Silver Fire 4.0 with pt-ar100u (previously: need some help picking a screen paint for my new projector) - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 87 Old 04-19-2012, 08:11 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Skim the entire surface. And the adjoining edges should be tapered so as to create a depression. Shave a tapper using a knife. Don't worry about how it looks,,,,or fits....you trying to create a crevasse for the tape to overlap and for Compound to be pressed into.

In truth, without floating out the Compound far away from the joint, you will not be able to disguise the joint's elevated surface if FiberGlas mesh tape is also used...and it should / must be used.

Do an initial "skim" coat over the Tape joint, then a light coat with a 12" Knife, then Skim Fills above and below the Joint's edges, barely blending those edges....then an entire Skim coat that is lightly sanded smooth, then skimmed again and sanded, primed, and the sprayed.

Dust the sanded skim coats off before doing another coat or starting to paint.

Sounds like a lot...but it's all really just taking care to do it right. and you must do it right the first time because it would be a big 'ol PITA to have to redo after spraying.

Bit I'll say this...if you do do it right, the fully skimmed, sanded surface will be an exceptionally good surface to work with.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 87 Old 04-20-2012, 05:26 AM
Member
 
auge.dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisanoo View Post

Thanks - did you have extra, for 'mistake insurance'? or was it cutting it close?

also, how many coats did you end up doing?

do you have any nice screenshots to tease me with? did you use MM-standard?


I did have a bit extra. Probably enough for one more coat. However, I probably thinned out my mix a bit more than necessary, and then applied the first coat too slowly, which resulted in some runs. I had to sand those out. I then probably did another 7 duster coats for a total of 8 coats - i.e. more than necessary. In other words, I used up my 'mistake insurance', and still had some left over.

I do need to get some screen shots up sometime, and yes, I did use MM-standard.

BTW, my projector is a Mitsubishi HC1500, thus only 720P. However, after I put up this new screen, which replaced a BOC screen, both my wife and kids mentioned the picture looked 3D. They never comment on my A/V gear, so for them to say something is remarkable. Also, I notice no hotspotting, sparklies or degradation of picture when viewed at an angle.

Finally, I projected the image on the plain white melamine board before painting, and would have been happy with that; however, once painted, I compared the screen with the plain piece of melamine I had cut off to make the screen. In ambient light conditions, on the painted screen, while subtle, the image is less wathced out. In dark scenes, the blacks definately appear 'blacker'. So, yes, there are noticeable benefits.

auge.dog is offline  
post #33 of 87 Old 04-20-2012, 05:50 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
MM (as usual) is spot on. I would just add that be very careful when sanding on mesh tape, try hard not to sand the tape as it will add another layer of PITA to the job if you sand the tape itself. Mesh tape is great for this use. Just take your time and it will be good, it really doesn't take that long for each pass. Good luck.
johngraz is offline  
post #34 of 87 Old 04-20-2012, 01:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
definitely option 2 without the screws.
adhere the hardboard to the backing/brace with something like... loctite's pl375
and of course, following mm's additional instructions.
pb_maxxx is online now  
post #35 of 87 Old 04-25-2012, 06:12 AM
Member
 
auge.dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
OK, here's a screenshot. Not the best quality, but this attempt was my first. Anyway, I put up the plain slice of the melamine board about 1/4 from the right to try to show the difference. The picture does not do it justice.
LL

auge.dog is offline  
post #36 of 87 Old 04-25-2012, 07:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 63
couldn't tell a difference.
smokarz is online now  
post #37 of 87 Old 04-25-2012, 08:04 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

couldn't tell a difference.

That's kinda crazy....I can see the difference in just the Thumbnail sized image.

There is a significant amount of Contrast improvement....the Strip of TWH shows to be a lighter Blue.

Yet look at Gandalf's skin tones....and the depth of detail in even the darker areas. Nothing dull or overly retentive there.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #38 of 87 Old 04-26-2012, 05:18 AM
Member
 
auge.dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The difference is definately noticeable in person. It's subtle, but noticeable.

auge.dog is offline  
post #39 of 87 Old 04-26-2012, 06:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smokarz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 3,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

That's kinda crazy....I can see the difference in just the Thumbnail sized image.

There is a significant amount of Contrast improvement....the Strip of TWH shows to be a lighter Blue.

Yet look at Gandalf's skin tones....and the depth of detail in even the darker areas. Nothing dull or overly retentive there.


hmm...the strip is nowehre near the face.
smokarz is online now  
post #40 of 87 Old 04-26-2012, 08:33 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

hmm...the strip is nowehre near the face.

I made two comments.

The latter to point out the image quality of the Screen itself.

One can easily surmise by looking at the strip that the facial tones would be showing "lighter", but just the same they can also appreciate that the colors as shown outside the "strip area" look very correct. And just as well, that would tend to point out that the degree of added IQ was/is also due to the improvement in contrast as provided by the paint application.

If the paint tended to attenuate the amount of reflected light too much...the end result would be a dulling...not enhancement of the image. Color depth (correct saturation) and deeper but accurate shadow detail is the end result of these types of contrast enhancing applications.

That being said, some would dispute that a photo cannot really tell an accurate story. That is a very well stated argument, especially when the shot looks exceedingly good. But it's kinda reverse logic to make such exclamations when many of those same individuals will use "photos' to prove their own points of order regarding their own screens, PJs, tests, etc. and the combinations thereof.

It has always been a case where any image taken and posted must be backed by the veracity and honesty of the submitter. So when someone says that a posted image...while looking good, does not actually do the screen's performance justice, it must be up to the viewer to accept such a statement at face value, or reject it as being wholly indecisive. (...or <<font color="Red">gasp> dishonest...) Likewise if the posted image looks almost "too good" to be true.

The old adage "You cannot make a Silk purse out of a Sow's ear." is a very valid point in all this. A screen that shows excessive directional gain as it relates to the viewable content will play havoc with any Camera's metering system. As will a surface that has too little gain. A Camera set to Auto Exp, and a shot taken using only zoom attenuation to equalize the degree of incoming light to where the shot taken visually represents what the photographer sees is the only best way to even approach accuracy in such instances.

That is why post-processing of screen shots is such a taboo thing. Take away the honesty factor, and everything you see everywhere becomes suspect.

Bluntly put...the lack of an ability to produce decent, normally exposed screen shots of any particular screen, be it Mfg or DIY, pretty much speaks of that Screen application as being deficient in one manner or another, or in the least, the mating of the screen and PJ is a mismatch that works against such acceptable end results. Cameras are not the real determining factor of the camera used in any way falls within a minimum level of performance potential, and is used correctly.

So OK....this is not supposed to be a OT post about the validity of screen shots. That Dog has plenty enough scars already from the whippings it's had over the last several years. But it does serve to justify the shown results above as being accurate enough that when combined with the poster's statement, should allow a reader to make at least a cursory judgement about what he sees.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #41 of 87 Old 04-27-2012, 04:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Loving this thread...these are one of those topics that have a ton of info...and MISinformation, seemingly.

For instance I've rolled out a LOT of walls in my days and never noticed much of anythin really inconsistent, but it seems really common to get MUCH improved results spraying a screen onto a wall/surface. It was mentioned a bit ago, just want to qualify: is it mostly due to the silver content of the paint?

Don't mean to hijack the thread but this seems appropriate, here.

Thanks

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #42 of 87 Old 04-27-2012, 04:44 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Loving this thread...these are one of those topics that have a ton of info...and MISinformation, seemingly.

For instance I've rolled out a LOT of walls in my days and never noticed much of anythin really inconsistent, but it seems really common to get MUCH improved results spraying a screen onto a wall/surface.

Since your not specific on what MISinformation your referring to, (I got the dig though...) I can't address such. However, rolling paint onto a wall for painting's sake and looking at the end results isn't the same as blasting multi-1000 lumen images onto such a surface. With the latter, imperfections otherwise not seen in normal lighting can become extremely obvious.

Quote:


It was mentioned a bit ago, just want to qualify: is it mostly due to the silver content of the paint?

Don't mean to hijack the thread but this seems appropriate, here.

Thanks

James

No Hijack. Misdemeanor Assault perhaps.

Rolling Metallic content paint can:
  • Arrange too many reflective particles perpendicular to the PJs lens, creating a "Mirror-like" excessive reflection.

    The increase in contrast as far as what come off the screen will highlight any imperfections. Small bumps can look like Hills because shadows at their edges are enhanced. Ditto with Roller marks and Pin Holes.

Spraying doesn't guarantee perfect results. Errors can be made doing anything, especially when it's a first attempt. However spraying presents much less risk when attempting to get the smoothest, most evenly distributed surface possible. And done correctly, works to mitigate the tendency of metallic particles to get flattened out, allowing the use of the advantage of increasing reflectivity, but keeping it under control.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #43 of 87 Old 04-27-2012, 05:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
^ oh my, SORRY! Wasn't at all intended for/directed at you! Just noticed that myself.

I was just stressing the MIS-information, lol.

I think you're absolutely essential to this forum.

Sorry for the confusion.

And your explanation as to the pitfalls of "painting for projection" and painting for painting is completely sensible, thanks.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #44 of 87 Old 04-27-2012, 06:07 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ oh my, SORRY! Wasn't at all intended for/directed at you! Just noticed that myself.

I was just stressing the MIS-information, lol.

I think you're absolutely essential to this forum.

Sorry for the confusion.

And your explanation as to the pitfalls of "painting for projection" and painting for painting is completely sensible, thanks.

James

Whew.....,

Now I can continue on with today without taking any more medication than I normally do.

Bear in mind, that if all that is needed is a basic Flat painted surface for accepting a projected image, such blemishes that would otherwise be abhorrent when using a metallic based solution become invisible when "Roller" coated with a "Flat" paint. Flat White pretty much hides all. Flat Gray a little less due what with the contrast enhancement it also provides.

Ya'know....if we all still had to depend upon using full blown $400.00+ Compressor / Pressure Tank -Hose Fed HVLP rigs, you can bet I'd be helping a slew more members refine their Rolling techniques. But all the same, those aspiring to use more advanced DIY Screen apps would still have to accept the need for spraying.

The introduction of the Wagner Control Spray into the equation back in '07, and the subsequent and various other Electric Turbine HVLPs since then (...some for under $50.00...) has changed all that and made it possible for normally cheapskate DIY'ers (...we all know who we are...) to aspire to achieve something not just great....but extraordinarily so.

Hey.....so tell me true. What part of any of the above can be / do you consider MISinformation? Be blunt...if something doesn't seem right, and you yourself noticed it, others might also and lead to unwarranted and unwanted confusion. Discussion of such things is what a Forum is all about. Discussing such things in a civil and constructive manner...even more so.

So sock it to us / me / whomever. Believe me....most all of us have developed Horny Hides.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #45 of 87 Old 04-27-2012, 07:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
^ Hold on. You know I typed "MIS" to emphasize the contrast between information and MISinformation? It has absolutely nothing to do with your username, please believe me. Total coincidence.

The MISinformation I'm referring is largely aimed at a lot of the contradicting stuff you can find elsewhere on the WWW (and sometimes on good ol AVS).

I can assure you that there's nothing you've supplied (that I've read, anyway) that I would categorize as MISinformation, lol.

Just the opposite, actually.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #46 of 87 Old 04-27-2012, 08:52 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ Hold on.
The MISinformation I'm referring is largely aimed at a lot of the contradicting stuff you can find elsewhere on the WWW (and sometimes on good ol AVS).

I can assure you that there's nothing you've supplied (that I've read, anyway) that I would categorize as MISinformation, lol.

Just the opposite, actually.

James

Oh... I already ascertained that by your follow-up post. I was simply fishing for anything I might have been overlooking that might have been misconstrued or in error that might need to be addressed or corrected, regardless of the source.

As I said, you, and everyone else has the express right to express themselves and point out inconspicuous and conspicuous errors, misspoken facts, or too-easily misconstrued advice or commentary. And certainly anything that might be considered dead wrong or in the least misleading.

So don't stop.....we all are/everything is always the better for such constructive input, and no one should be taken to task for offering such when it's done with good intent.

Your completely cool, and by a mile your comments all around are far more courteous than many we have to deal with.

All that other stuff? THAT is just something we all must deal with "Internet-wise".

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #47 of 87 Old 04-28-2012, 09:58 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
artisanoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
hey, i see my thread has seen some action while i was away


so i have the control plus in my possession, was trying some practice runs to see how the thing feels in use - was testing it out with some thinned latex (behr i think, a normal semi gloss wall paint).


im getting a general idea of how it goes down etc, but i must ask, when you get slight orange peeling / texture, what does it generally imply? did i thin too much/little? am i too close to the surface? want to get an idea of what i would need to tweak (before i get crazy and start tweaking too many variables at once )


i have a few things that i had rolled with a foam roller (same paint / material / primer ), and 100% of the time they dry perfectly smooth with almost zero texture. so im sure i must be doing something wrong?...


also, to clarify, when the paint is rolled, being a semi gloss, the finish is not only smooth but also has a nice sheen to it. with the spray, even the times i manage to get it relatively smoother looking, it still has more of a matte look to it, which implies an amount of 'micro' texture. is that expected when spraying?
artisanoo is offline  
post #48 of 87 Old 04-29-2012, 05:51 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
artisanoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i may have answered my own question, but i want to confirm it makes sense -


i added a tad bit more water ( so the paint flows off a stirrer kind of like watery syrup - if that makes sense.. i.e. not quite like water, but a little faster than syrup), and even though it looks like there is texture when the paint lays down, it seems to dry very flat (not like an actual piece of glass, but very smooth to the touch, and the only way to see the texture is is to hold a bright light up to it at an angle.. but otherwise nice)



does that make sense? seems like more water is good, as long as its not enough to make it run (ie give it as much help leveling out as possible without overdoing it)
artisanoo is offline  
post #49 of 87 Old 04-30-2012, 04:46 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisanoo View Post

i may have answered my own question, but i want to confirm it makes sense -


i added a tad bit more water ( so the paint flows off a stirrer kind of like watery syrup - if that makes sense.. i.e. not quite like water, but a little faster than syrup), and even though it looks like there is texture when the paint lays down, it seems to dry very flat (not like an actual piece of glass, but very smooth to the touch, and the only way to see the texture is is to hold a bright light up to it at an angle.. but otherwise nice)



does that make sense? seems like more water is good, as long as its not enough to make it run (ie give it as much help leveling out as possible without overdoing it)

That's how you do it. The paint actually "Dusts out" more evenly, and the extra water actually makes it dry faster, and pull tighter (flatter) against the surface. A higher water-to-paint ratio means that after the water evaporates out, the layer of paint is both thinner and flatter that it otherwise would be.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #50 of 87 Old 05-04-2012, 02:46 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
artisanoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
sorry for the slow responses - its been busy but I am still here.
been busy sanding/painting my old kitchen cabinets so thats been taking up my time (and the space in the basement where ill be setting up this screen, so that has to get done before this does, oh well - such is (real) life)

on this front, status is that I just put in orders for the liquitex silver (2 x 8oz) and a 32oz white pearl. will need to get the rest locally asap.

I am thinking that based on the earlier posts by MM, ill just go with MMudd standard 'as-is', instead of LL+gray, since ill be (attempting) to spray. sound good?


also, Thanks MM for confirming my post above.

the latest change-of-mind I seem to be having is that i may be going back to the idea of spraying over the newly painted sheetrock wall. ill need to patch over a small window, but it should bring the cost down (no subtrate, frame to buy/build). since the wall is new, its pretty smooth already , though im sure ill want to skim / sand it.

the point of all this is this question - i am not 100% sure i trust that the guy that did the sheetrock did it right. is there a way to 'check' if the joints are properly taped? the wall is very smooth, so i have no reason to think they are not, but i want to at least attempt some 'due diligence' to be as sure as possible.

the wall has been up since early-ish winter, and they havent cracked yet - is that promising?
artisanoo is offline  
post #51 of 87 Old 05-04-2012, 04:03 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Well....a sure way is to apply a "Gray" eggshell-finish paint via two light dusters. (Flat Gray Primer works, but needs to be applied heavier...)

The increased contrast the Eggshell Gray provides will highlight the shadows caused by bumps, ridges, horizontal / vertical tape lines...pin-holes..cracks, and previous Roller marks as well.

From your description, I don't think the list of potential defects are nearly that long.

So.....you can risk simply using the Finish Paint Mix to check things out, or the last method that works well, is Spray Priming the Wall w/a Bright White Satin, and then using a 500 watt Halogen Work Light, set to one side of the screen and angled slightly toward the Screen. The wash of indirect "Bright Light" also finds high and low points, but you gotta look more carefully. If none are found, then the White Paint is dead on ready to get coated.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #52 of 87 Old 05-05-2012, 05:42 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
artisanoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks, ill try my best to check out the shape of the wall and see where we are. dont anticipate much issues just because its only a few months old and there only one coat of paint on it so it should be flat as new sheetrock, give or take. thanks for the tips.

you mentioned potentially spraying over bright white satin - would there be any noticeable picture difference using MM over satin vs MM over white primer? or is the fact that it is white the main thing.
artisanoo is offline  
post #53 of 87 Old 05-06-2012, 02:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
The brighter, more reflective the undercoating, the more it helps to retain maximum gain. This does mean however that one must still apply an effective coating over top, one that is both dense enough to provide a crisp, clear image, yet thin enough to allow the underlying White to help boost White level retention.

With any "Gray" surface, the latter can spell the difference between duller or more brilliant Whites especially.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #54 of 87 Old 05-06-2012, 05:25 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
artisanoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
gothca. so white it is, for the final base.

quick question - have been reading some old threads (unfortunately i cant remember which ones now), and i saw some comments with regards to RS-MM where people were advised to add small amounts of white to the mix to combat some 'sparklies' with the lumens from some brighter PJ's.

is that still a potential issue with the current recipe? if not, great.
if it is, is my PJ one of the bright ones that may fall into that category?

its the pt-ar100u, for reference. its fairly bright from what i understand. "rated" at 2800 i *think*?

also, if it IS a potential issue, would it be better to add the white, or just do LL instead (less silver).

any info/advice will be much appreciated!
artisanoo is offline  
post #55 of 87 Old 05-07-2012, 06:08 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Sparklies usually present themselves when the PJ is placed at a noticeably higher elevation than the top edge of the screen due to the angle of reflection from the sitting area, and then only when very bright, pastel colored scenes are viewed.

It doesn't happen always...paint application can have much to do with it. RS-MM-LL has less tendency to show such artifacts than darker mixes with metallic content, simply because with the darker mixes, there is a wider expanse between the darker background and the reflective index of the Mica.

A properly balanced mix tends to attenuate most of the Mica's reflectivity. Lighter colored mixes obviously have less disparity between the color of the Base Mix and the Mica additives.

Reviewing your thread, it seems to me that the original reason for considering the "LL" was that rolling was the primary type of application method considered. Once spraying came into the fore, with the ar100u's brightness, I'd say that you either should add the neutral gray base previously suggested to darken the mix, or ramp up to at least SF 2.5 3.0

You could add some small amount of extra UPW after making up the SF mix, to further mask the reflectivity a small amount, but really, I don't think that you'll be bothered much by "sparklies' in any case.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #56 of 87 Old 05-07-2012, 07:02 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
artisanoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hm. ok. where does RS-MM-standard fit in - not at all?
i thought (possibly incorrectly) that you were advising either the LL+gray, or rm-mm-standard "as-is" (as its already somewhat darker than LL).
Do you think that i am missing the mark here? is rs-mm-standard too light?

i was preparing to do the MM-standard, although we can reconsider.

am i entering that state of confusion that usually comes on right after a screen newbie thinks they finally understands what paint they need?
artisanoo is offline  
post #57 of 87 Old 05-07-2012, 07:21 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisanoo View Post

Hm. ok. where does RS-MM-standard fit in - not at all?
i thought (possibly incorrectly) that you were advising either the LL+gray, or rm-mm-standard "as-is" (as its already somewhat darker than LL).
Do you think that i am missing the mark here? is rs-mm-standard too light?

i was preparing to do the MM-standard, although we can reconsider.

am i entering that state of confusion that usually comes on right after a screen newbie thinks they finally understands what paint they need?

Absolutely!

I suppose I got misdirected over the original Rolling issue...because the "LL" is the only metallic-infused mix that can be effectively rolled. Even with that, due to your preponderance of lumens, I felt darkening up the mix was called for.

So very few ever make comment about "spark-lies' because the effect is no where near as pronounced as it is on Mfg Screens and other Mfg Screen paints that attempt the same degree of effect. It's sorta like they simply expect someone to deal with it. Our Formulas try to address...and mitigate that issue...and we succeed in doing so quite well.

But there are always those who feel if an application isn't absolutely perfect...it's not worthy at all. That advanced, reflective ambient light DIY Screen paint apps have come so far as to have people demand perfection is really in my way of thinking a profuse and welcome compliment.

Unless the comments become nasty of self serving as they tend to do with some.

However, you can go about it like this:
  • Use RS-MM-LL "OR" RS-MM Standard with enough Neutral Gray added to effectively darken the screen by 2x
  • Run the PJ on Low Lamp Mode
  • Calibrate the PJ to the Screen's color and Lamp setting.

If the job you do spraying is righteous enough, viewing the end results will be sufficient to make any specific judgement based on the merits of the mix itself.

Beyond that, if any changes are needed, applying another 3 coats of an adjusted formula directly over the existing paint would be simple enough.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #58 of 87 Old 05-07-2012, 07:30 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
artisanoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
first of all, thanks for the awesomely quick response.
rest of all, ok, that sounds simple enough, which for a first timer i think is a good thing. i assume the only reason LL+NG is a suggestion is for simplicity? (takin' it easy on the new guy )

would you be able to elaborate on how much gray to add? i haven't done much paint mixing before (well, ive done it with artist paint and canvas, but i suppose that doesnt apply ) and im not sure what '2x' means

as an aside -
i know SF is probably ( definitely? ) better than a darkened LL, but if you had to compare a darkened LL ( as you are envisioning it for me, at least) to a specific level of SF, which would it be? the reason i am asking is just so i can poke around a bit on the forum and see some screen shots of 'sort of' what i should expect. I wont be unreasonable and assume it should/would/could look just like an SF mix of some sort, but im just looking for rough approximation, so i can anticipate and day dream about it



one last note, i just took another look at the projector calculator (forgot the FL numbers), and setting the diagonal at ~110 with max zoom (roughly 11' throw), with a 1.0 gain screen it says 39 FL. is that ridiculous? does that mean i can fairly dark on the gray without much color loss? although i will probably ( like you said) run the PJ in eco / cinema mode. not sure what the effective FL would be at that point (assuming the calculator assumes full brightness?) - anyway just thought i would add that in there to help decide how much gray to add in.
Also, to the point above you made about the height of the PJ and artifacts, mine will likely be just *below* the top of the screen due to the low ceiling i am dealing with.
artisanoo is offline  
post #59 of 87 Old 05-08-2012, 06:23 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,867
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 215
The amount of NG to add is subjective. RS-MM-LL is the equivalent of a SF 2.5 mix without any Colorant added.

Consider that when using the ultra-dark SF Colorant, it's added in 1 oz. increments to obtain a numerical designation (2 oz = SF 2.0) With the much lighter shade of NG you might purchase at Michaels (Liqutex Basics in a Tube), that amount should be doubled. So I would add a full 4 oz. Tube to obtain the equivalent shading found in SF 2.0

Be advised that it might be necessary to add a small amount of the specified Gold to offset any push into Blue that the NG might create when combined with the RS-MM-LL mix. Just because the Gray is Neutral doesn't mean it will stay that way if mixed with other combinations of paint. Hence one of the reasons we use a specific formula for the SF Colorant instead of relying on whatever combination another Paint Mfg might use to create their own NG.

As for the difference between SF and RS-MM, it all is determined by the balance of the amount of reflective components against the amount of Colorant.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #60 of 87 Old 05-08-2012, 07:56 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
artisanoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
interesting, so the final result may differ for example, when adding lets say X oz. of some NG, vs adding 2X of a 'half as dark' NG.

is that the reason the SF colorant is so dark, so you can add less of it as a percent of the reflective elements? i.e. less 'dark color' is potentially better than 'more light color' tinting?

didnt think about the gold, thats a good point - though the gold would add in some more reflective components. assuming this is not a huge issue..?

as far as the amount, i get that it is subjective, so heres a more specific question - given the projector and the potential for brightness and FL's, what is the darkest you would recommend before its 'too dark'? i suppose we can talk in 'terms' of SF ratings (which we can translate based on what you said above about the 2:1 ratio of NG:SF colorant comparison). that way i would have at least an upper and lower boundary of where i should be playing as far as darkness levels.

heres a practical question - aside from the potential reflection problems (lining up of mica, etc), would rolling/brushing a small sample of a mix give a decent approximation of what the final screen would look like? if so, might it be a good idea to make a few small samples with just a small of paint to hold in front of the PJ to decide what level of darkness/gold offset would work for me? i suppose samples can be sprayed too, but if i was experimenting with adding differing amounts of NG, the turnaround time would be a lot faster between tests if i didnt have to clean/prepare the gun each time.

also, how much paint would be needed to cover a ~100"er (probably mostly light/dusters, as its my first go)? I would like to 'reserve' an amount for the main application, and then i can use some extra for the tests to see what level of NG i might want to add to the LL - make sense?


thanks - learning a lot here! the more you explain, the more questions i have
artisanoo is offline  
Reply DIY Screen Section

User Tag List

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