Black Diamond 1.4 vs. DIY - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
There is nothing uncertain about this. The claims about besting BD or DNP are bogus.

Anyone looking at this picture can tell that DNP has much higher contrast.



That's the "empirical" evidence for you.
But I also did some "testing" with color picker in GIMP.

The two areas marked yellow provide good example of how vastly superior ambient light control of the DNP is. It is 3 times darker than the SF ( 9% vs 30% white) there . The two areas are no more than 5 inches apart . The DNP sample is 20" diagonal for comparison.
zheka is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 12:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
you know full well that the DNP sample used is SEVERAL shades darker than SF.
one again your cherry picking is bogus.
it does not take a fool to know that a darker grey will produce a darker brown. period. that has nothing to do with contrast.

and my reference with regard to DNP were about my the SF panels i had in my hand within the DNP booth at CEDIA...
which has nothing to with the SF panel above (which does not even appear to have been made correctly... nor would they
take any effort to do so considering their STATE AND INTENDED MONTRA.

once again, taken out of context... makes you look incredibly silly.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #93 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 12:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16


the SF marked yellow on the left measures 30% white. The one on the right - 20% white.

Both areas on the DNP sample marked red are identical 9% white. The only possible explanation for the difference is that the DNP can filter out ambient light much better than the SF.

Another data point:

The green area on white matte sample measures 40% white.

In other words , under the test conditions the black levels of the SF are only 30% better than the plain white, where as DNP provides 400% improvement.
zheka is offline  
post #94 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
and again you fail to mention that the DNP panel is SEVERAL, yes SEVERAL, um hum SEVERAL shades
darker than the SF panel.

it does not filter light out any better it is simply DARKER. and a darker panel will display a darker COLOR. period.
it is not magic. and in this case. it has nothing to do with contrast.

put a darker panel up than the DNP and guess what... no matter where on that screen you place it... it will be darker
than the DNP panel. does this mean it is better than the DNP panel?

and if that panel is only 3% white... does that mean it's 300% better than the DNP...

heck no. it just simply darker.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #95 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
and stop the cherry picking mantra. because it is you who's guilty of it

like here for example



BTW, even in this sample and using the brightest pixels I could find on the sparkling square you selected, the DNP still had higher overall contrast by about 5 points.

The brightness on that small sample varied from 78% to 85% by the way. that's 7 point delta on what looks like 2"x2" square.

zheka is offline  
post #96 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 12:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

and again you fail to mention that the DNP panel is SEVERAL, yes SEVERAL, um hum SEVERAL shades
darker than the SF panel.

it does not filter light out any better it is simply DARKER. and a darker panel will display a darker COLOR. period.
it is not magic. and in this case. it has nothing to do with contrast.

put a darker panel up than the DNP and guess what... no matter where on that screen you place it... it will be darker
than the DNP panel. does this mean it is better than the DNP panel?

and if that panel is only 3% white... does that mean it's 300% better than the DNP...

heck no. it just simply darker.

If blacks on the SF panel under strong ambient light are 10 points brighter than on the one away from the light source, and yet similarly positioned DNP samples exhibit NO difference in black levels, than it cannot be explained by the native screen colors.

It should not be difficult to understand.
zheka is offline  
post #97 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 12:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
far from it... in fact... anyone reading this thread with an ounce of logic can and will see it differently.

and if the best screen company in the world can only beat a more than faulty (made) SF test panel by a whole 5 points in contrast.
this ultimately proves that no diy screen could ever possibly measure up to a manufactered screen.

a screen that at 100" is nearly 20x greater in cost... than a make shift SF panel made by the blind leading the blind...
can in your calculation... barely beat it out by a whole 5 contrast points.

wow. now that's proof positive logic.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #98 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

If blacks on the SF panel under strong ambient light are 10 points brighter than on the one away from the light source, and yet similarly positioned DNP samples exhibit NO difference in black levels, than it cannot be explained by the native screen colors.

It should not be difficult to understand.

and that's because you fail understand... actually you fail to admit...
that since there is no DNP black area at far edge of the screen away from the ambient light... you have no way of calculating the proper percentage points for that.

and secondly, a darker panel has fewer points of dark grey to black than a lighter panel.
so to be honest... your calculations are really all wrong as they did don't allow for the graduating dropoff.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #99 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post


that since there is no DNP black area at far edge of the screen away from the ambient light... you have no way of calculating the proper percentage points for that.

here is the screenshot again
the respective sample points are no more than 5" apart.
zheka is offline  
post #100 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 01:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
darker panel. darker color. check. got it.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #101 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
this is picture in not to prove any point with respect to the SF. I have no idea what the background screen is. I just wanted to show why somebody would pay so much for a projector screen

zheka is offline  
post #102 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
there's more ambient light on the left and it's stategically placed.
and also, they made sure there wasn't much white or light colored area... which highlights the darker screen.
but yes, it does it's job.

$3000 dollars worth? for a 100" screen? depends on the pocketbook.

i've already said... when it comes to DNP's best... no one can match it.
i've seen it with my own eyes... at CEDIA... in a completely open and fully lit auditorium...
without the cover of a tent, awning, or wall to block out the light like all the other vendors did...
and it was far more impressive than the setting shown.

so i'm not going to argue this thread anymore...
and get back to what i believe is the power of this forum... which is the power of the diy spirit as a whole.
that power that lies in the builder, the inventor, the helping hand... and the sheer joy of being proud of what you've made.

look, even the ceo of stewart admitted that he reads the diy forum on occasion because he says there's some bright people and ideas there.

i've seen some really neat things come of diy... and don't think for a minute we haven't pushed the envelope for manufactured screens...
a great example was how much improved AT material got with respect to eliminating moire, because of diy of which SMX was born.

a year ago, we wouldn't be talking about spandex for AT... etc

so really, there's no need to ridicule each others diy efforts.
because the power isn't in the ridicule and being an arm chair quarterback...

the power is in taking a good hard look at the components of someone's effort
and working with them to improve it in one way or another.
smile.gif
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #103 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 03:51 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

this is picture in not to prove any point with respect to the SF. I have no idea what the background screen is. I just wanted to show why somebody would pay so much for a projector screen


You also do not know what the PJ's output is, nor does the shot show the absolutely ridiculous difference in shade/color between the two screens.

And the image projected is only at most a 72" diagonal...if that. At CEDIA, SI was using those same small screens and 3000 lumen PJs to show off.....and all it really did was to make them seem silly to anyone who knew better.

What is shown above is a typical extreme shot that only serves as a sales tool, not anything accurately depicting the difference between similar surfaces that employ different techniques. Frankly....the Mfg would not dare do any comparison unless it was against something crazy different and wholly unsuited for the task at hand. That's just the way they roll. It certainly does not go as far as to justify a $3500.00+ expenditure.

BTW, there is obviously NO direct and very little indirect light on the front screen, as evidenced by the lack of light reflection on the upper right side of the Matte White screen. And the majority of what ambient light is present is ALL on the left side...on the White screen, and what light that is striking the "Black Screen" is definitely having an effect. They kinda made sure of that as well. Go figure.

Nope...you wanna take something apart, well then the promo images that Mfg Screen provide, as well as the displays in Trade shows are a ripe target.

Meanwhile, we will continue to provide actual real world examples.

Damn! PB beat me to the punch again!

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is online now  
post #104 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

darker panel. darker color. check. got it.
No, you did not get it. Or, more likely, you pretend not to get it.

Black levels on the SF got worse by 50% due to ambient light increase , where as the DNP maintained the black levels unchanged under the same conditions.
zheka is offline  
post #105 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 06:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
MM, PB

I admit, I cannot make myself read your replies any more. Too many letters and too little information.

I'll just reiterate what I said before.

It is not not cool to mislead people about what your mixes can do. Each time I see you do this I will find time to call the BS.

It is not cool to make people use your mixes when simpler OTS solutions would do as well if not better. Each time I see you do this I will find time to call the BS. The HTS guys would never advise people to use BW or C&S if they have bright projector in a light controlled room, never.

DIY is great. But there is no need to overstate the case because it back fires. I guess it is possible that some claims you make may be true. But because the credibility is suspect there is little reason to pay attention.

As to the SF vs DNP debate, there is a simple way to get it sorted:

make somebody who owns SF screen produce a picture like this.

Edit: bad idea. the PJ used is too bright. It is not fair to expect comparable performance with typical HT projector.

zheka is offline  
post #106 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 06:24 PM
Moderator
 
prof55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Using a graphics program or color picker to "measure" contrast levels or colors in a screen shot is usually an exercise in futility. Add to this the fact that the screen shot in question has no documentation (camera used, camera settings, projector, calibration, ambient level, screen mix, etc, etc), and you have absolutely no criteria for any comparison, let alone a "scientific" one.

Given these facts, it's rather surprising to see the "measurement" camp use this for ammo against DIY. These are not measurements; they are subjective judgements at best.

If you like the conclusions you draw by examining such screen shots, by all means go ahead and buy (or make) a screen based on those conclusions. But understand that you are making a subjective judgment, not a scientific one. You will be in good company, though, since nearly everyone makes their AV purchase decisions based on taste anyway. And that is the point here.
prof55 is offline  
post #107 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 06:27 PM
Moderator
 
prof55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

MM, PB

...make somebody who owns SF screen produce a picture like this.


I can make a picture like that quite easily with gray paint, white paint, and any reasonably powerful projector.
prof55 is offline  
post #108 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 06:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

I can make a picture like that quite easily with gray paint, white paint, and any reasonably powerful projector.

why don't you do it then?

it is Epson EMP-8300 pj according to the article.

not a power-horse by any stretch of imagination.
zheka is offline  
post #109 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 06:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

Using a graphics program or color picker to "measure" contrast levels or colors in a screen shot is usually an exercise in futility. Add to this the fact that the screen shot in question has no documentation (camera used, camera settings, projector, calibration, ambient level, screen mix, etc, etc), and you have absolutely no criteria for any comparison, let alone a "scientific" one.

Given these facts, it's rather surprising to see the "measurement" camp use this for ammo against DIY. These are not measurements; they are subjective judgements at best.

If you like the conclusions you draw by examining such screen shots, by all means go ahead and buy (or make) a screen based on those conclusions. But understand that you are making a subjective judgment, not a scientific one. You will be in good company, though, since nearly everyone makes their AV purchase decisions based on taste anyway. And that is the point here.

I would have agreed with what you said if we were comparing different screenies. But in this case the color picker is a reliable instrument, especially so because the areas compared are very close to each other and the brightness differences are so vast.

In fact the differences are so apparent to the naked eye that the color picker may be needed only to evaluate the degree.

As to me buying one of these screens, I do not really need it. I have light controlled theater room.When ambient light is not a factor, the differences between the DNP and simple over the shelf color neutral paint is very subtle, certainly not worth the price difference IMHO
zheka is offline  
post #110 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 07:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Then it seems you know even less then we thought.
Oh and budd already beat prof55 to it using a coal black screen.

Unimpessive display.. 36"... with a throw less than 5 ft.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #111 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
surely it won't be difficult to "best" it then, pb
zheka is offline  
post #112 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 07:14 PM
Moderator
 
prof55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

why don't you do it then?

it is Epson EMP-8300 pj according to the article.

not a power-horse by any stretch of imagination.

No need to duplicate the pic, this is a good opportunity to use some specs. Assuming the arm spread of the man is six feet, this gives us a projected image size of around 57" diagonal. (Yes, I measured with Photoshop.) The lack of shadows would suggest this is not a bright sunny day, and could easily be quite overcast. With the Epson at its rated output of 5200 lumens, this translates into a screen brightness of 362fL.

Given that the recommendation for the average home theater is 16fL, this would mean that the screen in your picture is a wee bit brighter than normal, in fact nearly 23 times brighter. Hardly a valid test of "real world" performance, really just an advertising gimmick. But it convinced you, and that is why I maintain that subjective judgment is useful, when properly applied.
prof55 is offline  
post #113 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 07:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
something I did not realize when I posted the picture.

The "news" was from 2006.


Epson EMP-8300 with 5200 ANSI lumens max rating was a respectable choice at the time
zheka is offline  
post #114 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 07:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
What exactly are you impressed w!ith? I gotta chuckle.
Because there's not a lick of sun. It's a cloudy day.

And besides. Do some research. Budd aleady did that.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #115 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 07:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
who's budd? what did he/she do?
zheka is offline  
post #116 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 07:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

No need to duplicate the pic, this is a good opportunity to use some specs. Assuming the arm spread of the man is six feet, this gives us a projected image size of around 57" diagonal. (Yes, I measured with Photoshop.) The lack of shadows would suggest this is not a bright sunny day, and could easily be quite overcast. With the Epson at its rated output of 5200 lumens, this translates into a screen brightness of 362fL.

Given that the recommendation for the average home theater is 16fL, this would mean that the screen in your picture is a wee bit brighter than normal, in fact nearly 23 times brighter. Hardly a valid test of "real world" performance, really just an advertising gimmick. But it convinced you, and that is why I maintain that subjective judgment is useful, when properly applied.

your calculations seem reasonable. I just need to see a similar screenshot of projection on a SF surface to be fully convinced.
zheka is offline  
post #117 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Give me a 5200 lumen pj at 5" throw and I'll rip it to threads with an OTS painted screen.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #118 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 08:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zheka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
i think you guys are right. this is a bad choice for the comparison for number of reasons.
my bad. withdrawn


Edit: to clarify. I am talking about the outdoor screenie, not the SF vs DNP one.
zheka is offline  
post #119 of 179 Old 04-12-2013, 08:39 PM
Moderator
 
prof55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I can't help but admire a man who admits getting educated. My hat's off to you, Zheka. We would all do well to show more of this spirit.
prof55 is offline  
post #120 of 179 Old 04-13-2013, 01:18 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

I can't help but admire a man who admits getting educated. My hat's off to you, Zheka. We would all do well to show more of this spirit.

I agree, myself included. I've been learning and applying what I've learned on / from this Forum now for almost 12 years. And to this day I still learn more almost every day spent.

About all I have ever wished was for those who are exposed to overt attempts to discount some things many have found to be "workable" was to look beyond the rhetoric and smokescreens and judge things as they really are.

Here are some facts.

1. Absolutely, we can and have created High Gain screens(2.0+) that do essentially the same job as the far more expensive and elaborate Mfg versions. I have included a few examples below.

2. In the most extreme cases, where extreme gain was matched up with normal Lumen output, we run into the same caveats as virtually all the Mfg do when they "go there". Narrowed Viewing Cone, and Graininess (...although we have reduced that considerably...it is still present in higher gain examples...)

3. That being the case,we do not usually advocate the use of such applications, owing instead to suggest less "gain oriented" versions (1.3 and under) While these applications do not totally reach the same performance levels of a DNP Flagship Screen, they do come close enough to effectively render the need of any budget-oriented PJ enthusiast to spend $3k+ on a SI-BD or DNP pretty much moot. Of course that is the devout DIY'er in me relating that. Those with expendable income or who feel that DIY'ing at an advanced level is simply not what they are willing to get into....they need not worry. There are those alternatives available to them. That's what the "Screens" Forum is there for.

4. As those who know such, I do in fact offer advice to those whose needs or expressed desire run toward simple Gray and White applications. And Spandex. And BOC / Cloth-Vinyl Material. While those applications do not take nearly the amount of precedent nor demand the attention of the advanced apps, it is certainly not the case that they are ever excluded from consideration out of hand.

5. We (PB & I) have no vested interest in focusing on specific applications other than to try our very best to match up what we feel would be best for a given situation. It is / would be inordinately unfair and pretty strange to expect that we would ignore what we think is optimal simply to suggest something sub-standard to put a different light (...a horrible pun....) on the referral process.

These first 3 examples are shot with a light Gray DaLite HCCV screen as the backdrop, and with considerable ambient present coming from multiple ceiling fixtures . Note how the SF-HG ramps up brightness but also vastly improves Black levels. It should also be pointed out that the Whites remained almost ristine and bright as well. Not absolutely perfect...but gud 'enuff for most souls to accept as being a great improvement.

Physics be gol'durned!








A SF v2.5 HG -7.0 sample against SF v2.1 -3.0


The Screen is being inundated by 2 100 watt Floods positioned directly overhead.[/B][/B]








A SF v2.5 HG -6.0 sample against SF v2.1 -3.0

The Screen is being inundated by 2 100 watt Floods positioned directly overhead.




As stated, the images shown represent very high gain examples of SF screens, and they have extremely dark surfaces. They show exactly why DIY can and does aspire to create applications few have thought possible.

BTW, the PJ used was a Epson 9350. No slouch....but certainly not a proverbial "Light Cannon" by any means.

........and a big PS

Great to see you post up prof55. We all miss your levelheaded approach to considering all aspects of DIY Screen making and the methods / results involved.

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