I'm new to the forum and was hoping to leverage peoples experience to help me setup a new HT. Moving into a new house and have the opportunity to start from scratch. (and would have been better to spell *Diamond correctly...can't seem to edit this now. oh well)
My room is 17' wide and 29' long. 3 windows along the outside, east wall. My plan is to pick up an Epson 5010 and BD Fixed Reference 113" 1.4gain (16:9). Since I'll have some side ambient light, I want to be sure that I'm putting together the best solution to help get maximum contrast and brightness in the setup. I figured the Epson 5010 (or 8700UB), with 2,400 lumens and 200k:1 contrast ratio, couple to the BD 1.4 gain screen, would get me there.
Here's my question. Is there a DIY screen solution, that would equal the marketed performance of the BD screen? Not sure if a painted screen, or similar, would be a "performance comparable" solution? Obviously much less expensive, but I'm not interested unless the contrast and ambient light performance is not as good.
I'm open to suggestions from learned experience. Apologies if this has been covered before, just thought I'd throw it out there and see what recommendations come back. Many thanks in advance.
Edit: The projector will be ceiling mounted, about 12' from the screen. Pool table, dart board, etc. in the back of the room. So half is for viewing movies, football, etc. while the back of the room is for playing.
Quote:
Why are there not other photo representations of other DIY Screens performing like SF examples?" cannot mean much at all when proof otherwise is is so easily found...and created by anyone with a basic Camera, a little instruction, "and" a SF screen.
It's totally legit to banter back and forth about this topic, but it's really not nice and it's unnecessary to pick on someone's grammar in an attempt to discount the argument of the poster. In a forum, it's generally seen that grammar is secondary to getting one's point across. If you want to be the grammar police, you should brush up on yours first (see above).
No, it is most likely the ambient light that is not distributed uniformly. You can see that the left hand side of the screen is visibly brighter. Perhaps a window or a lamp is on that side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx /t/1419985/black-diamond-1-4-vs-diy/60#post_23190113
as for the noise... that's most likely an application issue.
The screenshot was taken from an in-depth review of the DNP Supernova screen material on HTS. By no means it was a showdown between the SF and the Supernova. That would make no sense really, they are simply in different leagues altogether. The SF was just one of the materials the DNP sample was projected against.
Here is the snapshot with some legends to make it easier to see what's going on
Checkerboard screenshots are useful for visual comparison of contrast characteristics of tested materials.
This particular one was taken under strong ambient light.
Contrast of course is only one aspect of pj screen characteristics, but I decided to single it out since performance under ambient light was one of the main concerns the OP had. It is also arguably one area where the performance gap between commercial offerings and anything DIY is most apparent.
Here is a zoomed fragment with small piece of the DNP cropped out and laid over the SF for direct comparison
Not surprisingly, the Supernova provides vastly better contrast than the SF. The blacks are much deeper. The brightness of the whites is comparable though the ones on the SF are very noisy. The center white square on the SF looks brighter but only because it hotspots there.
Here is a cute little vignette that may have been overlooked.
There are versions of the Supernova with different gain levels.
Appealingly thinking that the snapshot contains the highest gain version , pb_maxxx replied " that nothing diy at this moment can match the latest DNP 23-23". But then he modestly claimed that " we easily bested their 1.7 material... " however.
Now, that of course is a ridiculous claim on its own. But it turns hilarious if you keep in mind that the Supernova sample used in the screenshot is 0.8 gain version. That's right. The SF could barely match the white levels of a darker material with negative gain.
Why would you insist on using hotspotting sample that sparkles like Christmas tree as a proof of superior whites? this is not a good idea if you ask me.
if you're going to take a area from the center sweet spot of the DNP, where the ambient light is making the screen brighter and then match it to the SF at the far edge of the screen where it's not...
...then you are blatantly cherry picking... and fabricating the truth.
and making yourself look silly to boot.
and if you haven't noticed the left edge of the white screen has nearly as much noise as the SF...
I guess I still don't get it. Why would I want to use an ugly brown/white checkerboard to see what I like better. The DNP looks to push the white to blue, and make that light tan look super dark. Maybe it would help to know what color brown that brown is really supposed to be...
Also why is the SF on the right side so much different than the SF on the top left?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conspiracy* /t/1419985/black-diamond-1-4-vs-diy/60#post_23193773
I guess I still don't get it. Why would I want to use an ugly brown/white checkerboard to see what I like better. The DNP looks to push the white to blue, and make that light tan look super dark. Maybe it would help to know what color brown that brown is really supposed to be...
My explanation is that ambient light is stronger on the left hand side. It is most apparent with black (well, brown) squares. Black color assumes minimal or, ideally, absolute absence of illumination from the projector. So whatever makes the dark squares on the left lighter than the ones on the right must be due to ambient light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conspiracy* /t/1419985/black-diamond-1-4-vs-diy/60#post_23193773
I guess I still don't get it. Why would I want to use an ugly brown/white checkerboard to see what I like better. The DNP looks to push the white to blue, and make that light tan look super dark
In truth, you explanation above only serves to prove the uncertainty of accuracy in such examples. As well as how such things are left open to different interpretations.
I gotta repeat it again. In DIY Screen making, the posted results and opinions of the End User majority should hold the most sway as far as being what a aspiring DIY Screen maker should consider. That is essentially how most everything else is judged....I cannot reason why DIY Screens must be held to a more draconian standard of proofs at the "Test & Measurement" level when in fact, DIY Screen making as advocated on AVS is based around keeping thing in a state where any / everybody can relate to what is going on.
In retrospect, if the initial testing would have been presented as another analytical way of looking at the potential and differences inherent in different DIY applications and methods, and the posted empirical results, and left open to be something people could consider along with empirical results, then I don't think there would have ever been the upwelling of resentment that came from "Science & Testing" being used as a Stick to flail about across the backs of those who are simply trying to up the DIY standard from the "it's at least good enough to get by..." level into the "I really don't think it can get any better" realm. There was too much meanness and spite involved, and gross attempts to dissuade those who were already engaged in projects to ever consider that the effort was solely intended to be a "helpful" one. That then is what is prompting PB-Maxx, as gentle and nice a person as you could ever want to meet, to respond in the manner he has over the last few posts. He knows better than to accept what is being said, and having seen it all before...to see it all come around again can be, and is terribly frustrating and certainly enough too invoke what is an abnormally profuse response by him.
And as far as "Claims" go....well those are coming from the accumulation of both personal, and a great many public experiences....so they are neither unfounded nor "conjured" up. Truthfully, it seems too convenient for some to overlook the plain fact that out of many hundreds of projects, only a handful have had issues, and then to focus only on that tiny majority..
Why not just let the DIY'ers pass judgement? Ya gotta believe that if even a small percentage of all the individuals who have followed "SF" advice had the degree of issues some state are prevalent, then SF, and all other things related...including "people' would have been hounded off the Boards by said individuals. But instead, the numbers amount to an extremely small "fraction"...and most anyone can accept that as being perfectly normal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka /t/1419985/black-diamond-1-4-vs-diy/90#post_23196739
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx /t/1419985/black-diamond-1-4-vs-diy/90#post_23196766
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.
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
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!