Anyone with pics to show diff between light fusion, white fusion and normal grey or white screen??? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 5 Old 09-01-2013, 09:51 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
narhic_fd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I've been searching the forums in hopes to find some pics of the same image being projected on a "Light fusion" (with the slight glow) and "White Fusion" screen compared to it being projected on a normal white substrate(grey if need be) but can't find any that have all 3 so i can compare the diff. Does anyone out there have any pics of a projector image, from the same projector and same image, being projected on these 3 screen back to back so i can see the actual difference??? It would help me compare how much more brightness and contrast is added when you throw in the added enhancement of the 2 fusion(Light or White). Can anyone help me on this??? Thanks in advance.
narhic_fd is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 5 Old 09-02-2013, 11:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 27
There are very few direct comparisons of screen solutions here, I've found. People state confidently that whatever their newest screen solution is looks leagues better than their old ones, but then it comes out they haven't seen them side by side, or even with the same projector half the time. "My latest paint looks amazing compared to my vague memory of what my old one looked like. Oh, did I mention that I upgraded from a Panny AE900 to an Epson 5020 at the same time?"

One would think it would be extraordinarily easy to simply project a grey ramp and have panels of two solutions side by side to see if claims of increased contrast -- i.e. brighter whites with darker blacks -- are true, but somehow this never seems to be done.
curttard is offline  
post #3 of 5 Old 09-03-2013, 08:50 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 15,124
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 247
There have been a great many comparisons made over several years. And I'm pretty sure your aware of them, having been a member since 2006. Does anyone necessarily rush to jump in and dig up 5-7 year old posts to satisfy impromptu requests? Not that often. Do some occasionally use the lack of current examples of such to make an inference that such is seldom / or has never been done? Obviously they sometimes do.

What I do see in the post above is a repetition of the same old effort to bring out a controversy.
"Does any painted application actually increase the contrast variable between Black & White on a screen surface....and if such is the case, where is the "proof"?

The simple answer is yes....there are such paint apps, but if such as achieved to the extent where there is a gross increase, the resulting "Whites" are usually blown out and achieve "hot spotting" status. Or....it's the Black levels that get raised, while Whites remain the same. Other caveats include color shifts and visually noticeable graininess...as well as pronounced losses in viewing cone. Such is why most all attempts made by Mfg Screen to do so are actually under-achievers compared to their accomplishments.

Balanced DIY Painted applications strive to increase the depth of Black Levels while maintaining the "appearance" that Whites and Colors remain brilliant. This is done by increasing the gain of such a surface relative to it's hue of Gray, and not allowing it's reflectivity quotient to take a nose dive into sub-1.0 gain territory.

In truth, it's only those who want to drive a nail through the efforts to create exemplary DIY apps who strive to point out that a comparison between a White surface and a Gray surface always favors the White surface as far as the difference between both shown white levels. It's been stated many times that Whites on a Gray surface look perfectly acceptable...even dynamically white....until placed Side -by- Side next to a pure White surface.

As such, it's also been sated repeatedly that such comparisons, made exclusively for that purpose, are in fact inappropriate and overlook all the "other" advantages that Gray hued surfaces have over White surfaces. Deeper Blacks, more saturated Colors, and the "appearance" that contrast levels have been increased.

In the long haul, it has served everyone much better to allow the end user to make their own determinations as to how much better (...or worse...)a particular DIY application performs than their previous screen. And should the new screen be a "First" screen, well then it's all about how satisfied the End User is. Few "Go Gray" initially unless there is a need to do so. And if there is such a need, then no White surface will out perform a Gray under such circumstances. Period. Brighter Whites on such surfaces are mitigated by the Black Levels dropping.....actually resulting in a decreasing of contrast.

Light Fusion started out as a White Translucent coating over a Silvered 2nd Surface Mirror. The intent being to first present a surface reflection, then by allowing absorption, collection and then reflection of the absorbed (...and attenuated...) light, infuse the surface with the returned light, resulting in more saturation...without hot spotting...of the original flat, static image. A Gross increase in contrast was never the goal, but rather achieving a depth of image and improved shadow detail, combining to create an image with more brilliance and a 3-D like appearance.

What was discovered was that once those goals were achieved, the switch to obtaining deeper Blacks became the more important goal. As such, the influx of the use of a "initial surface" containing Silver Metallic...the latter to create a Gray hue without the attenuation that a simple Gray would introduce....was explored. That was "MM Light Fusion SE" (Silver Edition). next came Black Flame / Silver Fire apps on Mirrors, with the gain preserved by the use of the Mirror combining with the reflectivity of the initial surface's metallic content working together to provide darker surfaces that still looked non-attenuated and dynamic.

So many examples were posted...along with comparisons, that a concerted rush to disprove it's real effect was undertaken by a select few, owning to the increase of popularity and the general acceptance of it's potential. Much like what can be inferred from the quoted comment above, the mere fact that people would just up and make one based on the reports posted by others who had done so seemed to rankle the sensibilities of those who felt that something false was being fostered off on the AVS membership.

In truth, it's posted comments exactly like "My latest paint looks amazing compared to my vague memory of what my old one looked like. Oh, did I mention that I upgraded from a Panny AE900 to an Epson 5020 at the same time?"...that showed to what extent that some might go to to decry the needed...or the worthiness of such advanced DIY apps. To such individuals, personal testimonials are supposedly not enough....they do not represent anything but personal satisfaction levels...and it seems that is no judgement upon whice to make any determination.

Strangely enough, even in the realm of Mfg Screens, when wild claims are made (..600% increase in Contrast!" ), quite often there is no effort even made to substantiate such claims. Yet DIY Screen making is subjected to a higher standard. If someone states his Screen is looking better than a give Mfg Screen, he had better be ready to devote time and money to prove it beyond all doubt.

On the Flip side of that coin, Member Tiddler spent considerable time and effort over a few years trying his best to post up extremely diverse and informative comparisons. Some of which exist right up in the DIY Sticky at top of the Thread page. I myself have posted several threads that contained direct comparisons of SF Light Fusion surfaces against Matte White surfaces, all of which that showed very obvious improvements in both Black Levels and Ambient light resistance...and for the trouble have had just those few individuals return time and again to state instead, "It makes no sense to compare a Matte White to a positive gained Reflective Gray surface...the Gray surface will obviously show better Blacks." A telling point being that under such circumstances, the White levels were not the main issue, as they had not degraded proportionately to the increase in the perceived Black levels.

In Front projection, personal perceptions amount to 90% of what a individual considers to be "Image Quality". And those perceptions are as varied as the individual's own personal tastes.

Curttard, I don't want you to think I'm dumping on you for using your post as a reference to many past occurrences. Your's simply represents a convenient vehicle to work with. Yes, we've have many lengthy discussions, ranging from choosing a paint application, spraying technique, the usefulness in sanding, the differences in paints, and even screen shot validity. That last one strikes to the heart of your supposition as to how easy it would be to post up a Checkerboard along with a Reference White overlaid onto a basic Gray surface, as well as any particular advanced DIY surface.

Well ...you had such opportunity, owning to your past experience with several test panels you had made. And...you used a Digital Camera to record your findings. No one claimed your posted results were worthless because of your Camera's inability to make accurate assessments. and in fact, you yourself counted on such to validate your own conclusions to the members viewing your posted results. Otherwise, all you would have posted would have been your opinions.

However you never posted that 'ol Checkerboard. biggrin.gif

The fact is...when a Black gets substantially "Blacker", a White will seem to be still just as white, even if it is attenuated right along the same percentage level as the Black. That's what a "perceived Increase in contrast" is all about.

All that said, in my own Thread "Whats happening here?" , I did show a noticeable difference between a reference white's whites, and a SFv2.3 2.0 surface, while also showing that there was a visually measurable difference in the Black Levels as well. Seeing that the SF Screen surface was not a overly dark one, the difference was not huge...but it was measurable via the Camera's eye.

And...it was on that thread you yourself suggested that a Checkerboard be considered. But by that conjecture, the Owner of said screen was firmly ensconced in his Theater Chair, and coming back in to requisition the Theater for my personal observations and testing was not a consideration, both because of my own lack of time and the sensibilities of the Owner.

So....what is noted is that it would be advantageous to have a full array of viable testing patterns present when one first get's such a advanced DIY screen finished. And also have a decent Camera in hand, one well calibrated to the specific task. Also, one would need to calibrate the PJ at least twice, once for the Screen's own surface properties, and again for whatever White Sample one would deign to use...take shots of both comparisons, and delve into what's seen. And of course one must have that White Reference sample tagging along at the time. lastly...one simply must have the time and inclination to provide all of the above.

But in the real world, it's only a decided few who will / have ever gone to such lengths. And if any such effort is met with derision and dismissal, it's a pretty safe bet it won't be repeated.

One thing is very clear. The publishing of spectral graphs and neutrality charts do not always accurately represent the real life results that occur when a given Screen / PJ combo get's working together. At best they can only be an assist when determining the viability and parameters of a given surface and it's ability to render a decent image within a given spectrum of available projectors. At worst, such postings serve only to bludgeon the efforts of DIY'ers, their personal choices, and their posted personal results. Fortunately we are past that sort of behavior on this Forum...and it's the End User whose own experiences and opinions that are looked to as being all that is required.

curttard,
you stated your about to paint another Screen in November. Well you have plenty of varying applications to choose from, from Mfg "One Can Wonders" to simple / complex DIY Mixes. One can only hope you yourself will take a measured overview of what info and posted results you can find, and make your own choice accordingly. People exist on this Forum to help others, not hinder the flow of such help. So perhaps you yourself can help out by gearing your own efforts toward coalescing the needed samples and visual aids, and doing those test comparisons. Doing so would go much further toward constructive help than posting sarcastically, don't you think? wink.gif

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

http://www.invisiblestereo.com
MississippiMan is online now  
post #4 of 5 Old 09-03-2013, 05:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
However you never posted that 'ol Checkerboard.

Iirc, the shots I posted were in fact cropped from checkerboard patterns.
Quote:
To such individuals, personal testimonials are supposedly not enough....they do not represent anything but personal satisfaction levels...and it seems that is no judgement upon whice to make any determination.

Well, obviously. How can someone else saying "I think it looks amazing" possibly be convincing if I don't know what else they've compared it to, or in what way? If they are saying their new screen looks much better than their old one, but have never seen their old one with their new projector or in their new room or whatever, then what possible use can I make of their opinion that the new screen is "better"?
Quote:
Also, one would need to calibrate the PJ at least twice, once for the Screen's own surface properties, and again for whatever White Sample one would deign to use

The grey tint of the screen shouldn't have any bearing on the projector's ability to produce blacker than black or whiter than white, which are what's used to set contrast and brightness. Few of us have a problem of too much brightness, even on a white screen, which means we would not likely reduce the white level for the heck of it, and I doubt any of us wants to lose dark detail, which means we would not opt to crush the blacks of our projector just because we are using a screen of one shade compared to another. I suppose calibrating contrast such that a 100% white screen on each is producing the same actual ftL could be useful, since it would let us see just how much more "perceived contrast" is supposedly being produced by one solution compared to the other -- in other words, if the white panel and the painted panel were calibrated so that a white image on each were measuring at 16 ftL (or whatever), would the blacks on the painted panel actually be any darker? Calibrating would also be useful to correct for the color inaccuracies of the non-neutral screen, and in that sense it would be a great thing because it's possible that the brightness would be reduced once the color/greyscale inaccuracies were corrected.
Quote:
But by that conjecture, the Owner of said screen was firmly ensconced in his Theater Chair, and coming back in to requisition the Theater for my personal observations and testing was not a consideration, both because of my own lack of time and the sensibilities of the Owner.

This admittedly sounds a little strange to me. Haven't you made hundreds of such screens? I would assume in your own workshop you must have gallons of your paints all mixed up and ready to go, scraps already painted, etc. I would think it would be very easy for you to put a comparison together that would easily show the properties you advertise.
Quote:
But in the real world, it's only a decided few who will / have ever gone to such lengths.

It's weird that people will spend months or years poring over threads about screen mixes and materials and hours or days actually making their screen, along with hundreds of dollars, but don't have any interest in knowing if what they are doing is actually superior to another method that may even be cheaper and easier in addition to producing an equal or superior image.
Quote:
People exist on this Forum to help others, not hinder the flow of such help. So perhaps you yourself can help out by gearing your own efforts toward coalescing the needed samples and visual aids, and doing those test comparisons.

I have done so in my previous thread, which compared RS-MM-LL, SherwinWilliams ProClassic, C&S Ultra, and blackout cloth; which I will soon be adding to with the results of testing with the very inexpensive Glidden white paint. I would be delighted to add any other solutions to the "mix" (pardon the pun) if anyone wants to send me a panel or even the paint/material and I will put the panel together myself.
curttard is offline  
post #5 of 5 Old 09-03-2013, 06:03 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
narhic_fd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Well....That seemed to open a can of worms, lol. Thanks for the info on the "What is happening Here?" post I check it out. I also found a post that was started in 2004 called "CRMA/MM Superplex Formula". The screen shots in that post really blew me away. I couldn't believe the brightness and contrast that was added to a projector image with that formula. Why isn't the superplex formula used any more??? That really surprised me considering the gain it added??
narhic_fd 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