Originally Posted by prof55
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.