The only screen i haven´t noticed a very obvious sparkly effect on with any gain is the highpower, but it´s viewing cone is way to narrow for me. The silverstar doesn´t have a sparklie effect, but it has a sheen.
The firehawk, studiotec(very mild), da lite high contrast cinema vision, cinema vision(that even had a champagne tint to it!) all have it bad. Has anyone here that notices this seen the new firehawk G3 and the firehawk SST, are they much better?And have they also improved the studiotec(that IMO had the least noticable sparkles, although very noticable)? Since the ST130 was no good for me, I assume the ultramatte 150 is even worse?

I find it strange how hard it is to make a decent gain withouth sparklies, it doesn´t sound like rocket science(just make the sparklies much smaller and finer... or print on a gain layer or whatever), and the silverstar has massive gain withouth sparklies.

I sit 14 feet back and my eysight is avarege at best... wonder why this doesn´t bother more people.

The only screen i haven´t noticed a very obvious sparkly effect on with any gain is the highpower, but it´s viewing cone is way to narrow for me. The silverstar doesn´t have a sparklie effect, but it has a sheen.
The firehawk, studiotec(very mild), da lite high contrast cinema vision, cinema vision(that even had a champagne tint to it!) all have it bad. Has anyone here that notices this seen the new firehawk G3 and the firehawk SST, are they much better?And have they also improved the studiotec(that IMO had the least noticable sparkles, although very noticable)? Since the ST130 was no good for me, I assume the ultramatte 150 is even worse?

I find it strange how hard it is to make a decent gain withouth sparklies, it doesn´t sound like rocket science(just make the sparklies much smaller and finer... or print on a gain layer or whatever), and the silverstar has massive gain withouth sparklies.

I sit 14 feet back and my eysight is avarege at best... wonder why this doesn´t bother more people.
The HP screen uses very small beads which are 9 micrometers in diameter or about 20 wavelengths at visible light frequencies.

My guess is that he beads are so small that DaLite may be the only company so far that has figured out how to produce those beads and attach them to the screen. Getting beads that are 20 or less wavelengths in diameter is probably also a difficult technology to develop (still guessing)

I have been thinking the same. On one hand we have projectors with artificial intelligence selling for less than $2K and and on the other hand its difficult to find a screen without any issues for much more. I fail to understand why there should be so much difference in the development of technology in different fields (i.e. if developing a simple screen can be considered a technology).

Anyway, I was also hoping that the firehawk G3 would have solved the sparkles issue. I've requested FH G3 samples from Stewart screens. Hopefully, the sample will help answer the question.

The only screen i haven´t noticed a very obvious sparkly effect on with any gain is the highpower, but it´s viewing cone is way to narrow for me. The silverstar doesn´t have a sparklie effect, but it has a sheen.
The firehawk, studiotec(very mild), da lite high contrast cinema vision, cinema vision(that even had a champagne tint to it!) all have it bad. Has anyone here that notices this seen the new firehawk G3 and the firehawk SST, are they much better?And have they also improved the studiotec(that IMO had the least noticable sparkles, although very noticable)? Since the ST130 was no good for me, I assume the ultramatte 150 is even worse?

I find it strange how hard it is to make a decent gain withouth sparklies, it doesn´t sound like rocket science(just make the sparklies much smaller and finer... or print on a gain layer or whatever), and the silverstar has massive gain withouth sparklies.

I sit 14 feet back and my eysight is avarege at best... wonder why this doesn´t bother more people.

I sit about 18-19 feet back. I look for sparkles with my graywolf ii but haven't seen any yet.

I just got myself a Firehawk G3(Fixed Screen) and I'm having sparkles problem. 110 inches 16:9 screen, Epson TW4000 and Panasonic AX100 sitting on a shelf 15feet away from the screen. Sitting position is right in front of the shelf. The problem I have is pretty serious. I can see many sparkles on the screen(some are right in the center of the screen)whenever a bright image comes on. My dealer has sent contacted Stewart and I"m waiting for their reply on my problem.

I'm EXTREMELY sensitive to sparklies. Had to finally settle on Carada Classic Cinema White (CCW) screen (zero sparklies:))

I'm very sensitive to seeing the screen texture. A neutral gain screen has always been the "go-to" type of screen for anyone looking to minimise screen surface artifacts. So do you really need gain? If so, how much?

The Silverstar I saw had a very noticeable grainy/speckly texture overlaying the image.
I have a Da Lite HP but don't care for the viewing angles. The Firehawk G3 has reduced screen texture over the previous version, to the point that I can often forget about the screen when watching. My noticing the screen texture becomes more "occasional"...but it's enough, combined with the narrow viewing angle/hot-spotting of the Firehawk to mark it off my list. The worst sparkly/speckled screen texture I've ever seen was the Graywolf. Just brutal! Ruined most of what I tried to watch.

I find the Carada samples I have to be perhaps THE most clean and texture free I've seen. But I'm greedy for brightness and need just a tad more gain.

Did you see sparkles on the Studiotek from your viewing distance or was it from up close? Personally I want some gain, as much as I can get, before screen texture becomes intrusive. The best combination of significantly noticeable gain over a neutral screen combined with very little screen texture is the Studioteck, from what I've seen.
In the 8 x 11 sample I have I can't see any sparklies/texture from my viewing distance in the many tests I've done so far. Fingers crossed, I'm ordering a big Stewart screen.

I have a 120" diagonal ST130, the newest model whatever that designation is.

I sit about 12-13' away and don't see sparkles or screen artifacts and I'm picky. I do however see a very slight texture with extremely bright scene, like when the film goes all white. But again, you can't pick out individual points, just the general bright texture.

The viewing cone with this screen is excellent also. There really doesn't seem to be a bad angle to it.

With all that said, I still want to see how big I could go and find myself looking into the DaLite HP. I probably wouldn't be as happy though.

brianlsu,

That is encouraging to a potential ST130 owner like myself.

As far as seeing a "sheen," I have not seen a screen material yet that did not have at least a noticeable sheen of some sort. I mean, we are shining a light on a surface and especially when you have an image that is mostly bright or white what are we doing but lighting up the surface of the screen? Most of the time, though, the projected image is made up of various details and contrasting bits to keep our eyes distracted from the surface on which it is projected. But when it comes to large, more monochrome images, especially big bright areas, if there isn't much to distract our eye from the screen surface then I'm not sure how we could expect to light up any object or surface in front of our eyes and not see it.

I'm skeptical about any screen surface completely disappearing. Although I'd like to see the Joe Kane Da Lite material in person some time to see how far it goes in that respect.

For normal viewing on movies like, Casino Royale, The Matrix, King Kong, etc the sparkles are hardly visible using Theatre Black 1 mode on TW4000. However, when playing game like GT5 Prologue on PS3 with Living Room mode(much brighter mode) on TW4000, the sparkles are pretty much everywhere on the screen. It's very annoying and worst part is many are right in the center of the screen.

Good to hear that Studiotek 130 doesn't hv sparkle problem. I might need to switch to that. Can any other Studiotek 130 users share their experience on this matter? Would definitely appreciate your thoughts on this.

Thx

Please take a look at my pictures that I posted yesterday. You'll have to copy and paste this link in your browser to view them.

share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=1AcuW7Vo2csXWQ

My main issue with all the screens available right now is that there is always some sort of trade-off for a quality screen. You either go "high-gain" and get sparklie or sheeny surfaces, or you go matte which dulls over time especially if you have lower lumen projectors and your bulb goes to half life, which I experienced.

I'm working on a new screen material which shows the best non-shiny, non-sparklie gain of any screen I've ever seen. It pretty much matches the color output of the Stewart Ultramatte150 from directly below the projector, but pounces everything in the white balance. I've never seen whites like this in any other screen and this is why. Pigment! All vinyl screens whether PVC coated weaved screens or vinyl perforated or solid screens start with a white pigment based product. Usually this means they are loaded with Titanium Dioxide or Tio2. While this pigment is white to our eyes, and is used in industry paints etc. it still does not reflect all visible light. Some of the light is absorbed making the pigment shift to other colors, usually blue. This is because of our perception of colors and how light works. Perfect white is a 100% reflection of Red Green and Blue. If any of these colors does not reflect back and is absorbed, the color you see is a mixture of the others that do reflect back.

That's why when I look at my screen and the Stewart sample, they look very dull in comparison. From straight on, the Stewart looks ok because like I said before, it's Retro-Reflective. But go outside the viewing cone and that pop it did have is now gone and it matches a basic matte screen in color and white reproduction. My new material is near 100% reflective and diffusive so it has and extremely high viewing cone while creating the best white and colors I've seen with no sparklies and no sheen.

It is something I'm still working on and that's why I posted here to see what everyone else is thinking. I'm tired of a dull image because my projector's bulb is at half life. And I know I don't want a sparklie or sheeny image. This new material seems to do exactly what I want it it.

The only issue I've seen so far is the blacks. But I think that is because I have my JVC RS-1 calibrated to my SMX screen right now. So my brightness levels are way up to get the best pop off my screen. My guess is that this new material will allow us with lower lumen projectors to back way off on the brightness output and then I think the blacks could actually come around a bit.

Please take a look at the two pictures I have right now and let me know. Again, I would like feedback and any suggestions.


Thanks,

Matt
Bimmeup

Bimmeup,

You need to be more specific: What Stewart sample are you talking about (viewing cone etc)? There is nothing on your photos to let us know what we are looking at either (it appears to be two materials...what are they?)

When you say you are "working on a new screen material" what is it? A DIY paint? Or are you making an actual screen material?

Bimmeup,

You need to be more specific: What Stewart sample are you talking about (viewing cone etc)? There is nothing on your photos to let us know what we are looking at either (it appears to be two materials...what are they?)

When you say you are "working on a new screen material" what is it? A DIY paint? Or are you making an actual screen material?

R Harkness,

Sorry about the confusion. I'm going to update the photos so you know what you are looking at. Here's the new link to copy and paste.

share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=1AcuW7Vo2csXWQ

In the photo is a Stewart Ultramatte150 sample along with an actual new screen material I'm developing right now. It is not a DIY paint, it's an actual material to be used as a screen. Again, you be able to see in the pictures which is which. One big note, the SMX and Stewart are of course Acoustically Transparent screens and my sample is not yet which I know makes a big difference with how light reacts when it hits it. But still, even if my material was perforated, I still believe you can see from the photos that's it's that much brighter!

Sorry about the confusing statement before. This is something I'm in the development stage on right now and thought it would be good to get feedback from people on this forum and that's why I posted this.

Let me know if it makes sense with the new photos.

Matt
Bimmeup

brianlsu,

That is encouraging to a potential ST130 owner like myself.

As far as seeing a "sheen," I have not seen a screen material yet that did not have at least a noticeable sheen of some sort. I mean, we are shining a light on a surface and especially when you have an image that is mostly bright or white what are we doing but lighting up the surface of the screen? Most of the time, though, the projected image is made up of various details and contrasting bits to keep our eyes distracted from the surface on which it is projected. But when it comes to large, more monochrome images, especially big bright areas, if there isn't much to distract our eye from the screen surface then I'm not sure how we could expect to light up any object or surface in front of our eyes and not see it.

I'm skeptical about any screen surface completely disappearing. Although I'd like to see the Joe Kane Da Lite material in person some time to see how far it goes in that respect.


I do sit rather close also. But your right, you will never get a screen material that has a positive gain, to amplify reflected light in a predetermined path, to completely disappear. I will say the ST130 comes pretty darn close though. Anything other than pure white light, you really can't see the surface.

Now, this is with an RS20 in high lamp mode, aperture set at -12. It makes sense the brighter the image the greater the probability of seeing the texture. But, with my current settings, the picture is anything but dim. This is coming from someone who once watched a 60" plasma in the same space. I spent the extra ducats to get "the best" so I can now change out projectors and keep the screen for years to come.