AVS Forum banner

Silver Fire 4.0 with pt-ar100u (previously: need some help picking a screen paint for my new projector)

7K views 86 replies 8 participants last post by  MississippiMan 
#1 ·

update - this thread started as a NG/MaxxMudd advice question - and turned into me using SF 4.0...  anyone looking because the updated thread name, just go on to somewhere in the middle of the 3rd page to where i changed gears from MM to SF. 

hoping to get screenshots up at some point for people considering this paint with this PJ

 

original post starts here:

------------------------------------------

 

 

Hi guys, Ive spent the past few weeks reading a lot of the threads in this forum regarding paints and whatnot, and i have an idea of what the different options are, and am trying to figure out what the best option would be for me.


my situation is as follows -

i have a panasonic ar100u, with a lens to wall throw of about 10-11 feet (the exact number escapes me at the moment). I am going for a ~100" screen, which is doable if if i pretty much max out the zoom on the projector.


it seems pretty bright, even running it against the wall in dynamic mode (that wall is painted a blue color), with the lights on (there is a fluorescent fixture withing the vicinity of the screen), it is 'usable'.


with the lights off (not in dymanic mode, but game or cinema/rec mode), it actually looks pretty nice, brightness wise - does anyone know the approximate gain of a basic matte ben. moore paint for reference? because the brightness looks ok against the wall paint, im thinking i dont need to go crazy high gain on the screen. just enough to make it usable with some moderate ambient light).


that all said, i am trying to decide between a basic neutral gray (n7?), gray with some basic additives (along the lines of the idea in the 'beginners delight' thread'), or a maxxmudd application.


i think i would probably 'enjoy' the basic N/gray, and i think some basic poly addition would might it some nicer color poppage. what im not sure about is whether going into maxxmudd territory will raise the gain too high for my needs. i guess the main question here is, is the ar100u bright enough to light a gray screen with lights on (from the short distance i am working with)


the goal is to have the 'lights off' movie watching look very good, but also have it 'enjoyable' with some light on. doesnt have to be stellar with lights on, just enjoyable.


anyone care to take a shot? (from reading, i think i can bet on the guys who will answer soonest
)



- oh, forgot to add, this is in a basement, so light control for movie watching is totally controllable, and i do plan on getting a black carpet and possible some flocking for the cieling in front of the screen. the room is not furnished in an overly bright way.
 
See less See more
1
#28 ·
ah, ok - i see - thanks for the info.

so then, what would be the appreciable differences between LL+gray, and standard?


also, one last (maybe) question -

using either mix, how much would i need to do a ~100 inch screen? i.e. using the OZ. measurements in the official thread as "one batch", how many "batches" would i need? or another way to put it, how many total ounces of paint should i mix and expect to use?


almost ready to build+paint - getting excited, thanks again for all your help !
 
#29 ·
Artisanoo, I did a screen that is approximately 100", and one 'batch' was sufficient. It was also easy to mix, and relatively easy to apply with the 'no name' paint sprayer.
 
#30 ·
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?



edit for MMan (or whoever knows something about hardboard joining) - I did a more accurate measurement of the maximum size i can throw on to the wall with the PJ, and i can actually go to about 110" (not the 100" estimate i originally mentioned. ) I am contemplating using a second piece of hardboard to extend the height of a single 4x8 to the 54" needed to make a full 16:9 110" screen.

what would the best way be to join the seams? i have 2 ideas, not sure if either is viable:


idea 1 ( easier)

-using the factory straight edges of the 2 pieces, butt them up fairly close and just prime over the the whole thing, with the primer ideally smoothing over the thin seam


idea 2 (more work)

- screw the boards down into a frame (adding support along the seam etc, so i can make sure the seam is very tight)

- fill the screw holes (with drywall joint compound?)

- tape/skim the seam with joint compound

- prime with 2 or 3 solid rolled coats of primer

-would that be sufficient? or would i need to skim the entire surface?


either of those ideas sound doable?

thanks!
 
#31 ·
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.
 
#32 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by artisanoo /forum/post/21926511


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.
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#35 ·
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.
 
#37 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz /forum/post/21948994


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.
 
#39 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan /forum/post/21949105


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.
 
#40 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz /forum/post/21952999


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 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.
 
#41 ·
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
 
#42 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe /forum/post/21956976


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.
 
#43 ·
^ 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
 
#44 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe /forum/post/21957153


^ 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.
 
#45 ·
^ 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
 
#46 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe /forum/post/21957618


^ 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".
 
#47 ·
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?
 
#48 ·
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)
 
#49 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by artisanoo /forum/post/21965181


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.
 
#50 ·
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?
 
#51 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top