From Silverfire 2.0 to Spandex - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > Display Devices > Screens > DIY Screen Section > From Silverfire 2.0 to Spandex

DIY Screen Section

dsl1's Avatar dsl1
10:56 AM Liked: 14
post #1 of 13
09-05-2012 | Posts: 419
Joined: Dec 2004
Hey guys,

I've sprayed several Silverfire 2.0 on several screens now and at home am quite happy with my Mits HC3800.

However, I am looking to have a larger screen and put my speakers behind it. From reading it seems like a lot of people are going the spandex way. I had a few questions about it.

1. First and foremost, am I going to be disappointed in terms of image quality going from SF2.0 to a Spandex screen (White over Silver)?
2. Will there be a big drop in brightness going from 100in Silverfire 2.0 to a 130 / 140in spandex screen? Obviously there will be some as it is bigger.

Thank you!
dsl1's Avatar dsl1
03:36 PM Liked: 14
post #2 of 13
09-10-2012 | Posts: 419
Joined: Dec 2004
Bumping this. Would like to get this started over the weekend!

Thanks everyone!
curttard's Avatar curttard
04:34 PM Liked: 27
post #3 of 13
09-10-2012 | Posts: 1,372
Joined: Aug 2005
The brightness dropoff will be significant. Calculator says 100" gives you 16.5 ftL on low. Going up to 130" brings you down to 9.9 ftL, and 140" gives you 8.5". Then you have to factor in the drop due to the gain of the SF (not sure what it is) being more than the spandex.

So you could be looking at half the brightness you are getting now, or even less. For comparison, on your 100" screen, going from high lamp to low lamp is only a brightness difference of 23% or so.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan
06:13 AM Liked: 272
post #4 of 13
09-11-2012 | Posts: 15,423
Joined: Nov 2002
cuttard has it nailed. You'd experience an extreme drop in brightness, even with the White Spandex. Such a size increase would only be possible if you eventually upgrade your PJ to one with a significant increase in lumens. It a totally dark room, you'd get a viewable image, so it's not all doom and...dare it be said...gloom. But coming from a SF screen of 100" to a 140"er will be enough of a difference in brightness even under ideal conditions that you will be almost certainly disappointed in the los of image dynamics.
dsl1's Avatar dsl1
08:34 AM Liked: 14
post #5 of 13
09-11-2012 | Posts: 419
Joined: Dec 2004
Great thank you both for your answer.

If I kept the screen size the same what sort of quality differences would I see between SF2 and Spandex?

I'd like to put my speakers behind the screen and it sounds like spandex would be my best option for that.

Thanks,

Ti
curttard's Avatar curttard
12:07 PM Liked: 27
post #6 of 13
09-11-2012 | Posts: 1,372
Joined: Aug 2005
Having said what I said, I went from a 106" Parkland screen (1.0 gain) to a 10.5' wide 2.35 screen (equivalent of a 2.35 movie on a 142" 16:9 screen) on blackout cloth (at most .9 gain) and while I would like more brightness, 90% of the time I am still delighted with the picture.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan
03:03 PM Liked: 272
post #7 of 13
09-11-2012 | Posts: 15,423
Joined: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Having said what I said, I went from a 106" Parkland screen (1.0 gain) to a 10.5' wide 2.35 screen (equivalent of a 2.35 movie on a 142" 16:9 screen) on blackout cloth (at most .9 gain) and while I would like more brightness, 90% of the time I am still delighted with the picture.

I hope you find / decide on the coating of your choice soon. The most important thing for anyone to achieve IMO is the absolute best performance they can get under their given circumstance.
dsl1's Avatar dsl1
08:19 PM Liked: 14
post #8 of 13
09-11-2012 | Posts: 419
Joined: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

I hope you find / decide on the coating of your choice soon. The most important thing for anyone to achieve IMO is the absolute best performance they can get under their given circumstance.

MM

What sort of difference can I expect to see between the SF2 and a Spandex screen (white over silver, silver over white) at the same screen size?

Thanks!
curttard's Avatar curttard
08:23 PM Liked: 27
post #9 of 13
09-11-2012 | Posts: 1,372
Joined: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

I hope you find / decide on the coating of your choice soon. The most important thing for anyone to achieve IMO is the absolute best performance they can get under their given circumstance.

Thanks! Me too. I'm still waiting on Memphisland to post his RS-MM-LL vs BOC pics and Harpmaker on HTS to post BOC vs C&S pics.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan
04:02 AM Liked: 272
post #10 of 13
09-12-2012 | Posts: 15,423
Joined: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsl1 View Post

MM
What sort of difference can I expect to see between the SF2 and a Spandex screen (white over silver, silver over white) at the same screen size?
Thanks!

At any chosen screen size SFv2.5 2.0 would provide better Black levels at a much higher gain level (1.2 vs .90 / 1.0 ) than either Spandex choice.
Also, ambient light performance would be far better. When screen size drops, SF performance increases proportionately at a greater rate than would Spandex, however the performance gains Spandex achieves when used at smaller sizes with lower lumen PJs would also make it fall well into a much more acceptable range.

The primary advantaged inherent in Spandex are:

1. No painting
2.Lightweight and easily stretched upon a Frame
3. Acoustically transparent if Speaker placement behind screen is desired. Testing has shown Spandex to be equal or superior to far more expensive and difficult to install Mfg AT material or Mfg AT Screens


The latter two points in No#3 are perhaps the singular most important aspects of Spandex use considered by those who need acoustically transparent screens
f8shm8's Avatar f8shm8
08:31 AM Liked: 10
post #11 of 13
11-26-2012 | Posts: 10
Joined: Nov 2012
So did you go with the spandex route? If so, what was your result compared to SF? I'm very curious as I've just ordered a MitsHC4000 and am going spandex.
dsl1's Avatar dsl1
10:14 AM Liked: 14
post #12 of 13
11-26-2012 | Posts: 419
Joined: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by f8shm8 View Post

So did you go with the spandex route? If so, what was your result compared to SF? I'm very curious as I've just ordered a MitsHC4000 and am going spandex.

I did order the Spandex. I got the Moleskin Gray and White. However, I haven't installed it yet. I also upgraded projectors to the Benq W7000. Hoping to get it finished in the next week or two.
smokarz's Avatar smokarz
07:29 AM Liked: 72
post #13 of 13
11-27-2012 | Posts: 3,283
Joined: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

At any chosen screen size SFv2.5 2.0 would provide better Black levels at a much higher gain level (1.2 vs .90 / 1.0 ) than either Spandex choice.Also, ambient light performance would be far better. When screen size drops, SF performance increases proportionately at a greater rate than would Spandex, however the performance gains Spandex achieves when used at smaller sizes with lower lumen PJs would also make it fall well into a much more acceptable range.
The primary advantaged inherent in Spandex are:
1. No painting
2.Lightweight and easily stretched upon a Frame
3. Acoustically transparent if Speaker placement behind screen is desired. Testing has shown Spandex to be equal or superior to far more expensive and difficult to install Mfg AT material or Mfg AT Screens
The latter two points in No#3 are perhaps the singular most important aspects of Spandex use considered by those who need acoustically transparent screens





Could you send a link to where the gain measurements are at?
Reply DIY Screen Section

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3