Quality difference of Screen paints. - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 55 Old 09-13-2013, 09:34 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mastertiger101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thank you again, and two more questions if you don't mind. Where did you get your blackout cloth. Joans, or from carls place. anywhere else?. Also between the benq w1070 and the Optoma hd25e which one do you think is better? They are very similar in picture quality so I am having trouble deciding.
mastertiger101 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 55 Old 09-13-2013, 10:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I got it at Joann's. As I said, it's on sale there right now for $2.79/yard. You want white/white. I can't remember if white/ecru would work because I can't remember if the ecru side is the side you want to use or not.

I don't really know anything about those projectors, sorry. I'd ask Coderguy on the Under $3000 forum.
curttard is offline  
post #33 of 55 Old 09-13-2013, 12:49 PM
Member
 
zenscope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Already out of stock.
zenscope is offline  
post #34 of 55 Old 09-13-2013, 08:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
They update the coupons on their site every week. 40% off are extremely common. You only need 2-3 yards so even full price is only $20 or less.
curttard is offline  
post #35 of 55 Old 09-13-2013, 09:01 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mastertiger101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thank you guys for your help! I appreciate it!
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #36 of 55 Old 09-22-2013, 10:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
By the way, to get back to the initial question of paint vs screen material -- I got a sample of Studiotek 130, which is basically the gold standard of screen materials. If I'm not mistaken it's around 4x the cost of Elite screens.

With the sample placed in the center of my screen, the RS-MM-LL is essentially a dead ringer for the Studiotek overall -- the ST130 sample completely disappears. Where the RS suffers is in terms of visible grain (i.e. it makes the picture look kind of "dirty" in solid areas, especially of lighter colors, and especially during camera pans) and viewing angle. The ST130 is totally smooth and texture/grain free, and has a wider viewing angle. When I put the ST130 right in the center of the screen, they are basically identical, but if I move it even a foot to the left or right, the RS brightness drops off and the ST130 is now noticeably brighter, with the effect increasing the farther from center.

The ST130 is brighter than the Glidden (as is the RS), but the Glidden has a slightly superior viewing angle to the ST and a significantly better viewing angle than the RS. The Glidden has no visible texture to my eye.

Now the above comments are with solid colors and test pattern, or stuff like cartoons or CG with pure solid areas of color; or something like the snowboarding movie Art of Flight with huge expanses of white snow.

In complex material, with lots of texture, color, detail, light, dark, maybe even film grain; or in mostly dark material, all of my materials -- RS-MM-LL, Glidden panel, Sherwin Williams panel, and ST130 fabric sample -- are for all practical purposes ENTIRELY indistinguishable from one another. And that's when they're literally overlaid on one another, side by side. If you actually had multiple full-size screens and switched from one to the other, I don't think you would notice any difference at all beyond the texture -- and even that is not visible in detailed and/or dark scenes. This, ultimately, is why I can't recommend the more expensive and/or finicky solutions. You may, depending on what you are projecting, be able to see a difference when they are literally side by side, but if someone switched out your screen when you weren't home, I think you would notice no difference in brightness or contrast, and would only notice (maybe) differences in grain/texture and viewing angle.

Note regarding texture: My RS is sprayed, the Sherwin-Williams and Glidden are rolled. Iirc, spraying is supposed to result in better, smoother texture, but rolling can result in a brighter screen. My Glidden has no visible texture or grain in the image from seating distance; the SW's is actually even smoother, but I get hot-spotting so I can't really say much about the SW -- no one else seems to have had any hot-spotting so maybe I got a bad batch? My RS produces distractingly visible grain/texture/whatever in solid areas, but again, this is not noticeable in regular detailed and/or dark content.

My screen is 10ft wide 2.35, and my sofa is about 9ft back. From the center seat on the sofa, the RS is noticeably brighter than the Glidden in the center of the screen. But even a foot or so off center, the Glidden panel is as bright, and beyond that, the Glidden is noticeably brighter, due to the gain dropoff on the RS. So with the RS, the center of the screen will be brighter than the sides, and people sitting in the other seats will see a dimmer image than someone in the middle.

The ST130 is great -- bright, smooth, and a better viewing angle than the RS -- but the price difference is so immense that it doesn't make sense to me for anyone who doesn't really have money to burn. You're paying hundreds and hundreds more -- maybe $1000 more -- for a bit more brightness than the Glidden, and the Glidden actually has less gain dropoff as the angle increases.
curttard is offline  
post #37 of 55 Old 09-23-2013, 01:26 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mastertiger101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Yet again thanks. I have decided to go with some BOC from Joans. I went there the other day and it is 7 bucks per yard but they give out coupons like crazy so I should be able to get it cheaper, if not still cheaper than buy a regular screen. And then painting it with Glidden. One quick question, the BOC is only 54" wide so I wont be able to do 110" since it is 94" wide, by 54" tall. so thinking about droping it to 100". is there another place to get BOC that is taller? Also I heard 16:9 is the ratio to go nowadays though 2.35 seems more traditional. What is your take on aspect ratios.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #38 of 55 Old 09-23-2013, 03:02 PM
Member
 
jwh92020's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
jwh92020 is offline  
post #39 of 55 Old 09-23-2013, 04:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastertiger101 View Post

Yet again thanks. I have decided to go with some BOC from Joans. I went there the other day and it is 7 bucks per yard but they give out coupons like crazy so I should be able to get it cheaper, if not still cheaper than buy a regular screen. And then painting it with Glidden. One quick question, the BOC is only 54" wide so I wont be able to do 110" since it is 94" wide, by 54" tall. so thinking about droping it to 100". is there another place to get BOC that is taller? Also I heard 16:9 is the ratio to go nowadays though 2.35 seems more traditional. What is your take on aspect ratios.

Personally I can never go back to 16:9. Having 2.35 movies be wider than 16:9, rather than shorter, is the only thing that makes sense to me. Otherwise you're watching comedies and documentaries on a giant screen and then you go to watch some epic adventure and it's half the size, just a little letterboxed strip in the middle of your screen.

Also, it might not be ideal, but aside from buying the bigger stuff at Carl's, the BOC does stretch a bit. If you do a small border, or no border, or set the border so it only overlaps your screen a little, you can probably squeeze 53" viewable height on a BOC screen.

Joann.com has a 40% coupon up right now that you can use in-store.
curttard is offline  
post #40 of 55 Old 09-23-2013, 05:49 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mastertiger101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Do you think that the sale will still be available come Christmas time? or is 40% pretty rare for Joans?

Also all the projectors that I am looking at say 16:9, do I have to buy a special lens for it or can it also do 1:2.35? This is probably a noob question.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #41 of 55 Old 09-23-2013, 06:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
40% coupons are very common, as are sales of 50% on blackout cloth. But for your 94" wide screen you would be paying less than $20 even at full price.

Projectors do 16:9. You get 2.35 by zooming in to make the image larger, so that the letterbox bars are projected off the screen. For example, to fill my 2.35, 10ft wide screen, I am actually projecting a 142" 16:9 image with the black letterbox bars being projected off the screen. The actual vertical height of the entire projected image including the letterbox bars is 70" or so, but the 2.35 image is only 53-54" high.
curttard is offline  
post #42 of 55 Old 09-23-2013, 07:26 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mastertiger101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Ahhh thank you. This has helped me alot. I was uncertain about alot of things until now.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #43 of 55 Old 09-23-2013, 07:36 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mastertiger101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I was thinking, and I realized if one does the zoom in, one would lose pixels as it is being wasted on more black screen. so the actual movie would appear more pix elated.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #44 of 55 Old 09-23-2013, 07:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
You are using the same amount of pixels for 2.35 movies either way, something like 1920 x 817 -- no pixels are being lost. But a bigger image means bigger pixels.

If you have a 110" 16:9 screen, your screen is 94" x 54". 16:9 content will be 94" x 54", at resolution of 1920 x 1080. Cinemascope (2.35) content will be 94" x 40", and occupy 1920 x 817 pixels.

Personally I set my 2.35 screen so that my 16:9 stuff would be the same size as it would be on my ideal 16:9 screen. So in other words if you really think 94" x 54" is optimal for 16:9, then I would use that height for my 2.35 screen, which would result in a screen that is 127" x 54". 16:9 content would then be zoomed in and occupy 94" x 54" of that screen, at 1920 x 1080. Cinemascope content would be zoomed out and occupy the full 127" x 54" at 1920 x 817. And obviously a 127" wide image is going to have larger pixels than a 94" wide image.

It might be that you don't want, or can't fit, a screen that big, or maybe your projector can't be placed back far enough to project an image that big; or maybe an image that big would be too dim with your projector. So you might be forced to go smaller. For example, if 110" is as wide as you can go for whatever reason, then a 2.35 screen would be 110" x 46". So, you'd get a bigger 2.35 image than the 94" x 40" that cinemascope would be on your original 16:9 94" x 54" screen. But the trade-off is that 16:9 stuff would be SMALLER at 81" x 46".
curttard is offline  
post #45 of 55 Old 09-24-2013, 06:48 AM
Member
 
zenscope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Room width vs height is also a consideration. I have an odd shaped theater room that is width limited. That is, taller than it is wide.
I would have liked to go with a Cinemascope\Panavision screen, but the wall width would have made my 16x9 content only slightly larger than my television (using CIH).

If your viewing content is predominantly movies, and you can take advantage of a wide room, I'd go for the 2.35 or 2.4 screen. If you'll be watching mostly HDTV or console gaming, 16x9 might be the better choice. PC gaming would allow you to adjust the resolution to fit a 2.35 screen.
zenscope is offline  
post #46 of 55 Old 01-25-2014, 07:30 PM
Newbie
 
Bubbah16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well your posts are very stimulating but I have encounter a different result.

Before painting with Glidden GLN9000 I had a basic off white/eggshell almost semi gloss paint wich gave with my LG PB63U a warm image but with some hot spotting.


Went to home depot and asked for GLN9000 and was confused with 2 different products available.

The clerk told me that was not the correct product when the home depot website says it is


You can see at the top of the label 90 II


Then told me the correct one has the label where at the top is GLN 9000



The last one is the one I brang home as you obviously see.

Well it gve me brighter whites but it lost it's warmer natural look, washed off dead image lifeless and the blacks are less impressive.

Not happy with it even after the second coat rolled after 8 hours after drying.
A full day between coats.

I wish I had not painted over the orginal paint wich I prefered. My bad.

Wondering if I had the correct Glidden in hand?
Bubbah16 is offline  
post #47 of 55 Old 01-25-2014, 09:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Well it gve me brighter whites but it lost it's warmer natural look, washed off dead image lifeless and the blacks are less impressive.

well... you my friend have described how i feel about most white screens in general... even in a well done batcave.

my suggestion to you would be to go with RS-MaxxMudd LL.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #48 of 55 Old 01-26-2014, 07:29 AM
Newbie
 
Bubbah16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

Well it gve me brighter whites but it lost it's warmer natural look, washed off dead image lifeless and the blacks are less impressive.

well... you my friend have described how i feel about most white screens in general... even in a well done batcave.

my suggestion to you would be to go with RS-MaxxMudd LL.


Well before I move on I was wondering do I have the right Glidden paint to start with?


Then will try to search for the paint recipe you are referring too.

But seems they are quite a few recipes from people and trying a few of them is time consuming and $$$ also.
Bubbah16 is offline  
post #49 of 55 Old 01-27-2014, 12:25 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,870
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbah16 View Post

Well before I move on I was wondering do I have the right Glidden paint to start with?


Then will try to search for the paint recipe you are referring too.

But seems they are quite a few recipes from people and trying a few of them is time consuming and $$$ also.

.........or you could simply do the suggestion given you and be finished.

Sometimes people make it out to be so much harder than it really is. Certainly wrong decisions can be made, and even ill advised suggestions be followed. But common sense reasoning based around known values is more likely to reap the results desired than simply opting for the easiest way out.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is online now  
post #50 of 55 Old 03-04-2014, 11:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbah16 View Post

Well before I move on I was wondering do I have the right Glidden paint to start with?


Then will try to search for the paint recipe you are referring too.

But seems they are quite a few recipes from people and trying a few of them is time consuming and $$$ also.

If I were you I certainly would not paint over a Glidden screen I was unhappy with, with RS-MM-LL. As I've said, they're indistinguishable in complex content, and the only real difference is that the RS is a hair brighter in dead center and a bit dimmer off center, and the Glidden has less grain. Basically, if you don't like the Glidden, you aren't going to like the RS either.

You probably just got used to the way your old screen looked. The Glidden is color neutral, your old paint was probably on the yellow or red side if you think it looked "warmer". If the blacks are less impressive on the Glidden, I assume you are getting a brighter picture overall. If your projector has a manual iris, you can dial that down, or you can move your projector closer and zoom accordingly; this way you'll both lower the brightness (improving the blacks) and also slightly improve sharpness and contrast.
curttard is offline  
post #51 of 55 Old 03-05-2014, 02:46 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,870
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 216
The posted results by the majority of end users of RS-MaxxMudd LL should...and do carry more weight that a single suggestion that someone continue on with accepting the results a simple bright white paint produces...especially when the user involved has plainly stated he was dissatisfied.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is online now  
post #52 of 55 Old 03-08-2014, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
The posted results by the majority of end users of RS-MaxxMudd LL should...and do carry more weight

How many posted results compare RSMMLL to GLN9000? Other than my own, I mean. I've had the paints in question side by side on many occasions. Have you ever seen them side by side? I'm speaking from experience, are you?

The qualities he has stated he was dissatisfied with will still be there with RSMMLL.

He said he isn't too happy with the blacks, and RSMMLL has lighter blacks than the Glidden -- unsurprising since it's a bit brighter. The color temp of the RS is not as accurate as the Glidden but is close enough to the eye, so he won't get a "warmer" image as he seems to want. Not sure what he means by "dead" and "lifeless", but since it's almost impossible to tell where RSMMLL leaves off and GLN begins, it's safe to say he won't get a "livelier" image with the RS.

You're telling him to spend $60-80+ to slap on a new paint that is difficult to distinguish from the one he already has even when they're literally side by side...and will be wholly un-noticeable once he has swapped out the whole screen, unless he is bothered by the "grit" of the RS as I was, or notices the brightness dropoff from center with the RS..

Once again, here is an RSMMLL screen with a panel of GLN9000 overlaid on it.











I eagerly await the many photos from your own comparisons -- which you have surely done, to state so confidently in one thread after another that I'm wrong and RSMMLL provides a significant advantage over OTS white paint -- that prove me wrong.
jimmiejohn likes this.
curttard is offline  
post #53 of 55 Old 03-08-2014, 06:15 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,870
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 216
I don't know what filters you own eyes have on, but your own images clearly show that RS-MM LL has be tter contrast because the whites are brighter while the difference between the Black levels are almost insignificant. The Glidden's whites are dull, almost gray in comparison. The entire premise behind mixes that contain metallics is to preserve whites while improving blacks. A White paint that produces a blacker Black yet also dulls whites is simply attenuating light reflection across the board.

To make it all even more pointless, your choice of images and the representative fields are pretty poor, except the Tron image.

It is you who constantly harp about how much better a White screen is...at every opportunity across many threads. Pretty much you are ignored. In this case you choose to read into my comments something personal, while in fact I was stating that "other " posters are the source of the opinion as to what quality their "own" results show.

Pretty typical...as waxing redundant and rehashing your own personal preferences is about all you ever have to offer.

I personally have offered up so many more examples of various applications, many with comparisons, than you have it's silly. I've proven my point literially hundreds of times so I really have no interest bantering already proven points with someone who is posting only to bait for responses....and attention.That I have not bothered with the Glidden 9000 doesn't show anything except a decided lack of necessity to show how it can never provide as balanced and complete an image as RS-MM-LL.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is online now  
post #54 of 55 Old 03-09-2014, 08:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
but your own images clearly show that RS-MM LL has be tter contrast because the whites are brighter while the difference between the Black levels are almost insignificant. The Glidden's whites are dull, almost gray in comparison.

Which images show "dull, almost gray in comparison" whites on the Glidden? Because I can tell you that if you look at the brightest parts of the images -- say, the glowing disc in the Tron shot -- it has the same pixel value in the Glidden as in the RS part. THE SAME. This is not opinion -- it's fact. And the same goes for the blacks. So for you to say there is a "clear" difference merely shows that you are hopelessly blinded by your own bias, or deliberately misleading. How can you rationalize saying there is a "clear" difference and the Glidden's whites are "dull" in the screenshots when they are the exact same pixel brightness? You are factually, 100% wrong, and what makes it even more funny is that you didn't say "I think the RS has the edge" but went wildly over the top with "clearly has the better contrast" and Glidden being "dull" in comparison.
Quote:
To make it all even more pointless, your choice of images and the representative fields are pretty poor, except the Tron image.

This from a guy whose idea of "representative" comparisons is to lay a piece of white typing paper on top of your screen (as a stand-in for a white painted solution) and take a picture in Auto mode. Please tell me what makes the Tron image more "representative" than the others so that I might provide more "representative" images in the future.
Quote:
That I have not bothered with the Glidden 9000 doesn't show anything except a decided lack of necessity to show how it can never provide as balanced and complete an image as RS-MM-LL.

Anyone who has actually seen them side by side -- which does not, apparently, include you or any of the many people whose opinions you DO see as valid (because they liked your screen solutions) -- knows how utterly absurd this claim is. Anyone looking at those screenshots above knows how utterly absurd this claim is.

I will repeat: In the majority of regular film content, it is difficult and at times impossible to tell where RS ends and the Glidden begins without seeing the shadow cast by the Glidden panel. In light of this, claiming the RS provides a far more "balanced and complete image" -- which is empty, meaningless sales-speak if I've ever heard it -- is completely ludicrous.

Hopefully the OP isn't swayed by your wild marketing claims, and doesn't waste a lot more money and time painting his screen with something that he won't be able to tell apart from what he already has.
jimmiejohn likes this.
curttard is offline  
post #55 of 55 Old 03-09-2014, 01:28 PM
Moderator
 
prof55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
This thread has run its course. If you wish to continue the debate, please do so in a civil manner in a new thread.
prof55 is offline  
Closed Thread 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