"DIY screen paint" article at Projectorcentral.com - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 110 Old 03-19-2012, 05:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
They could have double dipped even, and done one screen as a neutral Gray using the exact same SW paint only adding the Gray. Two optimally made screens...each of them under $100 wonders...and a direct comparison made between both...pros and cons. A pretty easy do if only the "dead on neutral" had been mixed instead of SS.

they would have been hard pressed (with time or energy) to the match level of grey of the SS.
still, i'm not so sure the result would have been visually ALL that different.
you'd have to check carefully to see what the makeup of the grey is.
i still think some of the caveats, like poor skin tones, dirty light yellows, etc would still remain... just maybe not as highlighted as SS...
giving them more reason to subjectively dismiss DIY... would it seem?

i'd like to see a test of the following non gain grey screens...
1) SS
2) Sherwain Willaims Unique grey
3) similiar shade of grey to the two above using... Sherwain Williams Pro Classic white and Liquitex Basics Nuetral Grey N8 to get to a similiar grey shade as the two above.

i suspect the 3rd would win out.
still, there only so much a simple non gain grey can do... nuetral or otherwise.
pb_maxxx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 110 Old 03-19-2012, 06:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mandarax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vullcan View Post

Sorry not really following you here mandarax but it seems you are cautioning against some of the DIY paints recommended on this forum because they are not as color neutral as a whiter solution?

I understand your concerns about wanting some kind of measureable scientific evaluation completed so there is a baseline, but just to speak for a moment on the color neutrality aspect....

I believe most applications anyone seeks on these forums almost always involves some degree of ambient lighting. I have witnessed firsthand after painting 3 screens the "color shift" that occurs once the color goes from white to grey, and while it is there its nothing to get up in arms about. To most people seeking advice here, the contrast you gain by having darker blacks far outweighs any color shift the grey paint might incur.

Anyone who is driven to have the most accurate picture possible will most likely be buying calibration equipment at some point as well. Calibrating the image yourself is totally DIY and I would think most people who build their own home theater, paint their own screen, etc would be right down that alley as well.

Threads... Don't engage with the people you think have a potential for getting a thread closed This thread is about what Evan reviewed. ProjectorCentral dot com review vs AVS forum commentary about SS. colorimetry, and all the other attributes is obviously a valid comparison to make.

What I don't agree with or strongly oppose is people giving advise when it is obvious that there is an absolute void in the understanding of colorimetry and offering nothing more than a continuous series of pontifications of greatness.

You either agree with the attributes as described by Evan, or you agree with the attributes of the screen as described by people in this forum.

If there is an understanding of colorimetry then its not really difficult to go through what makes up the formula and predict with over a 95 % predictability what the screen will do. That is fairly basic.

Our human ability of getting colors correct is very good. If you know what you are doing it shouldnt take more than a few months to get to where you want to be. Joe Kane took a few weeks to do his affinity brand screens. If you have no idea then you will be chasing your tail for years. Another big difference. Joe Kane would want you to test and report every attribute of his screen. If someone was chasing their tail then you would never get straight answers and there would always be a shroud of deflection vs reflection, more fiction than fact. I would recommend unless you have some money to burn that you stay away from experiments with no data and just pontifications about greatness. Your time would be better spent trying to evaluate the actual ingredients.

If someone is saying Silver is the way to go. Ask Why has silver been rejected. If someone is saying a black screen is the way to go its easy to go and get the information on why for home theater black loses more attributes in a projection system and why it has been rejected. Getting back to the article Evan explains his reasoning for grey and white. If someone is stating that these facts are wrong its not too difficult to do a bit of research and see what every top person in the industry is saying is good for a projection system and why. You will note the biggest difference is that on one hand you will have why, details, facts, and a consistent data base of information. When you find that you have someone on the opposing end of the spectrum with no facts, a void of information, and going into territories already tried and rejected... I would suggest going down a different path.
Probability is great that you will waste your time and energy and money.

Calibration will get you closer to getting the colorimetry correct. You can then know when you see some color mixes what is going to work and what is not in short order. You will know what to reject.

If cost is a factor then make sure you tally up all the costs. Making mistakes can be the a lot of fun. I can't think of any other place to make mistakes then some of the stuff that is being recommended here. I seen some pictures of some screens with screens being painted in peoples homes. Some of the airborn particles and paints being offered here are extremely dangerous for your health. Not only should the painter include the use for a mask but you sure as hell don't want anyone making this INSIDE your home. Also let it cure outside. Your family health is not worth risking. Its basic understanding but you don't want to have your home turn into an industrial paint booth.
mandarax is offline  
post #63 of 110 Old 03-19-2012, 08:34 PM
Member
 
johngraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think you are trying as the reviewer did to simply take the purists view. Not all HT people and especially DYI HT people are purists trying to have the truest cinematic experience. Many of us have to worry about ambient light and also need to watch TV and subject ourselves to gaming and other things that would make the purists heads spin. A perfect white screen might be ideal but throw in my need for some ambient light performance, constant TV and gaming and now what I need probably isn't a white screen. I have to sacrifice the purist whites, maybe. Do me and my family like the colors and screen too bright, maybe. Are we going to spend hundreds of dollars to calibrate the PJ, doubtful. Would my wife agree to very dark walls and ceiling, no way. So unfortunately compromise enters and though I appreciate the science, I care much more about what we like and what works for us. Ignorant perhaps, but it makes us happy so I can live with that.
johngraz is offline  
post #64 of 110 Old 03-20-2012, 07:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mandarax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngraz View Post

I think you are trying as the reviewer did to simply take the purists view. Not all HT people and especially DYI HT people are purists trying to have the truest cinematic experience. Many of us have to worry about ambient light and also need to watch TV and subject ourselves to gaming and other things that would make the purists heads spin. A perfect white screen might be ideal but throw in my need for some ambient light performance, constant TV and gaming and now what I need probably isn't a white screen. I have to sacrifice the purist whites, maybe. Do me and my family like the colors and screen too bright, maybe. Are we going to spend hundreds of dollars to calibrate the PJ, doubtful. Would my wife agree to very dark walls and ceiling, no way. So unfortunately compromise enters and though I appreciate the science, I care much more about what we like and what works for us. Ignorant perhaps, but it makes us happy so I can live with that.

The SS screen is not to me a Grey screen. In fact I wouldn't even call it a screen. I believe a "projection screen" has to be able to reflect an image and maintain the fidelity of the image while overcoming the imperfections of the room. The SS does not have the capability to do this.

Evan wrote his context and preferences so the reader had some context and I didn't read it as him dismissing Grey screens entirely. If you look at Joe Kane Affinity screens, he has a Grey screen in his line up. Joe could be the ultimate purist. His and other Grey screens that are good don't distort color for no reason. One of the big reasons is to reject ambient light.

A purist will analyze the room, discuss the vagaries with their client, measure the room and try to minimize the imperfections based on the rooms usage.

Most of the rooms in get involved with are not just bat caves. Alot of the time you can convince even the most stubborn wives to temporarily try doing some esthetically pleasing designs around the screen area. You can also mod wall colors and come up with pleasing alternative coverings in the main reflective prime areas which is also part of the projection system.

The projector also can have limits to its color space by design that cannot be corrected. With products like the dvdo duo and the Lumagen these now can be included in the system to enable correction.

The budget is the biggest determining factor in the projection system. I am not sure how to truly define a purist. I look at the entire purpose of the room and the budget as the first logical step and then combine all the factors to come up the best solution.

A purist to me would know all the factors involved in the shortcomings in the room and choose accordingly. The diy purist is going to do the same thing. A purist will know for instance in what environment can a highpower screen be used to resolve shortcomings and also with placement and distance from seating and projector geometry to almost completely eliminate uniformity issues.

It's unfortunate that you have a forum where facts and information get suffocated. I offered in a post to do testing for you guys and the post got deleted. It's simple if someone is asked to backup their claims and you don't get a response its predictably a fabrication.

It seems like a feckless exercise in my opinion to discuss Evan review in any context other than the items he covered. It's his review and the description of the process he went through to attain what was acceptable to him.

Evans article is about the information contained in the article. Shoulda, couldaa,woulda, seems to be to be a feckless exercise. The mutations from that would be an finite number. The article is about Evan and his journey. It's relevance here is to compare his journey with the attributes he has to this ss as a solution to what people find here. What's the point of agreeing with his findings and then throwing stones on how he arrived at those same conclusions.
mandarax is offline  
post #65 of 110 Old 03-20-2012, 07:17 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,246
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

I seen some pictures of some screens with screens being painted in peoples homes. Some of the airborn particles and paints being offered here are extremely dangerous for your health. Not only should the painter include the use for a mask but you sure as hell don't want anyone making this INSIDE your home. Also let it cure outside. Your family health is not worth risking. Its basic understanding but you don't want to have your home turn into an industrial paint booth.

Nonsense. If the instructions given are followed...and they "are" given and I don't know of anyone who has said they refused to follow them..., then people use .7 ml to 2.0 mil Plastic hung from the ceiling with Thumbtacks to create an impromptu Paint booth.

......and, if doing such is not possible, and spraying outside or in a garage can't be done, well golly..whaddya know...we steer them toward Rolling. Many do "Roll". Many do spray. No one as yet complained about anything much worse than a little dust. Lot's of people do complain about Roller marks though.

What your trying to foster off to people is how we are trying to suggest wrongful and dangerous things for people to do, and that the screen applications being suggested, some of which have been utilized by literally thousands and have stood unmolested for years, are so wrong as to be an offense against nature. That's not true, it won't wash out as being anything else but false, and no one on this Forum is ever going to buy into that line of reasoning.

I've painted 72" to 180"+ screens in finished homes, in rooms that had 100.00 yd carpet and furniture that cost more than most people's luxury cars, and because proper procedures were followed, no issues...whatsoever. It's those procedures and mandates that we strive to relate and instruct to any who need such help.

This is the DIY Screen Forum, dedicated to making DIY Screens and the methods by which they are made. It's not the "Let's rag on about the ineffectual aspects of DIY Screens and the making thereof."

As far as the dispute about colors, grays, shifts and such...well you know where you can find all the examples of Screens that match your desired criteria. They exist on "Screens", a Forum where those who are looking for such frequent, so why continue to make non-issues on DIY Screen forum about how DIY Screens don't measure up to your own personal standards?

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is offline  
post #66 of 110 Old 03-20-2012, 07:34 AM
Member
 
johngraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have no doubt that for what he was covering that his article was excellent. In fact, myself, like many others probably read his article long before they ever visited this site or the other popular one. I think it was great that he even considered a DYI approach on that site as I am sure the advertisers were not tickled pink about it. I must say that even on the other site, one I think who would claim to be based more on "science" I received a recommendation to go get an OTS paint tinted to SS as a simple and neutral gray paint. Agreeing on SS as a decent alternative seems to be one of the few things that both sites would suggest. I think both would say that its not a world beater, but a simple OTS solution that is a good jumping off point for DYI folks. The readings seem to bear that out as it breaks down to very close to neutral so I am not sure what the "science" is in this case. I have never seen a SS screen so I can't comment. I ended up rolling a BW screen for now awaiting warmer weather to spray a sheet of Sintra. I like it, but it sparkles in a very few spots which is a bit distracting to me. It also seems a little grainy to me eyes. Nobody else really notices it until I point it out (which I no longer do....). Soon I will be looking for recommendations for something else, looking to reduce the sparkles I see and perhaps something that isn't as grainy. Of course this could be because of my room conditions or because I have a pretty inexpensive projector - an HD66. I am also use to a large plasma screen so my expectations may not be realistic for my set-up. In any event, it is a still a great place for the family to hang out and I am very happy with where we are at now, just looking to tweak it and maek it the best it can be under our circumstances.

FWIW, I convinced my wife to allow a khaki colored walls instead of white and to paint a 3 foot wide deep wine colored section of the ceiling around the edge of the room to help to try to controlled some of the projector light. It is still noticeable,, but I think it does help. It was a hassle to tape off and paint. We have 8 can lights, all spots in a totally light controlled bat-cave set up. Unfortunately she likes to read or do other things down there while we watch sports and keeping the lights off all the time is not a great set-up for us. These are the types of compromises I am referring to. With a gray screen we can have the back row of lights on at 100% and still have a very nice picture for the rest of us to watch.

It might be great if there was a "scientific" spreadsheet that could take all of the many various factors into account and make a recommendation, but I haven't seen one. Until then I think the folks on this board (and the other) do a great public service sharing their knowledge and experience with us noobs who are just trying to be decent DYIers. I don't think they ignore science, but I do think they know what works through years of experience and trial and error. Anyway just my 2 cents....
johngraz is offline  
post #67 of 110 Old 03-21-2012, 09:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
so did anyone ever took PJ Central's review seriously and went ahead ot paint a SW White screen?

i like to see some results and commentaries. if not, i'll have to paint one myself. lol

thanks
smokarz is online now  
post #68 of 110 Old 03-21-2012, 09:42 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,246
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

so did anyone ever took PJ Central's review seriously and went ahead ot paint a SW White screen?

i like to see some results and commentaries. if not, i'll have to paint one myself. lol

thanks

Go for it.

Despite all the rigamarole you read...I myself have suggested that Screen to well over a dozen members. And...the primary component paint has already been in use as a Base paint for some time.

There was never anything wrong with Evans testimonial about the SW Screen's potential and abilities. The SW Screen is everything it was reputed to be. The issue was that advances in DIY Screen making as a whole seemed to be ignored, as if the "discovery" was something of a new thing......and the only representation of DIY Paint solutions chosen was a under-achieving DIY solution. It seemed as if it was intended to make it easier to highlight the advantages and performance of the SW Screen. Certainly understandable...but unfortunate nonetheless.

That sort of undermining of DIY screen making, unintentional or otherwise, has been going on for quite some time. Even so, to have PC focus on ANY DIY solution, and give it high marks can only be construed as being "all good"...and certainly a Chafing sore spot for those who proclaim that nothing DIY is worth even a low volume "hoot-n-holler'.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is offline  
post #69 of 110 Old 03-21-2012, 11:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kirnak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
More fuel on the fire...

Here's some readings I took with an Eye1 Pro: The first number is cd/m2 with the sensor adjusted for maximum reading. The second number is cd/m2 with the meter lowered about 25 - 30 degrees. the third fourth and fifth numbers are the RGB values. The last number is deltaE from perfect neutral. A deltaE of less than 1.0 is considered perfect. Less than 3.0 is considered to be so close as to be indistinguishable from neutral by the human eye, at least according to what I've read.

Glidden Diamond 450 Titanium White: (It's the Base Diamond 450, Not all dealers realize that is Titanium White as it's not labeled as such. I got this label information from Glidden HQ.)
36.35 31.6 245,246,243 1.43

Behr 1850 UPW:
35.3 32.05 249,249,246 1.95

Sherwin-Williams ProClassic Smooth Enamel Satin Extra White:
31.25 29.5 240,241,236 2.58

Carrada Brilliant White 1.4 Gain:
36.1 30.8 242,242,236 3.22

Considering a white screen only: The SW ProClassic is not close to the best out there. That honor goes to the Glidden, followed closely by the lowly Behr UPW. (The Glidden is only available at Glidden Professional stores, not at Lowes or Home Depot.)
Kirnak is offline  
post #70 of 110 Old 03-21-2012, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
so you're saying any of those 3 painted white screen is more neutral than an $800 commercial screen?

btw, did you take gain measurements on those paints?
smokarz is online now  
post #71 of 110 Old 03-21-2012, 01:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

so did anyone ever took PJ Central's review seriously and went ahead ot paint a SW White screen?
thanks

actually i've read of a handful of people on this forum that have.
and i've read of at least 2 or 3 painted a SW white screen first and then later switched the RS-MaxxMudd LL...
and according to them there was no comparison... they love'd their LL screen much more.

Quote:


so you're saying any of those 3 painted white screen is more neutral than an $800 commercial screen?

that's exactly what he's saying.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #72 of 110 Old 03-21-2012, 02:05 PM
Member
 
johngraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post



that's exactly what he's saying.

No, that's what the science is saying.

Guess they don't call it Ultra Pure White for nothing.
johngraz is offline  
post #73 of 110 Old 03-21-2012, 02:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngraz View Post

No, that's what the science is saying.

Guess they don't call it Ultra Pure White for nothing.

now cut that out! i quoted the RGB data numbers (science) from SEVERAL nuetral sources for SS... and guess what!?
it was completely ignored... because their own subjective reasoning backed by a single subjective review apparantly trumped the science.

i'll paraphase what was said... 'that anyone could see without instruments that SS is not remotely close to nuetral'

i guess the science only matters some of the time.

actually, prof55 said it best...

Science is great. Used carefully, it gives us an objective starting point to rule out that which won't please us. But beyond that, almost everyone makes their final choice based on preference, not specs. Here's a great example:

A screen can meet all the measured "requirements" and still be rejected by many. The ultimate test is personal preference, a factor that will never have a scientific test. Is it possible for a screen with no published specs to thrill intelligent people? Obviously it is, or we wouldn't see so many glowing reports of such screens.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #74 of 110 Old 03-21-2012, 06:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mandarax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think its funny how its just an article and that its most troubling aspect to some is just the fact that it isnt on here so they have no control over it. Some people think that it should have been about them. How crazy is that.??? As far as people wanting science I offered to give a result against a reference screen for the other offerings here. Guess who and why complained about it to have that post removed. There is no interest in truth by the person that complained about the post.

The notion that Evan should have somehow make the article or gave a flying fart about anyone specific is just ludicrous. First its stated by a person on here as being a myopic article and then why isnt about me... and I did this and that... so I am better and ... blah blah blah... So obnoxious and bombastic. Its an article by by Evan and a short journey he took with DIY.. The fact that someone couldnt answer why something was better then what Evan states is a reference to him speaks volumes. Its just more me me me with nothing to respond to. I asked why over a dozen times why what someone is making a claim that they came up with a screen better in 2006 to a Stewart Studiotek 100 and 130. Silence. If Evan comes up with something that he is happy with then he isnt going to keep doing other iterations once he believes he hits reference. Evan goes through the process which makes sense. When you have someone saying its both good for DIY and myopic and other negatives its blubbering.
The article is NOT ABOUT YOU.. When one of your attributes to DIY is to make people leave a forum on one of the largest scales I have ever seen that is not a good thing for DIY.. But how someone can attribute an article about a DIY screen to themselves is just weird. Someone that complains about a thread when someone that is ISF trained and has professional grade equipment and software does not want advancements in science and really is so scared of the truth they will do anything and everything to stifle it.
mandarax is offline  
post #75 of 110 Old 03-26-2012, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
ok, so anyone painted this Sherwin Williams white?

i want to hear your impressions, PM me if you like.
smokarz is online now  
post #76 of 110 Old 03-26-2012, 01:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

More fuel on the fire...

Here's some readings I took with an Eye1 Pro: The first number is cd/m2 with the sensor adjusted for maximum reading. The second number is cd/m2 with the meter lowered about 25 - 30 degrees. the third fourth and fifth numbers are the RGB values. The last number is deltaE from perfect neutral. A deltaE of less than 1.0 is considered perfect. Less than 3.0 is considered to be so close as to be indistinguishable from neutral by the human eye, at least according to what I've read.

Glidden Diamond 450 Titanium White: (It's the Base Diamond 450, Not all dealers realize that is Titanium White as it's not labeled as such. I got this label information from Glidden HQ.)
36.35 31.6 245,246,243 1.43

Behr 1850 UPW:
35.3 32.05 249,249,246 1.95

Sherwin-Williams ProClassic Smooth Enamel Satin Extra White:
31.25 29.5 240,241,236 2.58

Carrada Brilliant White 1.4 Gain:
36.1 30.8 242,242,236 3.22

Considering a white screen only: The SW ProClassic is not close to the best out there. That honor goes to the Glidden, followed closely by the lowly Behr UPW. (The Glidden is only available at Glidden Professional stores, not at Lowes or Home Depot.)



Just going through these numbers again.

Looks like both the Glidden and Behr are signifcantly brighter than the SW Extra White? Is this true?


Also, had the Glidden been tinted?
smokarz is online now  
post #77 of 110 Old 03-26-2012, 04:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mandarax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
are these numbers of someone taking measurements of the surface of the paint with a i1 pro?
mandarax is offline  
post #78 of 110 Old 03-26-2012, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

are these numbers of someone taking measurements of the surface of the paint with a i1 pro?

i believe that's the case.
smokarz is online now  
post #79 of 110 Old 03-27-2012, 08:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

Science is great. Used carefully, it gives us an objective starting point to rule out that which won't please us. But beyond that, almost everyone makes their final choice based on preference, not specs. Here's a great example:

A screen can meet all the measured "requirements" and still be rejected by many. The ultimate test is personal preference, a factor that will never have a scientific test. Is it possible for a screen with no published specs to thrill intelligent people? Obviously it is, or we wouldn't see so many glowing reports of such screens.

"Stick with science" is one possible approach, but to me it seems a rather narrow mantra. Personally, I use both objective AND subjective testing when making any equipment decision, and not just for home theater. If science were the end-all, all the "smart" people would drive the exact same car...


Been reading this thread a few times, and the above statement really lost me.

When one claimed 'A' is better than 'B', one is expected to provide scientific fact-based evidence to support such claim.

However, when one says "I like 'A' better than 'B'", then both science and and facts are irrelevant, since it's a personal and subjective opinion.

Now, what are we talking about here again? Science or personal preference?
smokarz is online now  
post #80 of 110 Old 03-27-2012, 09:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kirnak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Sorry for no reply, I've been in Hawaii kiteboarding. Woo Hoo!

Yep, all measurements were with an eye1 Pro. Yep, the Glidden and Behr both blew the doors of the SW, and are both better than the Carrada screen. I'll be painting my screen with the Glidden as soon as I finish treating the room. The test panels I painted looked incredible, but I have not seen a full screen. No gain testing was done, but you should get an idea how the three paints compare to the Carrada screen. The Carrada is listed at 1.4 gain, but I believe it's been tested at around 1.25 to 1.3 gain? At least those numbers are what's rolling around in my head.

Bear in mind that a white screen is only an option--IMHO--with a fully treated theater room. Any ambient light or reflected light from the screen is going to wash it out compared to a gray screen. That said, with my 90% treated theater room the Glidden panels looked great. Zero graininess, sparklies, hotspotting, or any other negative attribute. Just a crystal clear window into another world.

The Glidden and Behr numbers look very close, but test panels side by side showed the Glidden to be easily superior, at least to my eye.

The Glidden paint is the base with no tinting added.
Kirnak is offline  
post #81 of 110 Old 03-27-2012, 10:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Sorry for no reply, I've been in Hawaii kiteboarding. Woo Hoo!

Yep, all measurements were with an eye1 Pro. Yep, the Glidden and Behr both blew the doors of the SW, and are both better than the Carrada screen. I'll be painting my screen with the Glidden as soon as I finish treating the room. The test panels I painted looked incredible, but I have not seen a full screen. No gain testing was done, but you should get an idea how the three paints compare to the Carrada screen. The Carrada is listed at 1.4 gain, but I believe it's been tested at around 1.25 to 1.3 gain? At least those numbers are what's rolling around in my head.

Bear in mind that a white screen is only an option--IMHO--with a fully treated theater room. Any ambient light or reflected light from the screen is going to wash it out compared to a gray screen. That said, with my 90% treated theater room the Glidden panels looked great. Zero graininess, sparklies, hotspotting, or any other negative attribute. Just a crystal clear window into another world.

The Glidden and Behr numbers look very close, but test panels side by side showed the Glidden to be easily superior, at least to my eye.

The Glidden paint is the base with no tinting added.


Cool, I think I am going to take your words and give that Glidden 450 a try. Do you have the UPC # for that paint? Want to make sure I grab the right can when I go into the store.

What sheen did you use? Matte, Satin?
smokarz is online now  
post #82 of 110 Old 03-27-2012, 10:26 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,246
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 254
If you simply ask for Glidden Diamond 450 in Titanium White, you'll get what you need. Just be sure to read the label on the Can too...that always helps.

One should always keep in mind that not every statement or review is definitive, or exacting, and "sample" measurements do not / cannot always relate to Real World' results when using a full sized representation. To that effect, far too often such tests are used by some to simply bolster their own points of view. On this DIY Forum, it's the actual end results by posters such as Kirnak that really tell the stories people need to hear.

Only the examples and responses given by actual end users under a variety of circumstances can offer the widest possible overview of what is...and isn't something that works. It's just those types of postings that convince people to give any particular application "a go". Seldom if ever does it happen on the weight of any one persons comments. smokarz, if your own results bear witness to the correctness of Kirnak's findings, that should serve to convince you that there is always something to be considered beyond the expressed and "supposedly definitive" opinions some like to make. Absolutely, a well known and respected Reviewer or frequent Contributor will bear having their suggestions considered more strongly than a newcomer touting something unknown, but just as certainly, having a closed-minded approach to DIY Screen making isn't conductive to finding newer and better solutions. Kirnak showed that to be the case quite convincingly.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is offline  
post #83 of 110 Old 03-27-2012, 02:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kirnak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

Cool, I think I am going to take your words and give that Glidden 450 a try. Do you have the UPC # for that paint? Want to make sure I grab the right can when I go into the store.

What sheen did you use? Matte, Satin?

Name: Glidden Professional Diamond 450, Titanium White. (It's the base, no tint added.)
Product code: 7100-0110N, Velvet Matte.
Kirnak is offline  
post #84 of 110 Old 03-27-2012, 03:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
i really respect and appreciate kirnak's posts. he lays out the objective facts and occasionally gives his own honest subjective opinions... without the need to dis-respect anyone else's subjective opinions and without lacing his comments with sarcasm, ill comments, or bias... both on this forum and on others as well.

surfin' in hawaii and owns an eye1 pro...

once again... i'm jealous.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #85 of 110 Old 04-03-2012, 03:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mandarax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am confused.


Taking shots with a I1pro on screen or paint surfaces. With what software? How was it measured?

"Yep, the Glidden and Behr both blew the doors of the SW, and are both better than the Carrada screen."

How??
mandarax is offline  
post #86 of 110 Old 04-03-2012, 06:24 PM
Senior Member
 
jherring69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: pei, canada
Posts: 362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

I am confused.


Taking shots with a I1pro on screen or paint surfaces. With what software? How was it measured?

"Yep, the Glidden and Behr both blew the doors of the SW, and are both better than the Carrada screen."

How??

I missed you.
jherring69 is offline  
post #87 of 110 Old 04-04-2012, 12:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kirnak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

Taking shots with a I1pro on screen or paint surfaces. With what software?

I used both HCFR and BabelColor for software.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

How was it measured?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Here's some readings I took with an Eye1 Pro: The first number is cd/m2 with the sensor adjusted for maximum reading. Using HCFR and a 100 IRE test pattern The second number is cd/m2 with the meter lowered about 25 - 30 degrees. the third fourth and fifth numbers are the RGB values. Using BabelColor The last number is deltaE from perfect neutral. Also BabelColor A deltaE of less than 1.0 is considered perfect. Less than 3.0 is considered to be so close as to be indistinguishable from neutral by the human eye, at least according to what I've read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

"Yep, the Glidden and Behr both blew the doors of the SW, and are both better than the Carrada screen."

How??

I assumed that was obvious. The Glidden and the Behr are both closer to color neutral than the Carrada, the Glidden by a large margin. Also, they both had less of a drop in brightness when the sensor was moved off angle. Though I can't swear to the exact angle I used, I can swear that the same angle change was used in each test. Multiple tests of each material were used to verify accuracy. All results were easily repeated multiple times.

The Glidden and Behr both blew the doors of the SW because they are both closer to color neutral and are both significantly brighter than the SW. I assume someone going with a white paint is trying to maximize brightness. If you're not, a gray screen is clearly the better choice. Additionally, subjective comparisons--by myself--showed the Glidden to be clearly superior to the SW. Perceived blacks were equal to my eye, while brighter sections--both in movie scenes and ANSI contrast patterns--were visibly brighter by a good margin with the Glidden. The Glidden panel just looked great to my eye, the SW looked pale in comparison. Colors were brighter with the Glidden, it just looked better in any scene I threw up.

I have no horse in this race. I was actually thinking a mix I had designed would be better. What I found was that the Glidden was so good that the tiny advantage my mix had was not visible or worth the effort. My original plan was to do a screen with my mix, my testing convinced me to use the Glidden. When I have done the screen, I'll report back how I like it overall. That, after all, is the real test of any screen.

BTW, thanks so much for the kind words Mississippi Man and pb_maxx!
Kirnak is offline  
post #88 of 110 Old 04-04-2012, 05:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mandarax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The believe I1 pro is to be used in two different angles to get accurate readings off a screen.

Also if you were using software relevant for printing that comes with the i1pro then there is some issues that you should be aware of.
mandarax is offline  
post #89 of 110 Old 04-04-2012, 06:27 AM
Member
 
johngraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

The believe I1 pro is to be used in two different angles to get accurate readings off a screen.

Also if you were using software relevant for printing that comes with the i1pro then there is some issues that you should be aware of.

Won't you ever be satisfied?
johngraz is offline  
post #90 of 110 Old 04-04-2012, 09:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
Kirnak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

The believe I1 pro is to be used in two different angles to get accurate readings off a screen.

??? No, that's not true. Unless you're talking about some technique I've not heard of. Even then, the existence of that technique would not invalidate the technique I use. For calibrating I adjust the angle for maximum cd/m2. Then I calibrate the screen/PJ. I suppose someone might argue the validity of my technique, even though it is widely accepted and used, but that still would have no bearing on the results I posted. Since I used the same technique for all materials, the relative merits of each material are accurately displayed.

What I did was adjust the angle for maximum cd/m2, then lowered the sensor a set amount. The first reading, while NOT a scientific test for gain, can be used to judge the relative maximum gain between the different materials. The second figure gives an indication of gain dropping with viewing angle change.

Again, this is NOT a scientific test for gain. A material that hotspotted could show a high first number while having a low overall gain. The tests I ran merely give an objective, measured, indication of how the different screen materials perform in relation to each other. I feel safe in stating that the Glidden has a slightly higher overall gain than the Carrada, because maximum cd/m2 is very slightly higher, and the loss of cd/m2 is less with a change in viewing angle. The Glidden quite obviously has a significantly higher maximum gain than the SW, between 14% and 16% depending on how you calculate the difference. Call it 15%. However, judging overall gain difference is more problematic. The SW has less of a cd/m2 drop off with viewing angle than the Glidden. (Which, BTW, is exactly what you'd expect with a lower gain material of similar color.) The Glidden is only about 7% brighter than the SW in the Off Angle test. So overall gain is somewhere between 7% and 15% more with the Glidden. (Of course, Manufacturers usually only list maximum gain for their screens.)

BTW, none of the paints had any visible hotspotting. My Carrada panel was too small for me to accurately judge it for hotspotting, but I doubt that it does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarax View Post

Also if you were using software relevant for printing that comes with the i1pro then there is some issues that you should be aware of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

I used both HCFR and BabelColor for software.

Neither HCFR nor BabelColor are X-rite software. (X-Rite is the maker of the i1 Pro.) While I have read some opinions that HCFR understates cd/m2, that does not affect it's ability to show a relative difference between materials.

As far as BabelColor, I feel confident in stating that the color results obtained with it and an i1 Pro are extremely accurate. Are there more accurate meters? Certainly, but they cost many thousands of dollars. A third party lab that calibrates i1 Pros has gone on record stating that of all the i1 pros they have ever tested, not one has ever been out of spec. I'm happy with that record and it is why I have confidence in the results I obtained.
Kirnak is offline  
Reply DIY Screen Section

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off