What is happening here? Opinions? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
1  2 3  4 
DIY Screen Section > What is happening here? Opinions?
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan 05:30 PM 12-17-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

I would love to see a screenshot put side by side with the actual projected image, so the 'uninitiated' can examine it themselves.

It would have to be a "Projected Screen Shot" to be sized representative to the "Real Time" on-screen projected image...but it probably can be done effectively. Somewhat puzzling that it hasn't be suggested before.

But looking beyond the logistics, wouldn't the Screen Shot Naysayers still claim what was being seen was / is skewered somehow?

Plainly stated....disbelievers gonna go on disbelieving unless they themselves do the actual job, and see the results in person.. Then spend the time learning how to use their Camera and produce screen shots accurate enough that they can state they represent what is seen in person. Or...they just never will even bother because they won't consider it worthwhile, or just refuse to even consider such. That sort of denial comes easiest of all, yet often the most adamant denials come from those who just haven't even tried...just read about it elsewhere.

Screen shots that are over / under exposed and show areas that are blown out / crushed are pretty obvious on "any" monitor. Shots with excellent color balance and exquisite detail do not get there by correcting "Sow's Ear" projected imagery into "Silk Purse" Eye Candy.

curttard's Avatar curttard 06:05 PM 12-17-2012
This has nothing to do with belief or disbelief, it's just about seeing something in a photo that can help me make a decision.

"Then spend the time learning how to use their Camera and produce screen shots accurate enough that they can state they represent what is seen in person"

I still haven't heard an explanation of how a hugely dynamic range limited camera can possible produce a photo that shows me the range of my projector/screen. Again, my setup has grey letterbox bars and dim whites. Yet in a photo, it will appear to have either pitch black bars or glowing whites.

"Screen shots that are over / under exposed and show areas that are blown out / crushed are pretty obvious on "any" monitor."

Well, for example, your pic here:



I assume you believe this is a representative photo? And yet there are clipped whites in the LotR image. You could put a plasma tv in the shot and it wouldn't be able to get any brighter than that. Is that "representative"? In the room, are Gandalf and Legolas glowing with details of their face and hair blown out?
Quote:
Shots with excellent color balance and exquisite detail do not get there by correcting "Sow's Ear" projected imagery into "Silk Purse" Eye Candy.

They don't have to be "corrected". The limitations of the camera can simply make shots look better than they do in the room. Here's another 4805 pic, with, again, blacks and whites that simply cannot be bested by ANY display, even a plasma or CRT tv. I have no reason to think the guy who posted this did some post-processing in photoshop for the sake of making his picture better.

525x525px-LL-a406ff93_vbattach59094.jpeg
NewGate88's Avatar NewGate88 07:34 PM 12-17-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

This has nothing to do with belief or disbelief, it's just about seeing something in a photo that can help me make a decision.
"Then spend the time learning how to use their Camera and produce screen shots accurate enough that they can state they represent what is seen in person"
I still haven't heard an explanation of how a hugely dynamic range limited camera can possible produce a photo that shows me the range of my projector/screen. Again, my setup has grey letterbox bars and dim whites. Yet in a photo, it will appear to have either pitch black bars or glowing whites.
"Screen shots that are over / under exposed and show areas that are blown out / crushed are pretty obvious on "any" monitor."
Well, for example, your pic here:

I assume you believe this is a representative photo? And yet there are clipped whites in the LotR image. You could put a plasma tv in the shot and it wouldn't be able to get any brighter than that. Is that "representative"? In the room, are Gandalf and Legolas glowing with details of their face and hair blown out?
They don't have to be "corrected". The limitations of the camera can simply make shots look better than they do in the room. Here's another 4805 pic, with, again, blacks and whites that simply cannot be bested by ANY display, even a plasma or CRT tv. I have no reason to think the guy who posted this did some post-processing in photoshop for the sake of making his picture better.
525x525px-LL-a406ff93_vbattach59094.jpeg

I can only speak for myself when I say this, but I have NEVER said, or insinuated that screen shots can accurately reproduce every aspect of what a person can see first hand. I simply said that screen shots can be useful in giving viewers across the continent some idea of what a screen/projector/room combination is going to look like. I have posted screen shots here that DO, IN FACT provide just that much information. I know, because I was looking at it first hand, and manipulated the camera exposure settings until I got it as close as I could. Any differences (mostly in the appearance of the room lighting) I mentioned specifically in the post. I was not trying to reproduce every scintilla of shadow detail I could see first hand, I was simply trying to demonstrate what the image looked like (to me) in the room at that time. How bright, saturated, or "washed out" it looked.

I think I succeeded. And I don't think they were "worthless" when it comes to evaluating (in general terms) the performance of that combination.
prof55's Avatar prof55 09:52 PM 12-17-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

I would love to see a screenshot put side by side with the actual projected image, so the 'uninitiated' can examine it themselves.

I'm curious how you would propose to do that... ?

Reminds me of when color TV was becoming popular. There were often advertisements (on TV) proclaiming the wonders of the latest sets, and displaying the "huge" console in action. The standard joke was "Yeah, that does look much better than this one!"


curttard's Avatar curttard 09:55 PM 12-17-2012
Back when I first got my Mits HC4000, I took screenshots that were as representative as I could get them. Surely everyone would agree this is a great looking screen?



But that's a 126" wide piece of blackout cloth, with the projector in Low mode. So a $1200 projector and a < $40 screen, 2.35 at an equivalent of 146" iirc. Wow! Why look any further for a screen solution??

But, believe it or not, according to my EyeOne, I was only getting 5-6 ftL at that time. And yet the photo is very bright, while simultaneously having pitch black blacks. In fact, again, the image on the screen there maxes out both the black and white values of the photo. Had I lowered the exposure to better represent the true image brightness, it would have been an absurdly dark picture with massive black crush. Had I lightened it to show how "grey" the bits of letterboxing at top and bottom were, the image would have appeared even brighter, and blown out. So how exactly do I get a "representative" image in one shot? Like I said, this was the closest "overall"; I had this image open on the laptop with that same frame on the screen, and it looked "overall" close, certainly as close as I could get it -- yet it greatly exaggerates the performance of the projector/screen combo. There's nothing "intentional" about it, that's just how it works with the limitations of the camera.

I'm really not sure how this is even being argued, frankly. We can have the best intentions in the world but the camera simply cannot give an accurate representation of the image. ANY projector on ANY screen is more than capable of producing a flawless, dazzling screenshot, WITHOUT any fudging or attempt to "improve" it. This is why pretty screenshots don't mean anything to me and shouldn't mean anything to anyone. We should be using manually set photos to compare specific aspects of two screens/projectors, which is something cameras CAN do to a useful extent with the proper care.

Just to hammer the point home, here are some pics from another thread of an Optoma HD65, a 720p, 4000:1 projector (about $600), projected on an IKEA blind:



bud16415's Avatar bud16415 05:05 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

Q: What is happening here? Opinions?
A: Maurice is posting cryptic screenshots of something he thinks is obvious, but escapes me entirely. (You did ask for opinions!)


Under the heading of “Opinions?” Maurice is being Maurice and doing what he always does. He posted a tease the other day of once again developing a screen that defies the laws of physics, and this thread is to post some cryptic screen shots somehow relating to the claims he made in the earlier thread. All this is to draw people out into the same old discussions and raise the same issues that he proclaims are going against forum rules. There are now people who have read this stuff enough they believe it to be scientific fact as well.

Anytime I or others have started threads of basic thought provoking science behind screens and or analyzing screens and the basic issues of ambient light viewing he has posted in a bunch of gibberish when he posted this the other day I responded with some of the same gibberish and was admonished to stay out of a thought provoking conversation if all I had to contribute is nonsense. I have removed all the gibberish content.

Pretty much anything goes on the internet and the “buyer beware” label should be attached to every line you read on the internet.

So who am I to say contrast can’t be improved with a screen over what a projector can produce. As curttard clearly shows in his screenshot it was being done years ago with a 480p low lumen projector with I’m sure a good amount of ambient light to boot.
smokarz's Avatar smokarz 07:09 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewGate88 View Post

I can only speak for myself when I say this, but I have NEVER said, or insinuated that screen shots can accurately reproduce every aspect of what a person can see first hand. ........


That's fair enough. Therefore any screen shots posted should carry a cautionary statement such as: "...does not reflect exactly the projected image"

So that the viewers are not falsely presented with inaccurate data.



Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

I'm curious how you would propose to do that... ?

I am too. If it can't be done, it can't be stated or claimed that the screenshot reflect exactly what the projected image presented.
smokarz's Avatar smokarz 07:14 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

Under the heading of “Opinions?” Maurice is being Maurice and doing what he always does. He posted a tease the other day of once again developing a screen that defies the laws of physics, and this thread is to post some cryptic screen shots somehow relating to the claims he made in the earlier thread. All this is to draw people out into the same old discussions and raise the same issues that he proclaims are going against forum rules. There are now people who have read this stuff enough they believe it to be scientific fact as well.
Anytime I or others have started threads of basic thought provoking science behind screens and or analyzing screens and the basic issues of ambient light viewing he has posted in a bunch of gibberish when he posted this the other day I responded with some of the same gibberish and was admonished to stay out of a thought provoking conversation if all I had to contribute is nonsense. I have removed all the gibberish content.
Pretty much anything goes on the internet and the “buyer beware” label should be attached to every line you read on the internet.
So who am I to say contrast can’t be improved with a screen over what a projector can produce. As curttard clearly shows in his screenshot it was being done years ago with a 480p low lumen projector with I’m sure a good amount of ambient light to boot.


Do you have any evidence that shows contrast can't be improved?

And for those that claimed a screen paint can improve contrast. Do you have any data?

If none of you have any concrete data and evidence to present to the general public, then it is nothing more than he said/she said. All gibberish, IMO.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan 07:21 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

Under the heading of “Opinions?” Maurice is being Maurice and doing what he always does. He posted a tease the other day of once again developing a screen that defies the laws of physics,

Jealous?
Quote:
So who am I to say contrast can’t be improved with a screen over what a projector can produce..

Indeed. And if you doubt that potential, then why not go onto the Black Diamond Thread and rant to them how horribly misguided and mistaken they are....and see how far you get. biggrin.gif

Until you get up off your overly comfortable "seat" and actually do some real experimenting directly in line with what your so ready to dismiss outright, you should cease trying so hard to dispute and disclaim the efforts who do.

Likewise smokarz.
superleo's Avatar superleo 07:34 AM 12-18-2012
It is funny to me...

If a commercial screens can change the gain of a projected image from ranges 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 why wouldn't a DIY screen be able to do the same?

If a commercial screen can increase blacks and shadow detail by offering different color of screens such as white, gray etc, why couldn't a DIY screen ba able to do the same?

Just a thought... and common sense.
smokarz's Avatar smokarz 08:19 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by superleo View Post

It is funny to me...
If a commercial screens can change the gain of a projected image from ranges 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 why wouldn't a DIY screen be able to do the same?
If a commercial screen can increase blacks and shadow detail by offering different color of screens such as white, gray etc, why couldn't a DIY screen ba able to do the same?
Just a thought... and common sense.


If a commercial screen can show data to back up their claims, why can't a DIY screen?

Again, common sense.

What's even funnier is that commcercial screens don't talk nonsense. They actually, you know, take measurements and provide data to the general public. wink.gif
superleo's Avatar superleo 09:19 AM 12-18-2012
Dude... that's why is called DIY...

You like it, try it ... DIY ... if it needs to be spelled out... Do It Yourself (in every aspect of the process).

Commercial products charge you for it, DiYselfers... share their findings. You don't trust it, like it or believe it... buy your self a screen or for that matter furniture, some speakers, subwofer or calibration disc or demo disc or anything that is DIY..

And BTW I love Kinder garden and everything that would represent. smile.gif
curttard's Avatar curttard 09:24 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by superleo View Post

It is funny to me...
If a commercial screens can change the gain of a projected image from ranges 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 why wouldn't a DIY screen be able to do the same?
If a commercial screen can increase blacks and shadow detail by offering different color of screens such as white, gray etc, why couldn't a DIY screen ba able to do the same?
Just a thought... and common sense.

Of course DIY screens can increase gain, and of course they can lower blacks. Can they do both at the same time? I've seen no evidence of it, have you? Do you know of any commercial screens that can do that? Plus the only way a screen could possibly "increase shadow detail" is by maybe raising the black level enough to make out more details than you could before (while simultaneously turning the blacks more grey).
superleo's Avatar superleo 09:35 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Of course DIY screens can increase gain, and of course they can lower blacks. Can they do both at the same time? I've seen no evidence of it, have you? Do you know of any commercial screens that can do that? Plus the only way a screen could possibly "increase shadow detail" is by maybe raising the black level enough to make out more details than you could before (while simultaneously turning the blacks more grey).

This question and reference I agree with... and I couldn't give you an answer. I'm not in the quest of finding such a screen, like some of you are. I'm perfectly content with a nice velvet frame and a 1.0 BOC screen, where some might say that is less than 1.0 gain, but this works for me. Also my experience with spandex has been for a rear projection screen and not specifically looking for picture quality, but I can tell you that my research led me to this forum, and I can attest that ALL the information I found here was instrumental and very useful for the DIY screens I made.

For those of you in search of the perfect high gain increase blacks screen... exchange of ideas and experimentation... never fails!!!
smokarz's Avatar smokarz 09:45 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by superleo View Post

Dude... that's why is called DIY...
You like it, try it ... DIY ... if it needs to be spelled out... Do It Yourself (in every aspect of the process).
Commercial products charge you for it, DiYselfers... share their findings. You don't trust it, like it or believe it... buy your self a screen or for that matter furniture, some speakers, subwofer or calibration disc or demo disc or anything that is DIY..
And BTW I love Kinder garden and everything that would represent. smile.gif



Hmmm...I guess I'll have to come up with a screen mix that makes Kim Kardashian appears naked once I fired up the PJ.

Hey....it's DIY...If you didn't see Karshian on your screen, you probably didn't do it right.
prof55's Avatar prof55 10:35 AM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

If a commercial screen can show data to back up their claims, why can't a DIY screen?
Again, common sense.
What's even funnier is that commcercial screens don't talk nonsense. They actually, you know, take measurements and provide data to the general public. wink.gif

While I can respect your personal need for "data" in the screen you choose for yourself, your expectation that folks here in DIY Screens provide the same data as commercial screen companies is totally unrealistic.

You've established your position in the "science" camp; I suggest you avoid threads that don't provide the level of data you personally require.

Garry
AVS Moderator
smokarz's Avatar smokarz 11:05 AM 12-18-2012
With all due respect Gary, I've enjoyed the AVS forums greatly, especially the DIY Audio forums, but the moderating that goes on in this particular section of AVS is a real shame.

Your sugesstion is taken.
curttard's Avatar curttard 11:15 AM 12-18-2012
Yeah, I have to admit I don't get why asking DIYers to provide any measurements is "totally unrealistic". This is an enthusiast forum. Don't most of us have at least an EyeOne, for example? If not, why are people who haven't even bothered to calibrate their projectors worried about the imagined difference they would perceive with a screen that has .1 more gain?

Don't all the DIYers in the audio subforums provide frequency charts etc for their projects?
bud16415's Avatar bud16415 11:58 AM 12-18-2012
No one ever said a DIY screen can’t produce gain. I have seen examples where they had a gain of +20 and the viewing angle was about 5 degrees.

Confusing gain and Contrast Ratio that are two different things is the problem. I don’t need scientific data to tell me a screen can’t improve what is coming out of a projector and comparing anything to a white sheet of paper and then assuming the white paper was the standard of what the max white a projector can do is crazy. The white paper has one gain the screen has another so the white paper is making a lesser white than the gray and of course a deeper black. So what if the apparent gray is juiced up with metallic gain, sending more light in the direction of the viewer.

It’s the same game the BD people are playing lifting their dark screen in front of a white screen with high dispersion. Then throw in a bunch of ambient sources that favor the gain screen, calibrate the projector to the darker screen and there you go. Something that repeals the laws of physics.

Too many people here are confused assuming a white screen is always going to be brighter than a darker screen without taking into account the directional gains of each.

I don’t care to ever see any data on this because I know it will never come forward. Just like offering an ANSI pattern or a method of shooting the ANSI pattern will never be done. Likewise if at some point the new paint is made by the more scientific minded and tested the results will be said to be wrong because the tester has an ax to grind. The sad part is MM new paint is most likely better as he claims than many previous screen paints and could be a really great thing and help many people with projectors that need such a screen, just as BD screens have a place. It will however never improve the native CR of a projector.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan 06:50 PM 12-18-2012
Quote:
I don’t care to ever see any data on this because I know it will never come forward. Just like offering an ANSI pattern or a method of shooting the ANSI pattern will never be done. Likewise if at some point the new paint is made by the more scientific minded and tested the results will be said to be wrong because the tester has an ax to grind. The sad part is MM new paint is most likely better as he claims than many previous screen paints and could be a really great thing and help many people with projectors that need such a screen, just as BD screens have a place. It will however never improve the native CR of a projector.

OK....let's call a few Spades as they really are..........

Bud....Your so certain, and so convinced of your points,and the fruitlessness of your posted missives, yet you post anyway. Must be solely just to aggravate a situation. In fact.... that is a certainty.

Your a Master at twisting others intent, as well as posting comments that are supposed to denigrate while sounding flowery. I don't go there....but I do sometimes go "off" when I feel a clearing of the air is needed

You once again make the silly misstatement about not being able to do any improving on the Native Contrast of the PJ...when you must know...HAVE to know that is NEVER stated. There is NO law of Physics that states it's patently impossible for a surface to deepen Black Levels while maintaining the original level of Whites...or in the least, deepening Blacks while attenuating Whites to a lower percentage that is otherwise considered normal. Can a Screen produce more light than it originally received? Of course not, and you know full well that has never been stated, yet it is a reoccurring argument / accusation of yours that's offered up whenever your at a loss to post anything really relevant.
Your last paragraph pretty much says where your head and feelings are, and they most certainly are not in a place where you are concerned about trying to help others realize the best possible results they can manage .......whereas that has always been my goal. You and others are primarily focused on trying to do everything possible to discount the potential inherent in advanced DIY Screen paints...you in particular always have.

And how nutzoid is the comment / expectation that "most" DIY'ers spend several Hundred dollars on equipment to test DIY Screen apps "after" they have to make them on a Dime to a Dollar budget? People that would / do make such an effort are 1 in a 1000 on this DIY Forum. And obviously, the vast majority of that tiny fraction do so ONLY because someone else convinced them of the need. This is not one of the Forums where High Rollers dwell.....it's a place where people look for affordable solutions that work extremely well. And almost none(99.99%) expect the advice offered to be collaborated by a White Paper and reams of Data. Whew.......My point being is that virtually NO DIY'er who first gets started with making a DIY Screen possess any type of testing gear. Most don't even posses a Projector yet!

Cuttard....did you ever possess a i1Pro "BEFORE" you ran into your other "Mentors". How about you smokarz? Be as honest as you can be....

Shoot me full of holes if you want, but every single thing I have ever accomplished was done without the need for ANY Test equipment, not a single day in School learning Color Theory, and was accomplished by intuition, supposition, common sense, and a deep awareness and understanding of just about every possible way(DIY) that has been tried to reflect a projected image back to a viewer. I KNOW what has worked, and what has not...and the best advanced DIY apps I advocate are based on applications others COULD NOT get to work. And yeah...I DO know how to take correctly composed Screen Shots, to a point they are accurate enough in their depiction of what is seen and can be duplicated by the average, "Test equipment challenged" DIY'er . You, or anyone else are not obligated to agree with anything posted, but to do what you do...what others try to do, to aggravate a situation, disrupt the effort to convey valid and reasonable choices...be they assumptive in their potential or Dead On the Money. By stating that everything done or pro-offered is flawed unless done "EXACTLY" the way you have had drummed into you heads by just a few others who do indeed have axes to grind, ulterior motives at hand, and who have everything to gain by overtly influencing people just like you by spewing nastiness and twisted facts. So as to in the least have them come back aboard this Forum and take up the banner they had to drop because they started being just as big of PITA's about their "opinions" and supposed "facts" and they didn't take heed of "play Nice" and wound up being booted...or left because they were forever on the verge thereof.

Then...of course it's just accepted by such people that I must take the blame for it all because I refused to let them / you have a free hand at being PITA's.
No...I never guided their /your / anyone's hand at the Keyboard.
No...I NEVER started up with the crappy attitudes or name calling / insults / snide veiled comments. Well...maybe not "never", but it's been years.
Yes...I lamented the loss of Forum decorum and hated seeing the all too common case where a few pliable members whose tendency toward being confrontational would fall prey to the negative mind think.
Yes...when pressed to a certain point, posts like this get composed.
Yes...sometimes because I get overwrought I too get "Wood Shed'ded" But at least I do so while defending a Forum I've come to appreciate, respect, and yeah...even love.

I know that chaps yours and others Heinies. It always has. The only thing "Science" has brought to DIY on this "DIY" Forum is the opportunity for people to bully other people. That is because from the start the wrong people used it for all the wrong reasons. Too expect it to be embraced without pause or question by anyone who wants to advocate a DIY application so as to "qualify" that app for consideration is just plain wrong.

smokarz, you have no "due respect" if you even imply the Moderation on "this area of the Forum" is a real shame. As you know full well, if you even implied that about a Moderator "elsewhere" you'd be immediately banned for Life. So where do you get off taking the leave to insult our Moderator? I'll tell you where. The same place you should get'cher arse back to, because frankly, what you stated is just a echo of what you read there, on a Forum ran by people with no comprehension of real decency toward others with a differing opinion.

Ok Gary...., if I gotta take a official wuppin' I'll take it. I'm pretty sure I didn't "insult" anyone, but I'm also pretty sure a few are not gonna be very happy.

****Edited for Content...Formatted to fit your Screen****
curttard's Avatar curttard 07:55 PM 12-18-2012
"Cuttard....did you ever possess a i1Pro "BEFORE" you ran into your other "Mentors"."

Yes, of course, although I have the EyeOne Display LT, not the Pro. If I'm spending $700-1200 on a projector, plus whatever else is needed (sound system etc), I am certainly going to spend $150 on a colorimeter to get the best picture I can -- especially since I can also use it to calibrate my TVs that I've also spent a good deal of money on, my laptop, and the displays of my friends and family. It has nothing to do with testing things or collecting data, it has to do with getting the best picture I can with the displays I have.

Most of this forum, really, is about getting the best picture we can; and at least until the last couple waves of projectors that are highly accurate out of the box, using a colorimeter to correct greyscale etc would be a much bigger bang for the buck image improvement than any given screen material or paint, in my opinion. Personally I can't see the sense in spending hundreds on spraying equipment and paint and substrates, based solely on a stranger saying he thinks it looks good, BEFORE spending a bit to make sure your projector is actually producing the best possible picture by itself. What's the point in squeezing a few tenths of a point of gain out of a screen just to marginally bump up the brightness of an inaccurate picture with a screwed up greyscale, for example? I mean, if someone can't notice or doesn't care about inaccurate colors, greyscale, gamma, black level, and white level, why are they so concerned about the relatively minor differences between one paint and another? Seems a bit backward to me, although to each his own, I guess.

As for the screenshot debate, I've made my case above, with essentially unbeatable screenshots -- in terms of brightness, black level, color, and sharpness -- from a $600 projector displaying an image on a window blind. And I haven't heard, nor can think of, a good argument why, if black level and white level performance are what are being touted, a simple white/black checkerboard pattern (available on this forum's own free-to-download calibration disc, or just from a 1-second google image search) would not be the preferred image of choice.
prof55's Avatar prof55 07:56 PM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Yeah, I have to admit I don't get why asking DIYers to provide any measurements is "totally unrealistic". This is an enthusiast forum. Don't most of us have at least an EyeOne, for example? If not, why are people who haven't even bothered to calibrate their projectors worried about the imagined difference they would perceive with a screen that has .1 more gain?
Don't all the DIYers in the audio subforums provide frequency charts etc for their projects?

No, I don't think most screen DIY'ers own calibration equipment. In audio, a five dollar microphone and a freeware RTA program will supply all the specs you care to post. I'm guessing that video calibration equipment is a bit more pricey... What does the system you mention cost?
curttard's Avatar curttard 08:06 PM 12-18-2012
I bought the EyeOne LT for $140 new in 2008.

Actually the other day I wanted to get the RadioShack mic to use the REW software for my sound system, but the cheapest meter they have on their site now is $50. So, cheaper for sure; but given how many displays most of us own now and in the future -- all of which can benefit from a colorimeter calibration -- and the costs of those, $140 seems quite reasonable.

Also consider most of us have tried more than one screen, sometimes many. Generally every screen is going to cost a minimum of $20-40 for off the shelf paint, up to $80+ for paint for a mix with metallics, or $60+ for spandex etc, plus supplies, plus possibly a new substrate (up to $100 for Sintra), etc. Since we're clearly looking to squeeze every last bit of quality out of our equipment, spending all that money (and far more time) on each new screen attempt but balking at $140 to get the best and most accurate possible picture from our projectors seems silly to me.
NewGate88's Avatar NewGate88 08:46 PM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Yeah, I have to admit I don't get why asking DIYers to provide any measurements is "totally unrealistic". This is an enthusiast forum. Don't most of us have at least an EyeOne, for example? If not, why are people who haven't even bothered to calibrate their projectors worried about the imagined difference they would perceive with a screen that has .1 more gain?
Don't all the DIYers in the audio subforums provide frequency charts etc for their projects?

if you are so hot and bothered to see "measurements" from my screen, the bye all means COUGH UP THE CASH TO BUY ME THE INSTRUMENTATION.

Then of course, you will have to find some way to instill in me the desire. That may be a little tough. To quote my old Navy boot camp drill instructor, "You obviously have me confused with someone who gives a ................."

I truly do not have the words to adequately convey just how little I care about spending ANY of my cash to satisfy your (or anyone else's) "need" for measurements.
prof55's Avatar prof55 08:52 PM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

I bought the EyeOne LT for $140 new in 2008.

Is it capable of measuring screen gain (on/off axis) and color accuracy?
curttard's Avatar curttard 09:13 PM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by prof55 View Post

Is it capable of measuring screen gain (on/off axis) and color accuracy?

I don't believe it technically does. It does measure brightness off the screen in ftL, so you could certainly compare two screens/projectors in terms of the ftL of a 100% white. I think technically that is not screen gain without also knowing how much light the projector itself is actually putting out. It likewise doesn't measure the color accuracy of a material itself per se, but does measure the colors produced by the display in conjunction with the screen. In other words, if you calibrated a nice flat greyscale, gamma, and accurate colors on one screen, and then swapped it out for another screen without changing the projector settings, you could measure how the colors etc were affected, so you would know which screen was redder than the other or leaned more toward blue or whatever.
curttard's Avatar curttard 09:29 PM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewGate88 View Post

if you are so hot and bothered to see "measurements" from my screen, the bye all means COUGH UP THE CASH TO BUY ME THE INSTRUMENTATION.
Then of course, you will have to find some way to instill in me the desire. That may be a little tough. To quote my old Navy boot camp drill instructor, "You obviously have me confused with someone who gives a ................."
I truly do not have the words to adequately convey just how little I care about spending ANY of my cash to satisfy your (or anyone else's) "need" for measurements.

Who's asking you for measurements? I don't even know what kind of screen you have. Since you are not trying to tell people your screen outperforms others in ways x y and z, there is certainly no burden on you to support your claim with some kind of evidence.

I'm simply saying that anyone who is really looking for the best possible image from their projector -- and their tvs, and their computers, and their future projectors and future tvs and future computers -- would be well-served by calibrating their displays with a colorimeter.
prof55's Avatar prof55 09:29 PM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

I don't believe it technically does. It does measure brightness off the screen in ftL, so you could certainly compare two screens/projectors in terms of the ftL of a 100% white. I think technically that is not screen gain without also knowing how much light the projector itself is actually putting out. It likewise doesn't measure the color accuracy of a material itself per se, but does measure the colors produced by the display in conjunction with the screen. In other words, if you calibrated a nice flat greyscale, gamma, and accurate colors on one screen, and then swapped it out for another screen without changing the projector settings, you could measure how the colors etc were affected, so you would know which screen was redder than the other or leaned more toward blue or whatever.

How many dollars worth of instrumentation would be necessary to provide the screen measurements that you and others here consider necessary?

(I'm assuming these would include on and off-axis gain (i.e. viewing cone) and color accuracy, but let me know if this is not the case)
Kirnak's Avatar Kirnak 09:33 PM 12-18-2012
No offense Cuttard, but that i1 LT is basically useless if it hasn't been profiled with a spectraphotometer like the i1 Pro pretty recently. Perhaps it has? If you want to send it to me, I'd be happy to profile it for you with my i1 Pro.

OK, I'm very firmly in the "scientific measurement" crowd. That's why I included measurements in my recent screen build thread. But that doesn't mean that I can't use help from the "intuition" crowd. I had a question about spraying my screen and MM was there to give a bit of advice. I learned an awful lot about building a screen from MM and PB-Maxxx, and continue to be grateful for the help I received. I learned a lot about measurements elsewhere, and I am very grateful for that help as well. We've got several groups of people who spend a lot of time helping others, and it's a damn shame they don't get along better. I really don't claim to know who's fault that is, if it's anybody's, and to be honest I don't care.

If you want to steer someone towards a paint with some scientific analysis behind it, do so when they ask for help. I don't think there's anything wrong with posting your own measurements and experience in such a thread. Just be prepared to back up your measurements and to spend the time the OP needs helping him. If you're not prepared to help him, you should hold your peace. Even if you think the "intuition crowd's" plan is bad, remember a bad plan is better than no plan. (I'm not claiming anyone's plan is bad, just being hypothetical.)

Again, suppose some paint is just the worst paint ever. So what? Paint over it. Even if the original paint is pure crap, how much will the hobbyist learn painting that first screen? Enough so they can go on, learn even more about what is best for them, and give it another go.

I just don't anyone is helped by confrontation and rudeness, on either side. There's an easy solution: start a thread explaining why people should use a paint that has been analyzed. Then it's your thread and you can get your point out without stepping on someone else's thread. If you want to analyze all of the popular screen paints and post your data, I see nothing wrong with that. Just be forewarned, it's a lot of work.
curttard's Avatar curttard 09:52 PM 12-18-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

No offense Cuttard, but that i1 LT is basically useless if it hasn't been profiled with a spectraphotometer like the i1 Pro pretty recently. Perhaps it has? If you want to send it to me, I'd be happy to profile it for you with my i1 Pro.

Mine is probably pretty off by now, I remember reading they drift over time and this one is more than four years old now. Can profiling still work, and is this a profile that can be used with HCFR? I appreciate the offer!

My suggestion for measurements from something like this is more to demonstrate relative differences between two screens rather than hard data. Basically the same as my suggestions for screenshots -- a screenshot can't show the contrast of a screen or the color accuracy, but a few screenshots can, done properly, show how one screen differs from another.
1  2 3  4 

Up
Mobile  Desktop