sure it must be the same viewing angle in both directions but just to make sure I tipped the 6 gain sample on its side. Yes the viewing cone is slightly smaller in the vertical direction. How? I have no clue. Just looking at the surface material it looks identical from all directions. However after testing the sample on its sideit's not quite as wide (a little smaller). This definatley makes sense to have the wider cone on the horizontal plane. No worries though, when you get your screen if you have your 16:9 screen installed vertically you should recognize something is wrong right off the bat ;)

This stuff is amazing

OK no more pictures of white screens...It's making my D-ila look bad. I need the Shading Wizard! Mark?

Great stuff Tryg. As usual.

That 9.5 gain stuff looks like it would be awesome for rejecting ambient light. Does it sparkle? Or have a bright sheen?

Maybe you can get them to send you a full size version of the 9.5 material after all the screens they're going to sell from your review.

--Darin

Tryg, you stated
"Had I taken this picture with a DLP things would look much worse."
What things? Are you saying that the SilverStar would look much worse with a DLP? I just ordered the Virtuoso HD2 and thought you had implied that the SilverStar would look great with that pj.
Dan(I guess I am the village idiot)
Tryg check out my post at the end of this thread. Thanks as always
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=263731

He is saying that screen door would be worse on a DLP and even more of a problem on an LCD.

Originally posted by Michael Grant
It does seem like they're violating the laws of physics, doesn't it? The light has to come from somewhere, so if the viewing cone is large in the horizontal direction, it must be small in the vertical direction. One way to test this: turn the screen 90 degrees on its side :)

There's no violation. The screens plug into the wall like a light brite kit. :D...and the sample, hmmm....the samples glow for up to two hours after you turn off the lights, so you are set unless you are demo'ing movies back to back. :p


(just kidding of course)

I think the next move will be biogenic screens. If they sense blacks they go darker and if they sense whites they go whiter.

The Chameleon (TM) Screen!

True contrast enhancement for the next generation of organic projectors.

Originally posted by darinp

Or have a bright sheen?

Maybe you can get them to send you a full size version of the 9.5 material after all the screens they're going to sell from your review.

--Darin

Yes, the 9.5 material probably isn't for home theater. It's too extreme and th 6.0 stuff seems to be a great fit. Might be good for some commercial applications though like in a walkway at an airport. Bright, probably rejects ambient light good and if your walking straight on at it, it would be a great advertizing board for a projector. Just speculation.

D_B_0673, I hope you have viewed a single chip DLP projector before you purchased. You may be in for a big surprise! Dan, don't let me rain on your parade as I'm sure the Virtuoso is a worthy projector. I just don't tolerate one chip projectors. I will say when darinp brought over his calibrated HT1000 he put it in eco mode. The projector went silent. The image got a little dimmer but still very satisfying as the screen is ~3 gain. I must say, a nice little combo...and probably for any higher end DLP. I did however see rainbows all over the place.

Actually, I was thinking if Sony was smart they would send me one of their new SXRD projectors. I'd be happy to review it ;)

For those that are interested in this screen maybe Alan could set up a powerbuy and make owning one a little easier.

What a review.

This definitely deserves a place in one of the magazines but we are privileged to have it here first.

Its amazing the difference between the screen material when placed side by side.
What helps is you have real user size comparison screens from each manufacture. Its impossible to get a good idea how each screen looks with a 1 foot square sample.

I think for Dila and CRT the SilverStar looks like a big hit. I wonder how it does with DLP.
I am also surprised how well the White material looks also.

Well you've out done yourself Tryg. Now what are you going to do. Its all downhill from here:)

Did anyone confirm the price per square foot of the material?

I think the obvious answer to this is call AVS. My curiosity just got the best of me so I did. I highly doubt anyone else could beat their deal. It was way below what I expected. Nice work AVS!

If you are interested in this screen I suggest you call em.

Tryg,
Bias Lighting "behind" the screen??? My screen will be on the back wall. Not sure what type of setup you refer to.
Thanks
Dan

Excellent! your time and effort in this research is much appreciated by me and everyone else I,m sure! Thanks a lot! I use the hi-power and love it but not the off axis performance, so this material looks like the best compromise of both. Concerning the surface itself the hipower is cleanable, how about the silverstar? And why can,t this material be made in a roll down? A fixed screen is out of the question for me. Are the beads larger than the hi-power material ? pardon me if I missed a post on this question

I believe that it is the lack of Flexibility in the surface material that makes it difficult to come out with a roll up version.

You could make awood L-section frame, say3" x 3", around the screen with rope light behind it. The frame will keep the light from hitting the screen and from viewers seeing it directly; it makes a nice halo/corona effect on the wall.

Hey Tryg (or anyone else who knows)

I'm fascinated by the "scattering" and "diffusion" effect you described earlier and it's benefit for a digital image. Is there any "rating" system or way of determining the "amount" of this effect for a given screen material?

I'm speculating that it may have a major impact on the appearance of pixelation/screendoor/other digital FPN. Do you think this is true?

How would one "rank" the following screens in terms of this effect (from least to most diffusive):

DaLite HCMW (Probably least)
DaLite HiPower
Stewart Firehawk
Parkland Plastic
Stewart Grayhawk
Silver Star

Thanks!

Gordon

Originally posted by D_B_0673
Tryg,
Bias Lighting "behind" the screen??? My screen will be on the back wall.

Dan, won't this hurt you neck always looking behind you to watch your movies? I recommend putting this screen on your front wall. Search for "bias" lighting.

Gordon, I really wouldn't worry too much about about this "scattering" effect. Very very very low on the picture inprovement priorities list. You would have to have an extremely well tuned system to even notice it.

ALAN,

Hey you really threw me with your post so I forgot to thank you for the compliment.

I was thinking... What the hell is he thinking saying this should be in a magazine? Alan, don't you know by now that AVS crushes any magazine?:D The fact that you got exclusive rights to my work is a testiment to how worthy I think this communication medium is. Sorry to those who haven't found AVS yet. They'll have to just rely on the opinions of marketers.

Alan, maybe you should raise the AVS bar one notch higher by offering a yearly award to the most informative post. This would reduce the nonsense chatter, save on server bandwidth and probably pull in some of that Grey Matter we have lost over the years. I'd love to see some of the old brainpower return to AVS. BTW, $1000 award would definately raise my level of blather.;)

Yes, even DLP looks good on the SilverStar. :)

Thanks again for the compliments and you should definately pick one of these things up for the showroom. I continue to enjoy it's benefits. There is probably a stigma to the SilverStar that it's just too expensive. All I can say is I've seen a lot of products bought over the years that are much more expensive, and purchased on hype alone. What I can say about this product is it will likely be the best upgrade to the final image you'll make. Here's to delivering the image that you never knew was there!

Lotta hype but when enough people really see it full size their going to be amazed. Tis a winning product and a half.

Hi Tryg,

Very nice showdown indeedy.

I realize that the Silver Star is recommended here for digital projectors - but just wondered off chance what you would think if its use in a curved Torus CRT screen?

TIA.


EDIT: Oooops - just read that it is on a rigid foam backing. :(

I watch movies on a Draper 2.5 gain 120" diagonal screen with NEC XG 1352LC CRT Projector, please some one advise me if Silver star will look even better? I will appreciate your advise.
Thank!

Tryg wrote:
> These shots were high-resolution shots taken from the Kodak high resolution digital website. <

Do you have a URL for that site? I'd like to see what the original sources looked like.

- Tim

How durable is the silverstar? I have two dogs and I am wondering if noses etc... and children will cause irrepairable damage to it. I want the silverstar but I am considering using goo until the dogs become room temperature and my friends kids grow up and then buying a screen like the silverstar.

Tryg,

From your ealier DIY review, you thought that Rustoleum Aluminum created an excellent surface that had similar gain and performance to the SilverStar.

The issue with others that have experimented with this paint was the difficulty in getting a uniform coating.

Has anyone come up with a workable solution to using this aluminum paint?

I was thinking that if you can paint a car silver, there must be a way to spray a screen. Continuing with the car theme, match the Rustoleum color with an automotive finish and have a professional have a go at it. Couldn't cost that much. Of course, I would have the surface primed and sanded so the painter would just have to put on the final surface.

VideoGrabber

here is the Kodak Website (http://www.kodak.com/digitalImaging/samples/classic.shtml) or you can do a google for kodak pictures, should be first at top

Randy Mathis,

I would not recommend this screen for dogs , noses, children etc. Generally dont touch this surface. I don't know if it would be vary receptive to cleaning as I don't want to do it and find out... unless I have too.
Get something the dogs can total and you'll laugh about it, not cry.

Christer, why would you hire a painter when you can do all that? If you have an air compressor use an HPLV gun and have fun. $50 at Harbor Freight tools

raoofsyed, I don't know about CRTs. I suspect it would be fine but you never know. Last night I watch Vanilla Sky and was just giddy about the performance. After the movie I was tired and wanting to go to bed, flipped off the DVD and Joy Ride was on HBO in HD. The picture was so stunning I stayed up another 2 hours watching in awe. This thing is fun

This thing actually makes my projector look like a super bright CRT. More depth, contrast, and has that slight softness that CRTs exibit. Very immersive! I wish there were some more veterans to come check this out as I think they would be impressed.

I ordered one from AVS. Tryg, how long did it take for you to get yours? I am hoping I will have it in about 2 weeks and then I will give you my impression with my SX21.

Phil, definitely keep us posted on your thoughts of teh Silverstar with the SX21. I am going to delay my HCCV purchase until I hear your findings.

- Andy

Tryg,
You are right again, the screen on the front wall will be better. LOL , But seriously I spent all day yesterday reading about Bias Lighting. Thanks. I am getting a Virtuoso, and would like the silverStar. my planned 100" diag will then be 600 lumen's X 6.0 gain / 28.3 sqft =127 FtLamberts. I worry that is too bright, never seen any of these products together. (never seen anything except in a store for a couple of minutes) Would you recommend this set up and bias lighting? Eliminate eye strain and improve black levels. I would probably just use the rope lights. Also do think 1.75 X width for seating would work. (12.5 ft for a 100" diag screen)
Thanks
Dan

Dan,

The SilverStar might be 3.0 gain, but if I were putting money down I would put it on under 3.0 before over 3.0 (the whites are brighter on axis on the Hi-Power advertised at 2.8). So, I don't think you'll have problems with it be blindingly bright. I don't remember if the Virtuoso has a low power mode, but that would also bring the light down a little bit. If it is too bright you could always add some bias lighting, but I wouldn't assume that you will need it.

1.75x sounds great to me for this setup. I would think you could push to almost 1.5x with that projector if you wanted to, but 1.75x will keep the artifacts down.

--Darin

Tryg,

on page 4

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=262466&perpage=20&pagenumber=4

of this thread, the photo you took of the back of the silverstar shows a gain of 9.5. Is this correct? Is this the gain that you are generally recommending for DSL's.

thnx,

It's really great to have experts you can actually communicate with.

Oops. Did I say DSL? Too many acronyms. I meant DLP!

Has anyone seen this screen with a Sony VPL-10HT LCD front projector?

Thank you.

Originally posted by darinp
Dan,

The SilverStar might be 3.0 gain, but if I were putting money down I would put it on under 3.0 before over 3.0 (the whites are brighter on axis on the Hi-Power advertised at 2.8). So, I don't think you'll have problems with it be blindingly bright. I don't remember if the Virtuoso has a low power mode, but that would also bring the light down a little bit. If it is too bright you could always add some bias lighting, but I wouldn't assume that you will need it.

1.75x sounds great to me for this setup. I would think you could push to almost 1.5x with that projector if you wanted to, but 1.75x will keep the artifacts down.

--Darin
Thanks Darin. I going for it and can't wait. Room remodel is moving along. Hope to have opening for the Two Towers in August
Dan

How much light is thrown back into the room during lighter scenes? Don't most theaters aim for dark settings to help immerse into the movie?

Jkirk

They only manufacture the 6.0 gain screen(which is actually more like around 3 gain).

I don't recommend this screen with a lot of ambient light. The viewing cone is so big it tends to reflect any extra lighting in the room. So if you have light, keep it very low and indirect... behind the screen could be good too.

I know they are showing the product at INFOCOMM and likely in very poor conditions. I think this product is currently marketed mostly to the business marketplace but frankly I think it's value is in HT. I'd take the High Power for the boardroom and SilverStar for my HT. ;)

Do you think that this screen would be a problem for the LCD Projectors? I believe you mentioned that LCD owners would run and hide.

LCD owners are always running and hiding around here Joe. But the screen has nothing to do with it. :)

I think the running and hiding was related to some fear that screendoor would be worse with this baby. And I think that proved to be untrue.

Ugly artifacts are apparently a bit worse, but that's not an LCD-specific issue.

I will likely be trying the Silverstar with a Z1.

Tryg--

I can't believe how much detail opens up in the dark areas of the photos.

Does it look that good in person or is the camera able to capture more than we see? From your excitement I suspect you can see a dramatic difference.

Have you spoke with the manufacturer to see when they might make a 133" screen?

Tryg..

Just spent a considerable amount of time reading many of your threads...
I had some interesting results at my Canuck Shootout with many of the screen samples commercial and the DIY variety. In the end I posted the results of what people .... the people that were looking at the screens picked as their favorite screens. This from filling out independent feedback forms. Funny thing is... many people preferred a variety of different screens watching the same damn screen shots and video clips.... I find this almost every day when demoing equipment with a variety of different screen choices. There seems to be a conclusion in this thread that something akin to a high power is the way to go... Unless I am misreading the thread entirely. I have found that peoples preferences are not all the same and my observations post and prior to the event on percentages of people that like a certain screen type to be almost or following along the lines of the shootout results. I have a firehawk, HCCV, CV, HC-da-matte, Goo digital grey lite, Hi Power, Goo CRT White. Not samples.. full screens. Judging from the theme of this thread it seems that screens akin to a high power's punch.. must be king... would be preferred by most... is the way to go... Hasnt worked out that way for me.

Screen Shots from a digital cameras lens and processed in the camera of a screen projected via a projector transferred to your video card downloaded to this site viewed through peoples own computer and monitor as a determination of what the image really looks like ... interesting.

I originally did the shootout because of the hype of some products I saw people being drawn to in the forum and with the limited knowledge I have on the subject knew there was alot of people being led to believe there was a secret cheap formula... something akin to the Behr combination ... not sure how many people went down that road but there seemed to be alot. Also some of the fabrics, non coated, and other DIY solutions that were horrid.

I guess its your choice to state get this screen or that screen and with the volume of info and work you put into it sometimes ones own bias towards a product or image can get difficult to understand why someone doesnt see product A or B as I do.... but some people for instance loved the high power... some really didnt like it at all. Some liked the greyhawk as their favorite... some put it near the bottom ...

Point is I guess... If you can get into a situation where you can see a variety of screens with your projector... do it... dont let others make your decision for you.

Mandarax,

what kind of PJs did you use?

There was a JVC SX21, Goo .5, Infocus X1, Epson TW100, SE20HD/PLV70, Nec LT260, Sony HS10... were suppose to have two Z1's and a NEC HT1000 but the Z1'ers didnt show up... and the HT1000 guy sent an email the night before at 11:45 PM saying oops I cant make it. But still there was enough variety with all the screens ...

When individuals with a "problem" are evaluating different screens, the will naturally pick the screen that solves their problem. If you are worried about the deepness of your blacks, or the obviousness of the pixel grid, or the visibility of processing artifacts, and that particular problem irks you, you will probably pick the screen that seems to best solve that particular problem. I don't think this type of decision making necessarily works out best in the long run. Over the long run we first get familiar with our set-up and usually learn to love it....for a while. Then, after time, the obviousness of any particular shortcoming starts to stand out. Then we have a new problem to fret about. And you might very will pick a different screen at that point.

However, this applies mostly to the initiated. The uninitiated are generally looking for a bigger version of what they are familiar with (a TV). They really haven't bought all the rationalization here about the desirability of the low light output of cinema (which are necessary to hide the problems of 24 frames per second). They typically want a TV/movie picture that is as bright and vivid as what they are used to. And unless you are trying to get rid of a particular problem that is eating you, most people immediately notice that a brighter picture (assuming it is properly adjusted/calibrated) shows more detail and color, and is easier to watch. That's what I wanted, and what I still want. I think this explains why the high gain screens are so popular. Though to some, they just aggravate their current pet peeve. Because it becomes more visible.

First off, I was joking about LCDs. the product will look good on all technologies.

Theater Dreamer,

This is most due to the fact that it is higher gain. Reflect more light, get more image. It's that simple. If you are satisfied with your grey screeen then great. BUT, you are not seeing the full image...not even close.

What if you took your direct view TV and turned down the brightness 66%. Yuck! I guess you could get used to it especially if you haven't seen anything else to compare it to but...why?

Yes, it looks even more dynamic in person. Diagonal 122" is the largest they make unfortunately. I would take larger in a heartbeat. And the viewing cone can easily support it.

mandarax,

I know I cant please everyone so I choose to please myself. However, I have given enough disclaimers thoughout my review to wake up those that are on the edge of a one track mind. Those that are already there are going to do what they want anyway.

Yes, people prefer a variety of things and for a variety of reasons. The variables are overwelming. So I just have to do all the opinions and preferences using my own brain. This screen may not be for everybody, after all it's mounted to a big board. But none of it's downsides bothered me and I'm still loving it. I actually think it makes my D-ILA look more like a very bright CRT.

Still in awe... are you in awe about any of your screens?

What is cool here is that many are finally realizing how important the screen is to the package. For a LONG time, people figured that, "hey, it is just a screen, use whatever works". When Stewart screens started to become more popular many thought them crazy for their pricing... until they owned one. Now we all can see how it is almost as important as loudspeaker selection is to your audio system.

Dan

Well, I do appreciate the reply. I will have a dazian in next week to replace my temporary screen. But, if they start making a big silver screen the dazian may become the temorary screen.....

I just never considered a gray screen. With the output of the HS10 and the size of screen I have to have I figured it would be too dark. Looking at you several reviews (thanks by the way) the gray screens just never appealed to me.

Here's to hoping for a 133" silver beauty!!!!

Tryg: The great service you've done here is that you've advocated that people try almost-free DIY solutions... and also expressed a preference for a screen material that has a $60/sq ft. list price.

I really appreciate that kind of perspective and information.

If I want to watch a bright projector on a silver screen with no ambient light, will the image blind me with its intensity because of the gain? Right now I'm just using white paint and it already seems really bright. Just the projector lights up much of the room, and black levels are too bright. I have a Sharp M20X.

Tryg...

One of the major reasons for the shootout was due to the fact that some people were using as you are aware some very feckless screen solutions. Given that I demo the units all the time I have understood that people will like one screen vs another and there is no real scientific method that I could conclude from doing demo's that would enable me to be able to have one choose ... yeah this one is the best. Its kinda like some guys visually like portly obese women... some like red heads with heart shaped butt steaks. Some like bulbulous breasts... some like em small and as firm as vinyl car seats... Its kind of the same way with anything visual. Too difficult to predict what someone will like. All of our eyes are different colours and we do not see everything exactly the same. I think it is great that you are bringing an awareness of the importance of a proper screen. All that time and effort is greatly appreciated by alot of people.

I have not been in Awe of a screen yet. I prefer different screens for different movies... sports etc. I like some screens with some projectors and not with others. The purpose of the shootout was to give people an understanding and get some stats on what people preferred... So for instance if a customer that cant get a demo of a screen... I can get the stats on the projector and advise not my opinion but what the population of participants at the event chose when they liked the projector and rated it high.

How thick is the Vutec? I am making an aluminum extrusion for a frame and this might work out well for the next shootout event.

Rob

Great thread.

Making me feel better about my DLP and HiPower all teh time. It has been in storage so long, I don't remember what it looks like.

Thanks,
Doug

That 122" silverstar is seemless right? Their webpage is a bit confusing about that.

I'm really glad you guys have enjoyed the review.

Yes, the product is seamless.

I'm considering the Silverstar. I have a 120" diagonal 16:9 Stewart Grayhawk now in a Stewart fixed Luxus Deluxe frame. Has anyone here tried to fit the Silverstar in to the Stewart Luxus Deluxe frame? The Stewart frame is a real piece of work (expensive) and I don't want to give it up.

Thank you.

I have been told that my new Silverstar screen will weigh about 120lbs so I think it is no piece of junk either.

the SilverStar comes in it's own frame. ITS A SOLID BOARD!

It might be 120 lbs in the shipping crate.

weight = quality ???? then all other screens must be junk. this is a joke right?

Either Vutec needs to provide more information on their website or you guys need to start using your head ;)

Well...I admit I have been a little stressed lately :) But how much does the screen weigh then?

The shipping weight is 140lbs in its packaging.

less than the packaging.

Vutec. If you're listening, you really need to provide more information on your website about your products!

What is the board made out of? I have never purchased a fixed screen before so I am curious. Is it a lightweight solid foam or more of a plywood with a foam surface attached?

Originally posted by Big Picture
I'm considering the Silverstar. I have a 120" diagonal 16:9 Stewart Grayhawk now in a Stewart fixed Luxus Deluxe frame. .. The Stewart frame is a real piece of work (expensive) and I don't want to give it up.


I'm in a similar situation with a fairly new 123" Firehawk. While I really like the screen, the extra brightness of the Silverstar is enticing. My first choice would be for Stewart to come out with something similar that would work in my current frame. Second choice would be to buy just the Silverstar material and place it in my current frame. I've heard that they are not selling the Silverstar material separately at this time. If it came down to replacing the entire frame I think I'll stick with the Firehawk.

As far a mounting the Silverstar material in a Stewart frame, I think it would be pretty easy. The Silverstar is basically just a big piece of foamcore with a special surface. :)

I wish a few more people would take the chance and order one of these puppies and post their reviews (and preferably use a HD2 DLP unit).

Despite the excellent review and pictures, it is still difficult to purchase something like this sight unseen, despite the fact I find myself somewhat caught up in the excitement/hype.

My main concern is the "sparklies" issue, and black levels. I will be using a 123 inch screen and the first row of seats will be about 13.5 feet away, with a DWIN TV3 projector (mounted 17 feet back).

Would the distance the pj is mounted from the screen have any effect on the amount of "sparklies"?

And thanks for the excellent review Tryg (and to think you did it while drinking a Corona)!

sorry for the question if answered already but this screen is if this screen is fixed on a board...how is it delivered? don't many of the shippers have size restrictions? oh and can it be cleaned easily? what is the return policy if not satified? went to the vutec site and info is hard to find. the pages freeze on me too often. thanks

oh and thanks tryg for all your hard work. your posts are always well thought out and i definitely appreciate the hard work you've put into all your reviews.

one more question if it's ok. if i see sparklies in the firehawk (which i do--well i guess it's kind of a sheen effect) will i see the same or more on this screen?

Bosng,

Yes, the screen is laminated to a solid composite foam core board. It comes with its own frame. (I've told this to a dozen people in the last week;) ) It's slick as hell, and ready to mounting. A 10 year old girl could install it on the wall in 30 minutes. I've emailed Vutec to provide more product information on their website.

Yes, they have taken care of all shipping requirements.

Rob,

I know some people ordered them. I myself am sitting back loving it! Watched Death to Smoochy last night...Fun. I'm trying not to overly hype this product but I've seen a lot of screens in the last 6 months and this one is really fun to watch stuff on.

Your second row of seating should give you a great image. Projector distance has no relation.

It does not have sparklies like the firehawk. Th firehawk sometimes has a wierd prism effect from an aberant piece of the reflective coating. The SilverStar has no visable reflective coating. The "sparkly" effect is not the screen but compression artifacts from your source material. The screen is just so efficient it makes seeing your source material flaws easier. I doubt you will even notice it after the first day or so of viewing. Your eyes adjust to what you start seeing and you start seeing a lot more of the image being projected. You will see the same artifacts on any higher power screen.

Jsharpe,

It sounds like you really have a strong attachment to your Stewart frame. Maybe this product isn't for you because it comes with it's own frame. I don't know?...but I wouldn't hold your breath on Stewart coming out with a similar product. Vutec makes the product now...and likely for cheaper than anyone else could possibly deliver it for. If your interested call AVS for pricing and the facts.

Thanks for the response.

I have spent quite a bit of time with the Firehawk, and I really haven't noticed any problems with sparklies. So, when you say "It does not have sparklies like the firehawk", that really alleviates a lot of my concerns with that issue.

If the sparklies on the SilverStar are the result of compression artifacts in the source material, I wonder if this would be alleviated some with a DVI DVD player?

Still wishing I could see one in person....

I have been in touch with Vutec and they tell me they can cut a Silverstar to fit into my 16:9 120" diagonal Stewart Luxus Deluxe frame. From this I assume (I know bad word) that I can purchase just the screen material.

you guys are killing me:D

Throw your damn Stewart frame in your neighbors yard, crush it under heavy machinery...I dont care, but when your done mount the damn SS with the supplied frame.

Or you can spend endless hours, frustration, time money and lose your wife, kids and become an acoholic and drug addict trying to fit the damn SilverStar to your Stewart frame.

One thing I know for sure is that Stewart is a genius. Somehow he has managed to brainwash people into only one thought. Buy stewart screen, mount to stewart frame.

I'm losing it here:rolleyes: Did I mention it's a SOLID board? :)

HAHAHA Tryg youare a blast. Thanks for the hard work. A friend is bringing a sample over soon so I can see the star in action and compare it to my firehawk. I may need a new screen...
Paul

Tryg,
Is the SilverStar mounted to a solid board? If so, can I mount the SilverStar to my Stewart frame? If not, can I peel the fabric away from the board so I can use my Stewart frame with it? If I had a file and was able to open channel to fit my SilverStar, can I use my Stewart frame with it? Would Liquid Nails work to adhere my SilverStar to my Stewart frame? If so, is the SilverStar mounted on a solid board? If I can not accomplish any of these, can I just mount my SilverStar and use my Stewart frame for my Pollock canvases?

Being a Hi-Power owner (and therefore booster), I have heard several things on this thread that perked my ears up .

1. Whites are whiter on the Hi-Power.

2. The Hi-Power actually appears a little brighter in the sweet spot.

3. The Hi-Power is better at ambient light rejection.

4. There really isn't that big of a difference between the two.

Elsewhere I have read that the Hi-Power is actually about 3.3 gain in the sweet spot, and the Silver Star is closer to 3.

Understand these are all statements made based on mere viewing comparisons, and apparently not measurements. Still, the combination sounds pretty compelling. (Please don't ask me to track down who said what, but I thing Tryg and Darinp mentioned much of it)

So, what other fact factors would offset the apparent superiority of the Hi-Power?

Well, Joe, I just got back from paulgas' house where we played around with the SilverStar sample that AVS was kind enough to mail me. He has a 110" Firehawk and a ceiling-mounted Infocus 7200. I was also able to test it briefly with my setup, but I couldn't do too much, because we're dismantling the system to remodel right now.

Of course, this is just a sample, so we didn't bother trying to do a critical analysis of the differences in image quality---because of course our eyes were acclimated to the darker Firehawk. But the SilverStar was most definitely brighter, although I certainly had no way of knowing if it was 2-2.5 times brighter than the Firehawk. It seemed to also have higher contrast, because it seemed that bright parts of an image became much brighter, and darker parts seemed to become just a little brighter. But again that could have been just an illusion caused by the fact we were using a small sample.

Paul & I would take turns holding the sample in various places on the screen. It definitely seemed brighter at all points on the screen---top, bottom, side, center. But here is what seemed most compelling to me: it seemed brighter even for the person standing there holding the sample, looking at it from the side.

What does that mean? Well, it means that somehow the SilverStar must have a base gain level that is higher than that of a standard screen, somehow it makes more efficient use of the light. It didn't seem to be borrowing gain from one angle to supply at another angle, at least not to the extent that a typical high-gain screen might. Yes, it has a viewing cone, but it just didn't seem to be as bad as you would expect it to be.

If what I'm saying is true for a full-size screen, the biggest advantage of a SilverStar over a Hi Power is its wider viewing cone, which allows a larger "sweet spot" and more flexible projector placement. Having said that, if you're happy with your Hi-Power and you don't need a wider viewing cone, I don't think I would bother to change.

Michael,

I've been tempted to call it a "high gain firehawk" but frankly it does so many things better than the Firehawk well I just sit back and enjoy it.

1. It's linear throughout the range. Meaning it does have a higher contrast than even the firehawk AND it gets everything correct in the middle too. Where 95% of the image is.

2. Viewing cone is MUCH MUCH wider than the firehawk which is amazing for a screen of this gain.

3. It doesn't oversaturate colors like a grey screen.

But, what I'm really worried about...and maybe supahjohn can help me, is that I've been watching this thing now in front of my Firehawk. Yes I have black felt in between but what I would really like to do is somehow mount it to the Stewart Firehawk. Maybe something like liquid nails or something. No, not the frame itself but directly to the Firehawk. Will it snap into place somehow or .... look, if anyone has any ideas I would really appreciate it.

Maybe the answer it to rip the material off the board and frame somehow, then I could bond it to the Firehawk?

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/SSF.jpg

Well, I don't know much about screens and pjs but I'm into the construction end of things. I believe that a professional mounting job would be most important as you don't want your silverstar to slip off the firehawk, these are expensive screens.

So:

1. Use a piece of 5/8" MDF BEHIND the firehawk. You should adhere the firehawk to this material with a paste made from flour and water.

2. Carefully place the silverstar over the firehawk and adhere the two together with a high quality 2 part epoxy.

3. Use an air powered finish nailer and nail the silverstar to the firehawk with the MDF behind it. Nails should be about 10" apart across the entire screen.

4. Use painters putty to fill the small holes left in the silverstar and sand carefully.

5. Next use a matching silver spray paint to cover the puttied holes.

6. Presto you now have two beautiful screens which will provide hours of enjoyment.

7. If you live in CA or other earthquake prone areas you should use 2 - 1/2" MDF boards bonded together and attach the silverstar to the firehawk with sheetrock screws for maximum holding power. You can never be too safe......

Maybe something like liquid nails or something. No, not the frame itself but directly to the Firehawk. Will it snap into place somehow

Oh yeah, that will definitely work! Shouldn't be a problem at all. Just make sure the liquid nails match the screen color somewhat close and all should be fine!

:D

It's linear throughout the range. Meaning it does have a higher contrast than even the firehawk AND it gets everything correct in the middle too. Where 99% of the image is.

That's a very important observation. I was curious as to how the middle of the scale would look on this. Having greater contrast (and gain) is great, as long as it doesn't come at the expensive of having the ability to accurately depict the full gray scale.

Tryg-

Have you watched any black and white movies on this screen? I would be interested in knowing what they look like. It may make it easier to see if the full gray scale is being shown, or whether the SilverStar has too much contrast.

I'm not really trying to start a whizzing match at all. Really. Just trying to focus on the critical parameters of difference. (And since Tryg and Daren haven't yet addressed the question) I gather from what you are saying, the wider viewing cone and perhaps some "spreading" of the contrast due to hotter whites but not as much proportional gain for the blacks. How can it do that? All I've ever heard around here is that the contrast ratios remain constant on all screens because it treats all light alike. So, still not sure what's going on.

Oh, I wouldn't use liquid nails. You need mechanical holding power. The liquid nails could possibly dry out and crack in 30 or 40 years....

BTW, Supajohn gets the award for the best first post ever.

I gather from what you are saying, the wider viewing cone and perhaps some "spreading" of the contrast due to hotter whites but not as much proportional gain for the blacks. How can it do that? All I've ever heard around here is that the contrast ratios remain constant on all screens because it treats all light alike.I just reported what I saw, that's all. I agree with you in theory, which is why I said it was likely an illusion caused by viewing just a sample.

You tell me if all screens have the same contrast ratio?

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/HipowerAngles.JPG

You know it's really hard to tell about the ratio. The differences in overall brightness is clear, but when I copy the image and blow it up to compare the patches close up, the brighter samples all seem to have brighter blacks too. Seems kind of proportional.

And I've lost track, the image here isn't an ANSI checkerboard is it? Because the blacks are all a babypoop golden brown (chili for dinner, I suppose).

First of all, Tryg, you are abso-friggin-lutely hysterical these days!

Second of all, the sample is interesting. I would be inclined to say this based on initial tests:

* Ambient light rejection is not incredible vs. the shiny poster material I have. It's better, but not incredible. If anyone in the Bay Area reading this has some Da-Lite samples they can loan me, please, let me know ASAP! I am really curious about this.

* The screen is a marvel. There is always a pissing contest about blacks, but half the time I don't know whether the poster cares about blacks being inky or cares about shadow detail -- i.e. seeing the stuff in the dark areas. I can't tell you yet whether the Silverstar messes up the inky blackness of my Sanyo Z1, but it's an instant revelation on shadow detail. As has been noted here at least once or twice, you suddenly see stuff that you didn't even know was there!!!

I may try tonight's CBS reruns because both CSI and Without a Trace have a lot of dark areas where I would simply not see stuff with either my former plasma or the current Z1 (admittedly without a proper screen right now). But I bet the Silverstar really shines when the daylight goes away and it gets this test.

* I am essentially ready to order based on the sample. My only question remains: Is there a better choice for a daytime-friendly screen? That's why I want to see the High Power sample. I am trying to setup a projector-only living room right now If it can't work, fine, it can't work. The idea would be zoom in, shrink the image down, and still see it well during the day and blow it up, and watch it rock in the evenings and nights. I might be better served by a High Power or Vutec Pearlbrite for this. I might need a second screen of one of those that could go in front of the Silverstar during the day. I might need a plasma or LCD for the daytime that can somehow get out of the way.

Or maybe I can order the Silverstar as a rollup screen? Is that possible Tryg? Or does it come on a fixed board? And if so, how do they ship it? :p :p :p

Mark

This picture is actually very puzzling. With some ambient light, the 'black' on the high power look about equal to the cinema vision, while the 'black' of the silver star actually looks darker than the cinema vision.

For those who have seen it, is this representative of what your eyes perceive in real life?

super riddles solved!

Yes, JHouse this is an ANSI checkerboard projecting black and white checkerboard. Now projected black is mearly the absense of light...so the black boxes are what the screen material looks like in that ambient lighting conditions. So the black boxes (or brownish) is mearly the reflections of the ambient light in the room and reflections off my tan walls. Turn off the ambient lighting and the black squares would be much "blacker"

As far as the blacks of the cinema vision and the SilverStar? Same thing. the Silver material is darker than the white Cinema vision. So don't project any light onto it to create black and all you're left with is what the material looks like in the given ambient lighting.

How do you get the deapest blacks?

1. Turn your lights off
2. get projector with high CR rating
3. make your screen material darker

rogo, I've learned to not care about blacks any more. The lengths people go to have become ubsurd. To the point now you could probably sell these people a black screen just on the merits that it produces frickin awesome blacks.... Who cares that you can't see the damn image!

I agree with JHouse, Tryg... I don't think that picture demonstrates any significant difference in contrast ratio.

Besides, I don't have a good physical reason to believe that a screen could have a "contrast ratio". In order for the screen to affect the contrast ratio, it would need to have a different absorption ratio at different absolute intensities of light.

Now if you're referring to the effect of ambient light rejection, that I can understand. But in perfect light control, I'd have to say that all screens should have the same contrast ratio. I can't tell you yet whether the Silverstar messes up the inky blackness of my Sanyo Z1, but it's an instant revelation on shadow detail. As has been noted here at least once or twice, you suddenly see stuff that you didn't even know was there!!!Rogo, this is where we need to be careful. When you put your SilverStar sample up against your darker screen, it is certainly going to reveal shadow detail, because it will all be made brighter. But if you replace your entire screen, will that have an effect? After all, the whites will be whiter as well, so your eyes may acclimatize to the new average brightness and make everything cancel out. But to hear JHouse say it, the tradeoff isn't 100%---so brighter is better up to about 50 ftL or so.

my god Michael! If you cant look at the above image and see that the blacks are darker on the SilverStar than the Stewart Ultramatte AND the whites are much whiter on the SilverStar than the Ultramatte then I can't help you

I have to go chase some skirt now...you guys are cutting into my drinking time.

I can't tell from the pictures either but the blacks are darker on the SilverStar than on the HiPower. It's not a bunch but we can see it. Probably because the HP seems whiter than the SS.

I agree with Tryg.

The apparent increase in contrast with the SilverStar seems obvious in the pictures.

And how exactly do the whites on the HP seem whiter than the SS? I don't see it that way at all Jimmy. Just the opposite. The SS has the brightest whites by far (except for the 9.5 SS!).

It say's it but not clearly enough I guess.

"Probably because the HP (surface) seems whiter than the SS."

Get it ?:)

Duh!



hiding in shame.....

No shame Rob. That was a lousy way for me to say it.

I also think Tyrg is cutting the pant's too short about the SilverStar's gain. I see much more on the SS than the HiPower and I've got the same sample that Tyrg used.

Based solely on the screen shots, I agree Jimmy. It really does look like an amazing product.

I actually feel lucky that this product has come out just before I purchase my first front projector and screen, giving me more choices.

my god Michael! If you cant look at the above image and see that the blacks are darker on the SilverStar than the Stewart Ultramatte AND the whites are much whiter on the SilverStar than the Ultramatte then I can't help youLook, I think we totally agree that a screen with a fair amount of gain and that is good at shedding ambient light is going to result in better contrast in a non-ideal environment. But paint your walls black and eliminate all ambient light, and the story will be different: all of those screens will have the same contrast ratio.

Tryg,

Are you sure the 6.0 sample in your picture above is the same material as the fullscreen that you got? In that picture the SS 6.0 looks brighter than the Hi-Power. However, when we viewed both at your house the whites were brighter on the Hi-Power. In this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2245087#post2245087) post it is obvious that the whites were brighter in the picture on the Hi-Power at 0 offset. This is also what I saw and I will trust my eyes live over a picture, anyway.

Also, my opinion may be different than some. I saw sheen on the SilverStar and I see sheen on the Da-Lite High Contrast Matte White. That is my biggest concern with both of those (along with waves on the HCMW). I do not see this sheen on the Hi-Power or on the Firehawk. While I don't see sheen on the Firehawk I do see some of the little embedded mirrors. At least that is what they look like to me when I sit in a spot that gives me one little sparkly. This is different than the sheen which is basically diffused and not just one point. I believe that this sheen brings out artifacts more. Now that I've switched from the HCMW to the Firehawk the artifacts don't bother me as much and I don't see as much pixel structure.

I agree with Micheal. Maybe it will cost me $20, but I'll offer a prize of $20 (PayPal) to the first person who can explain the physics of how one of these nonactive screens can have a higher contrast ratio than a matte white in the absence of ambient light and no reflections to a theoretically perfect sensor that can measure every photon. Anybody game?

Let me put it another way. Tell me a screen that will reflect a different percentage of the photons with different intensities of light. If it reflects 1% to an area at 1000 lumens it will need to reflect <1% to that area at 50 lumens. BTW: I'm not going to count microscopic effects like heat that might have a <0.1% effect on CR.

The Firehawk may be doing some optical illusion tricks, but does anybody really believe that it has a lower gain for lower light intensities and higher gain for higher light intensities. I would like to see a chart out of Stewart showing that one.

--Darin

The $20 is mine!

the Firehawk is a perfect example.
During no/low light there's not enough light to activate the reflective powers of the emulsion. Thus you just get the grey backing.

But when you hit it with white, the reflective coating is activated and takes over thus boosting the reflective gain PAST the gain of the grey backing.

REMOVE the reflective splatter and you are absolutely correct. With the reflective splatter and you've just boosted the high end.

The SilverStar happens to be performing a similar feat. Because as you hit it with higher intensities of light it throws back more somehow.

**************************************************

The upper picture, by the way, is kinda bad for the high power. First the sample size is too small. Secondly it's in the upper half so it's viewing cone is actually above the camera.

darinp the High Power looked brighter at my place because we were standing up directly in the high powers viewing cone. Whereas the SilverStar was reflecting down at the couch. Sitting down the results would have been different.

Originally posted by Tryg
During no/low light there's not enough light to activate the reflective powers of the emulsion.
Tryg,

I'm not giving up the money until you can explain this activation and what it takes to trigger it :) Learning all this is worth $20 to me.

So, a photon hits the screen. How it is reflected depends in a large part on how many other photons hit? Is time part of the equation? That is, for a DLP the colors are on the screen half as long for half as much light or 1/10th as long for 1/10th as much light, but the instantaneous intensity is the same. Does this emulsion reflect different ratios in each case?

Also, I'll have to ask Don Stewart to answer the following question (or get someone to really explain it) before I give up. Is the true gain on the Firehawk different for 20 lumens than for 1000 lumens?
Originally posted by Tryg
darinp the High Power looked brighter at my place because we were standing up directly in the high powers viewing cone. Whereas the SilverStar was reflecting down at the couch. Sitting down the results would have been different.
Are you sure about this with your angles? Were the portions of the pictures from the bottom of the screen? From what I remember the top of the screen wasn't much lower than the projector, so the squares at the top of the screen should have been pretty close to a perfect angle back to the camera.

--Darin

During no/low light there's not enough light to activate the reflective powers of the emulsion.Where did you pull that from? A screen is a passive device, so the very idea that you have to "activative" it is silly. But perhaps that's just your attempt to express some cogent physical principle in terms we laymen can understand, so I'll forgive that.

So we still need two things. First, we need some sort of credible physical reference that describes this phenomenon. And second, we need some calculations which show that the light levels under which this phenomena occurs are visible to the human eye using any other screen. Otherwise, he keeps his $20.

I think we may be confusing two properties here. The firehawk has been praised for its ambient light rejection properties because of the grey base and viewing cone. If you project a mixed scene (or ansi test pattern) the image will tend to light up the room, and assuming the room is not a completely controlled environment, reflecting back on the screen more or less evenly. The dark areas will see just as many extra lumens of soft reflected light as the light areas. But if you add say an arbitrary 0.25 ft-lambert to black and 0.25 ft-lambert to white when white is say 15 ft-lambert, you reduce the contrast and absolute black level. But in the case of the firehawk, it rejects off axis light better than many materials, making the reflected black look darker. In a cream colored room such as Tryg's test environment, this would likely result in a non-linear perception curve for many screens as the black end of the range would tend to be swamped out by this reflected light effect.

Originally posted by Assayer
I think we may be confusing two properties here.
Some are claiming that even with disregarding directionality and ambient light effects on CR, that some screens actually have inherent CRs. As Don Stewart told me last year at CEDIA when I told him that Vutec was claiming 70:1 CR for their screen (paraphrasing), "How can a screen have a CR? They can't go against physics. I would like to see them back up some of their claims."

--Darin

Michael said:
<<Rogo, this is where we need to be careful. When you put your SilverStar sample up against your darker screen, it is certainly going to reveal shadow detail, because it will all be made brighter. But if you replace your entire screen, will that have an effect? >>

You make a good point. Right now, my "screen" is so small that the Silverstar sample is about half the screen. So either side is confusing the other as much the other is confusing it. All I know is that there is stuff in the Silverstar that simply is not there on my "screen." Whatever is happening to the absolute black level is truly and completely irrelevant to me. The minimum black of the Z1 is not significantly adversely affected by the SS, in fact it may be helped by it.

Mark

Assayer, you have given a very clear and more complete description of what I claim is going on. So therefore I agree with you and Darin---and, apparently, Don Stewart. I predict Tryg may be slow to agree though; some of his other opinions about gray screens depend on this idea of "intensity-dependent reflectivity" as well.

This goes to my measurements of our projector, and people's claim that on/off CR is either valid/invalid.

IF you are talking about the characteristics of a device, then you have to eliminate all other variables.

I love and admire all of the work that Tryg has put in to this, but for example, if you really wanted to use a screenshot to evaluate anything:

1. Set the camera for EVERYTHING manual, including white balance, exposure, aperture, ISO, etc.... everything.

2. Do one screen sample at a time. Each sample needs to be positioned in the middle of the target area (where the SS 6.0 is in the original). This makes sure the same amount of light is hitting it, barring any PJ problems.

3. Position the camera for peak gain angle for each sample. To do any angular reflective screen and a retroreflective screen in the same shot doesn't make sense.

4. (and this is the one that is impossible for most) Remove the room. In loudspeaker measurements, MLSSA was developed to yield anechoic measurements with an anechoic chamber. Unfortunately, no such measurement system exists yet for screens. In my basement lab/HT, my ceiling and walls are covered in black velvet (the wife hates it, but man, what a picture) to absorb any stray light.

At this point you could take a bunch of meaningful shots, and piece them all together in photoshop for comparison. But the fact that the black squares look brown is a tribute to how much the room interacts, and also to how forgiving our eyes are, because when watching a movie, I'll bet they look black, not brown.

But forgiving eyes notwithstanding, we are talking about a screen review here. People criticize manufacturers for using full on/off for measuring CR, instead of ANSI. This is for the same reason. It eliminates the room.

Just as any PJ will look different in every room, the same holds true for screens. Therefore to maximize the effectiveness of a review, you have to take pains not to let the room interfere.

Tryg, again, the effort that you have put into your review(s) has been staggering. Trust me, I know EXACTLY. I'm just suggesting ideas for the future, because overall, this is a tremendous help for everyone here.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an active screen (kind of like DBX was in the 70s for audio--- if you have no clue what I'm referring to, don't worry, it didn't work in reality). Or better yet, a screen that connected to your source with a cable that could instantly deliver a signal describing the overall luminance of a scene and the screen could adjust the gain accordingly?

Or better yet, a screen divided into tiny little areas, maybe corresponding to the native resolution of the source device. Each of these little areas (let's call them picture elements) could independently change according to the signal. Maybe not just gain, but they could actually generate light in bright areas, and maybe even change color too? What a concept!

:)

Dan

Originally posted by Tryg
The $20 is mine!

I thought you were out chasing skirt?!:D

Originally posted by Rob Tomlin
I actually feel lucky that this product has come out just before I purchase my first front projector and screen, giving me more choices.

I agree. I would not feel as if I'm limited to choosing a projector with a vertical lens shift to go with a High Power since a table mount is probably out for me.

Look, I think we totally agree that a screen with a fair amount of gain and that is good at shedding ambient light is going to result in better contrast in a non-ideal environment. But paint your walls black and eliminate all ambient light, and the story will be different: all of those screens will have the same contrast ratio.

Michael-

If you admit that different screens can have different contrast ratios with (the same) ambient light, why couldn't the same be true when there is no ambient light?

Originally posted by Dan Miller

I love and admire all of the work that Tryg has put in to this,

Wow, Dan we should hook up. Maybe, chasing skirts is a waste of my time? Seriously though, I WAS chasing skirts when I wrote that last post and you guys all owe me $20. Do you know how stealthy you have to be to write posts to this forum while your having cocktails with a couple hot blonds. They were 22 and clueless. I told em I was shopping for a Ferrari and I had to email the seller back ASAP. That sealed the deal. ;)
Dan, thanks for the kudos... makes investigating and sharing th results more satisfying if you know others are benefitting.

Now, back to the serious stuff. I tried to remove the room but it seemed like a lot of work and I couldn't figure out where I would put it. ;) Really though, I did make some mistakes in that first review that are very evident now that I know more. I won't make the same mistakes agian (I hope) but I likely will not show/test in perfect conditions also. It's too confusing to the average person sometimes what exactly they are supposed to be looking for. I try my best to duplicate Real World conditions so people can relate. I think there is some value to that.

As far as active screens...the sooner we can get rid of these damn projectors the better. OLED baby! Roll out your 10' wide screen on your wall, thumbtack down the edges and hook it up to your HD-DVD player. End of story. The first company to produce this is gonna lay waist to this industry.

Rob, exactly. The ambient light doesn't change the equation...only the perception.

If you admit that different screens can have different contrast ratios with (the same) ambient light, why couldn't the same be true when there is no ambient light?Simple---because ambient light, and the cross-reflections due to non-black walls, is what is changing the contrast ratios. The ambient light basically raises the perceived black. Even if the projector produces a perfect black, the ambient light makes it imperfect.

So with any projector with a sufficiently high native contrast, it is the ambient light and/or cross-reflections that determine the black level, and the projector brigthness and screen gain that determine the white level. So in this case, higher screen gain and better ambient light rejection can raise the perceived contrast ratio.

Eliminate the ambient light, and paint the walls black so that all cross-reflections are suppressed, and now it is the projector brightness and screen gain that determines the black level, the same as for the white level. The screen gain does not depend on brightness. Thus the contrast ratio is determined solely by the projector.

I am not saying that all screens are the same of course. None of us has the perfect room. So we want a reasonably bright setup, determined by projector brightness, screen size, and screen gain; and a screen with good ambient light rejection. All we're disputing here are the mechanisms by which percieved contrast ratio is determined.

Originally posted by Tryg
Rob, exactly. The ambient light doesn't change the equation...only the perception.
As I see it the ambient light definitely changes the equation. Here is an example taking directionality and gain into account.

1000 lumen projector with 1000:1 CR. 1 lumen of ambient light coming from the side. Now what is that actual (not just perceived) CR.

Screen #1: 1.0 gain non-directional screen: Whites are 1001 lumens. Blacks are 2 lumens. CR = 500:1.

Screen #2: 3.0 gain directional screen where this ambient light gets 1.0 gain at the viewing position. Whites are 3001 lumens. Blacks are 4 lumens. CR = 750:1.

Example #2 not including directionality.

We'll use 4 lumens of ambient light. Viewer decides that they like a certain brightness and their projector is bright enough to do it even on a 0.8 gain screen (they have a PLV-70 that we will call 2000 lumens and 500:1 CR).

Screen #1: 0.8 gain. Whites are 1603 lumens. Blacks are 3.2 lumens plus 3.2 lumens for 6.4 lumens. CR = 250:1.

Screen #2: 3.0 gain. User puts a neutral density filter on to reduce brightness to 530 lumens. Whites are 1602 lumens. Blacks are 3.2 lumens plus 12 lumens for 15.2 lumens. CR = 55:1.

If the dark screen doesn't make the image bright enough then a higher gain screen of course has the advantage of getting into an area that you like.

Rob,

The directionality of the screen can help increase the CR with ambient light from off axis, but the projector is shining from a single place. We know that gains can be different for light hitting the screen from different angles, but it doesn't follow that we have screens that can reflect different percentages of the light depending on the intensity. Think of shining a flashlight on a mirror. Changing the angle will change how much light your eye receives. But if the flashlight is left in one spot and turned down to half brightness, can the mirror reflect something different than half of what it did at full intensity? That is what some are claiming here.

--Darin

Originally posted by Tryg
The ambient light doesn't change the equation...only the perception.

cancel that thought...I concur with darin that light directionality also plays a role.

Here is a real world example... I might have the numbers off a little, but you get the idea.

Don Stewart has a glass 35mm slide with a 2500:1 ansi contrast pattern. 2500:1. Guaranteed. Projected in a real room, on a white screen, it measured less than 700 and on a firehawk closer to 1000. Ambient light supression.

In my room (a black hole)...

Absolute black from my VP12S2 measured .012 ftL. Truning on my SR9200 receiver changed the level to .019. CR with no other lights=2083. CR with my receiver on=1315.

DM

Dan,

Can you perceive the difference?

The firehawk is not an active screen and does not have any facility for changing its gain depending on the amount of light hitting it.

It is fun to dream about such a thing though. Imagine a screen made of a huge LCD panel, with little teensy solar cells much smaller than pixels. Whenever the solar cell gets hit by light, it produces a voltage which rotates the liquid crystals and therefore changes the transmissivity of the screen. Of course cost would probably rule such a thing out, not to mention timing issues; the LCD and solar cells would have to respond very fast and have a linear response in order to avoid affecting gamma.

It is clear that the firehawk is not such a screen; it always reflects back the same percentage of photons that hit it; if it is reflecting 10% of photons directly back at full intensity it is reflecting 10% directly back at the lowest intensities too.

But having said that, the eye is not necessarily linear in its response. Even though the contrast ratio of all screens in a perfectly nonreflective and lighttight room is the same, the perceived contrast ratio can be different. I personally believe that the higher the light output, the higher the perceived contrast ratio.

An easy way to understand this is to compare a moonlit night versus a sunny day. Lets assume that the moon is in the same location in the sky as the sun is for the purposes of this example. Viewing the same landscape under the moonlight is going to look muted and low contrast, while under bright sunlight the landscape will look punchy; the shadows will look deep and the highlights will look bright. The landscape's reflectance hasn't changed, and the illumination quality hasn't changed; the moonlight scene in fact has the same contrast ratio as the bright sunny scene. But the bright scene is perceived as higher contrast.

This is why I like my 2.5 gain Draper M2500, and why I'm investigating higher gain screens- brighter is perceived as higher contrast even though it isn't.

-Tom

first off I would like to submit this illustration.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/screens.JPG

Do different screen colorations and ability to reflect light have different reflectance slopes?

The ratios therefore are different? No?

The landscape's reflectance hasn't changed, and the illumination quality hasn't changed; the moonlight scene in fact has the same contrast ratio as the bright sunny scene.

I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think this is accurate. If you took a light meter to both of these scenes and read the darkest shadows and the brightest whites, it is clear that the moonlit scene would have a much lower contrast ratio than the sunlit scene.

I agree about the reflectance of the landscape not changing though.

Tryg,

Reflectance is the same thing as gain, the ratio of incoming light that gets reflected. The gain is constant across intensity. So your graph should simply be a bunch of horizontal lines. The silverstar has highest reflectance (gain) so it will be the highest line. White will be a horizontal line below, and so forth.

-Tom

Rob-

Why do you think the moonlit scene would have a lower measured contrast ratio? The landscape's reflectance is the same, and the lighting is from the same position, just a different intensity. Actually there is a slight difference in that the moon subtends a wider arc in the sky and so it provides a slightly more diffuse lighting but lets ignore that effect for the purpose of this example because that effect is miniscule compared to the human eye's perception differences. The moon is far enough away that it is basically a point source.

-Tom

Originally posted by PerfKnee
I personally believe that the higher the light output, the higher the perceived contrast ratio.
Tom,

One thing to consider is something that somebody else posted (I don't guarantee it). They said that above about 50 ft-lamberts the iris will close down and people won't perceive extra brightness. So if you get a brighter screen that pushes you from 50 ft-l to 100 ft-l your brights won't look brighter to your eyes, but the blacks will look brighter in very dark scenes.

Also, something that complicates all this is that we are talking about on/off contrast here with these projectors, where the importance of on/off is really in being able to get good contrast ratio during really low light level scenes. During bright scenes the blacks are going to look black with just about any current combo.

Tryg,

I assume you drew that graph yourself. To be right I think your "Reflectance" must mean the amount of light reflected, not some reflectance ratio as I would normally think of that term. Some of us are claiming that every line must be straight and go through the 0,0 point. You are claiming that they don't.

--Darin

The brightest scenes under moonlight wont be anywhere near as bright as under a sunlit scene.

Dark shadows, however, would probably be about the same. So, the difference between the darkest and brightest scenes under these two lighting situations will be greater in the sunlit scene than the moonlit scene, which means the sunlit scene has the greater contrast.

Dark shadows, however, would probably be about the same.

Rob, are you saying that dark shadows would be the same in daylight?

Am I confused?

Dark shadows in the daytime are not nearly as black as they are at night time.

Rob, what physical principle or mechanism would you cite for the shadows reflecting a greater percentage of the moon's light and a lesser percentage of the sun's light?

-Tom

Dear All

Anyone see about Image depth for Silverstar ? is it better than firehawk or same ? And how about screen gain ? I'm little bit confuse about choosing it..

Thanks for your suggestion.

Rob, are you saying that dark shadows would be the same in daylight?

I said they would be "about the same". The point being that deep shadows will be much closer between the moonlit scene and sunlit scene than the highlights would be. So I still maintain that your overall contrast will be higher in the daylight scene.

Will there be another review of the different screens in the near future?

first off I would like to submit this illustration.I agree with Tom and Darin, your graph is incorrect. Even a perfect matte white screen would have a horizontal line on this graph. Now if you changed the y-axis to "brightness at the seating position", then those diagonal lines would be closer to correct---except that they should all pass through (0,0). After all, if the projector is not sending out any light, the screen should be reflecting no light back, correct?

Now if you assume a fixed amount of ambient light in the environment, then those lines would shift upward so that they no longer intersect (0,0). They might move up different amounts, depending on how well each screen sheds ambient light. As a result, the perceived contrast ratios would be different. But that's exactly what we're talking about: it's ambient light (or cross-reflections from non-black walls) that reduces contrast.

Dan, thank you for your very specific example, that was very interesting!

Dan's post was indeed interesting, and almost downright unbelievable!

I would like the follow up question to be answered...could the measured difference in the contrast ratio actually be perceived?

Not during a movie.

Keep in mind that it is an extreme example. My receiver lights up bright and is facing the screen and right below the PJ. I just wanted to exemplify how ambient light can affect absolute black level readings. But i did try this:

Turn off everything in the room. Night time. We are talking absolute blackness. Your eyes never adjust. After a few minutes, if I'm looking at the screen and turn on the receiver, the screen literally lights up... I can make hand puppets and see my way around the room now.

Also, my Minolta LS-100, is fairly accurate at low light levels, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some inaccuracies that might throw things off.

Dan

One more thing we have to keep in mind: judging from Dan's picture, his eyes are much younger and probably more sensitive than ours :)

Ok guys I don't have much time to talk but I made a new illustration that may make some of you happier with axis labeling. Also, I am convinced that AMBIENT LIGHT and SCREEN COLORATION play a roll in what the screen is capable of.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/ex1.JPG

It's pretty clear you have to throw a lot more light at a gray/black screen to get the same illumination level at a given point on a white or silver (higher gain screen)

Now, I contend looking back at the picture of the SilverStar and the Stewart Ultramatte that the lines MUST cross. Thus capable of higher contrast.

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/ex2.JPG

So I give you 3 pictures I took back in my first screen review of different lighting levels. All three show the SS and UM in relatively the same optimal positions (center of the screen)

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/ex3.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/ex4.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tryghoff/ex5.jpg

Now Id say that the SilverStar has deaper blacks in all the pictures AND that the SilverStar clearly has higher whites (illuminance). If this is true, the lines must cross! and... it's capable of higher contrast!

However, the only reason why I think the SilverStars blacks appear deaper is the coloration of the screen itself. The same trick that the firehawk pulls.