Quality difference of Screen paints. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 55 Old 09-09-2013, 05:52 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 would like to know, and most likely other beginners out there as well, how good certain paint mixtures such as MaxMudd, Silverfire, or Sherwin Williams compare to certain non-diy screens such as an Elite screens sable fixed series is better or worse than Sherwin Williams, but better or worse than Silverfire, etc. If we can make maybe a compilation and add it to the Beginners guide, I am sure many would find it helpful in the decision making process of building a screen.
mastertiger101 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 55 Old 09-10-2013, 06:59 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 202
That's a tall order there.

While there are / have been many postings comparing various DIY Screen apps, not nearly as much emphasis is placed on direct comparisons being made with varied Mfg Screens. Basically, three things have interacted together to make that moot in the eyes of DIY'ers.

1. It has always been the opinion of "Most" on DIY Screens that the object of our efforts has been to achieve parity or surpass the quality of a Mfg counterpart. Even with the expensive advanced screens (...my personal "Huckleberry"...) and the posted results from many, including those who did have the ability to make a "one-on-one" comparison to a screen they previously owned or had seen in action validated that opinion.

2.Even with such mid-grade Mfg. screens such as the matte White Elite "Fixed Screens", the price difference is pretty extreme between them and their DIY counterparts. So much so, that considering surface texture issues, potential for incorrectly stretched material, and possible non-repairable damage, the advocated use of Mfg screens simply goes against the sensibilities and sensibleness of everything we aspire to encourage on this DIY Forum.

3. There exists a defining gulf between those who desire to go down the DIY Screen making road, and those who simply want to purchase-hang-and shoot onto a "store bought. Pride in the accomplishment of such projects, and a narrowly defined approach toward prioritizing their efforts keep such "tests & comparisons" pretty rare.



Sometimes I myself have been taken to task for not making such an effort, but like many others, and considering what I do almost daily, my time is also prioritized, And if I do have time on my hands, it is often spent here helping out all I can.

Just ask my Wife. She'll let you know......LOUDLY. redface.gif

Case in point................I should already be out "in the field" yet here I sit. biggrin.gif

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #3 of 55 Old 09-10-2013, 11:56 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 for your response, though I apologize if my post sounded as an order, as that is not at all what I wanted, a mere suggestion or consideration for not only the benefit of beginners but of experienced people such as yourself. Many posts that I have seen and including ones that I almost posted, being a beginner myself, have been asking questions on what paints or what difference will i see. They seem to get repetitive and by making a guide slash compilation it might save alot of time for both sides.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #4 of 55 Old 09-11-2013, 09:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I think it's a good idea as well, but I doubt it will happen.

FWIW most of the posts I've seen that do direct comparisons of DIY paints to Carada, Elite, etc screens conclude that the paint is just as good or better. I don't know if I've seen any actual photos though.

I would think the advantage of the screens would mainly be convenience (no mixing, no sanding, no trying to fix irregularities) and possibly superior texture.
curttard is offline  
post #5 of 55 Old 09-11-2013, 09:41 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
Yeah, thank you all. I do realize it would be hard as most people I imagine directly make their own screen rather than having bought a premade screen beforehand. Also just as a question, for a light controlled room, that can remove all ambient light, then the MaxMud-ll is the best paint mixture right? Silver fire is for ambient?
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #6 of 55 Old 09-11-2013, 05:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastertiger101 View Post

Yeah, thank you all. I do realize it would be hard as most people I imagine directly make their own screen rather than having bought a premade screen beforehand. Also just as a question, for a light controlled room, that can remove all ambient light, then the MaxMud-ll is the best paint mixture right? Silver fire is for ambient?

If you're in a light controlled room, I would suggest a white paint like the Sherwin Williams ProClassic or possibly one of the Glidden's -- I know the Diamond 450 (from Glidden stores) has gotten nice reviews, but the far cheaper GLN9000 from Home Depot may be effectively as good. But it also comes down to screen size and what your projector is. It's possible a white paint could be too bright if your screen/PJ combo makes for high ftL.
curttard is offline  
post #7 of 55 Old 09-11-2013, 05:38 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
It would be a 100-110" screen, most likely going to be a 110" and the projector would be an optoma hd25. So I will probably go with the Sherwin Williams as it can be rolled. though that Diamond 450 looks interesting... time to dig deeper into the forum.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #8 of 55 Old 09-11-2013, 05:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I rolled some GLN9000 myself the other day. Compared to my panel of Sherwin-Williams, the SW has a much smoother texture, but in my case it's actually too smooth -- it hotspotted badly for me. But no one else has that issue so it might somehow be user error. Otherwise, the Glidden looked essentially indistinguishable to me from seating difference, and it's only $10/qt at Home Depot ($19/gallon). It was tested for color neutrality by Don of HomeTheaterShack and he says it's actually the most neutral white he has ever tested. I believe the biggest difference between it and the much more expensive Diamond 450 might be that the Diamond rolls on better, but I can't confirm this -- I don't know of anyone comparing the two first hand. Perhaps the Diamond ages better as well? Who knows. I intend to do more testing with the GLN9000 and am leaning toward it for my next screen.

You might find some useful info in my own thread on white screens here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1444420/white-screens-boc-vs-c-s-ultra-vs-rs-mm-ll-vs-sherwin-willams-proclassic. I don't think you'll find many other first hand, side by side comparisons of many paints here. Tiddler's threads are worth checking out too.
curttard is offline  
post #9 of 55 Old 09-11-2013, 06:04 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, I will definitely be looking into that gliden as its so neutral it probably would yield the best results, plus it being cheaper helps me out. I also want to give you thanks for that thread comparing paints, it is well written and extremely helpful! Thank you again, I am sure many other members appreciate it as well.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #10 of 55 Old 09-11-2013, 08:53 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Virtually all white paints, and white screen surfaces actually detract from the contrast potential a PJ offers. It matters not on whit if the room is pitch black, and all the surfaces are covered in Protostar, white does nothing to augment contrast, and quite often produces a more washed out image.

It cannot be disputed.

Even if one possesses a PJ with a Native Contrast of 100,000:1, and has a perfect room, he can still benefit from shooting onto a unity gain light gray surface. Grays deepen colors, they maintain original levels of saturation, and they enhance finite shadow detail.

No white surface has ever, nor ever will be able to make that claim if it's gain is unity level or higher.

One reason Black Out Cloth manages to look at least as good as it does is because it is virtually never at 1.0 gain, let alone higher.

In a Mix like RS-MaxxMudd, the addition of Silver Metallic, combined with White Pearlescent serves to produce a light Silver Gray surface that is also above 1.2 gain. Gray combined with gain is always going to produce a superior image to any Matte White.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #11 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 08:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
It cannot be disputed.

I imagine the professional filmakers, cinematographers, color graders, etc, along with those non-filmmakers who have unlimited budgets and ideal viewing conditions, who all have white screens, would dispute it wink.gif

Grays make the image darker. If you want a slightly dimmer image without losing too much brightness, I would say spend $15 on blackout cloth and save yourself a whole lot of time, trouble, and money.
Quote:
Grays deepen colors

They make the image darker and that includes the colors, yes.
Quote:
they maintain original levels of saturation

They darken the image. If the films are put together and color graded on white screens, that is how they are "meant" to look. Their "original levels of saturation" are based on white screens.
Quote:
and they enhance finite shadow detail.

This makes no sense at all. A darker image is not going to have more visible shadow detail, it's going to have less.
Quote:
In a Mix like RS-MaxxMudd, the addition of Silver Metallic, combined with White Pearlescent serves to produce a light Silver Gray surface that is also above 1.2 gain.

I have several panels of white paints/material and have looked at them side by side with RS-MM-LL and there is no difference in contrast whatsoever. The ones that are a little brighter than the RS also have a little lighter blacks. The ones that RS is a little brighter than also have a little deeper blacks. There is no apparent or measurable contrast improvement.
Quote:
Gray combined with gain is always going to produce a superior image to any Matte White.

Again, the people who are actually making the films that we are trying to reproduce in our homes are themselves using white screens.
curttard is offline  
post #12 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 10:25 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 202
You refuse to state that a white surface can...and does detract from observable contrast.

It is a known an accepted fact, repeated by both Industry and End users.

Shadow Detail is just that, detail that exists in shadowed areas, and white surfaces will bleach out those areas if any real degree of light is used.

What the MAJORITY of users on here have are NOT dedicated rooms, but those that exist with ambient light. Yet you, like some before you have too conveniently done, refuse to acknowledge such, and instead continually dwell on the most restrictive level possible. White only.

Your viewpoint and comments are myopic at best, and really inconsequential as far as what everyday use requires from a screen. And if you bother to make note...most on here are in fact looking for a Screen that serves a muti-tasking purpose.

When...and if you decide to accept that what your referring to about White surfaces is in fact limited to totally light controlled rooms with non-reflective surfaces, and the judicious use of High Contrast PJs, then you might become relevant in your postings. Until then, your arguments are simply so narrow minded they seem childish in their portent. Alluding as they do that the ONLY screen ANYONE should EVER consider is a White Screen.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #13 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
You refuse to state that a white surface can...and does detract from observable contrast.

If it is washed out by ambient light, sure.
Quote:
Shadow Detail is just that, detail that exists in shadowed areas, and white surfaces will bleach out those areas if any real degree of light is used.

This is silly. Shadow detail is the detail that can be seen in dark areas. On a darker screen, those areas will be darker -- and thus you will be able to see less detail, because obviously it's harder to see detail in the dark. On a lighter screen, the shadow areas will be lighter, and thus you will be able to see more detail. All you have to do to test this out is to put up a piece of grey paper or fabric on your screen in a dark area and watch the darker details vanish as the image gets darker.
Quote:
What the MAJORITY of users on here have are NOT dedicated rooms, but those that exist with ambient light. Yet you, like some before you have too conveniently done, refuse to acknowledge such, and instead continually dwell on the most restrictive level possible. White only.

The person who made this thread, whom you responded to and touted the benefits of a grey screen to, specifically said this is a light controlled room with no ambient light. And in fact your own RS-MM-LL, which you recommend on this very thread, along with many many others, is for all practical purposes a white screen. So I'm not sure why you're ranting at me about how poor white screens are.
Quote:
Until then, your arguments are simply so narrow minded they seem childish in their portent. Alluding as they do that the ONLY screen ANYONE should EVER consider is a White Screen.

Never once have I said that.
curttard is offline  
post #14 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 12:08 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 202
You do not read my posts throughly, or take them out of context...or simply ignore some aspects to dwell on others.

The OP posted a "If" question....you replied with a "If" answer.

The OP made specific reference to SF & RS-MMudd. Asking for an opinion. I replied, and made NO mention at all about either of the aforementioned mixes. Nada. No did I "tout" the benefit of a Gray over White. You must have imagined it, yes?

In fact I made no mention at all on either subject until the 3rd post above this one.

As for shadow detail, you are so wrong you squeek like a hinge needing oil. Until you have the varied experience with many different screens with many different PJs, you should be more reserved in your defining opinions, because that is exactly what they are....your opinions. And your entitled to them...even if they are wrong..

If there was no reason to ask about SF or RS-MMudd, yes, it's curious why they were mentioned at all unless it was simply a case where since they are popular and effective mixes, they were serving as a benchmark for comparison only. But all reasoning would suggest that indeed, they might be in consideration for what they bring to the table

I chose not to even go there, and frankly, it's YOUR responses to my input that are at issue....and I'm fairly certain that was your sole intent to carry the issue into OT territory for argument's sake only. And you bet...your comment that someone could simply just use BOC to acheive all the image quality they need, and avoid all the muss & fuss is exactly the kind of baiting response your becoming known for.

Case in point....you ignored the content and purpose behind my 3rd Quote in your last response and made a statement that RS-MM is a white screen. Well it certainly isn't, and
any statement that says that it does not enhance perceived contrast over a White surface, while in fact being both darker (...only by a little...granted...) and higher gain than unity white, is blatantly false.

Explain these images away.

A early RS-MaxxMudd Standard screen (Fall of 2005) with overlaid Reference White board......shown under considerable (...nay, obscene...) ambient light.











A Ship in the night.....HUGE difference as the screen's content gets darker. Note the observable detail?



It doesn't take a microscope to detect the difference between the two surface's performance, and it's easy enough to see that while there is only a little difference between the level of White between them, it is by far less of a difference than the improvement in perceived off-the-screen contrast. And it's pretty darn obvious that RS-MaxxMudd is NOT a White Screen....it's a very light Silvery Gray that borders on having a white appearance when viewed static in high room lighting.

And what about if the White gets the benefit of a darker room? Sorry...still no real contest.



Finally, this was no small screen...but 135" 16:9 and the PJ was only 600 lumen...a early JVC 720p And the Lamp had over 1000hours on it too boot.





My point is well made....and believe this...I have YEARS of such "proofs" behind my statements. But they are not, nor were never intended to win "arguments" but rather to show potential DIY'ers what they too could expect to achieve.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #15 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
The OP made specific reference to SF & RS-MMudd. Asking for an opinion. I replied, and made NO mention at all about either of the aforementioned mixes. Nada. No did I "tout" the benefit of a Gray over White. You must have imagined it, yes?

OP said he has a light controlled room with no ambient light and asked if RSMM was therefore the best choice. I recommended one of the OTS white paints. You chimed in to say that grey paints are superior and RSMM is superior to white screens.
Quote:
made a statement that RS-MM is a white screen. Well it certainly isn't, and
any statement that says that it does not enhance perceived contrast over a White surface, while in fact being both darker (by a little...granted...) and higher gain than unity white, is blatantly false.

I have a 10ft wide RSMMLL screen right in front of me at this very moment, so I'm well aware of what it looks like and what it does. I'm also well aware of how it compares to OTS white paints and BOC cloth because I have panels of those in the other room as we speak. It does NOT offer ANY perceived contrast boost to those, as in fact simple physics and logic would suggest and my eyes confirm (and as measurements would confirm if you didn't scoff at them). If it has brighter whites than one surface, it also has brighter blacks. If it has darker blacks than one surface, it also has dimmer whites. There's no magic happening. It's the same trade-off as with any paint or any surface.

Do YOU have RSMMLL and surfaces painted with OTS paint or BOC in front of you? Have YOU compared them side by side in the last week?

All but one of your photos has significant ambient light, which, again, neither I nor OP are concerned with.

And that one photo of the comparison "in a darker room" is highly overexposed and thus not representative of anything -- like most or all of your photos -- unless you were in fact using a 2000 lumen projector on a 50" screen. How do I know this? Because sampling the pixels shows some whites that are at or near the max of 255/255/255. In other words, you could take a picture of a plasma tv cranked to maximum vivid mode and the whites would not look any brighter in your photo than your projector on a piece of board. That's the reason there is "very little difference between the whites" -- because the picture is overexposed and there is no range left to show the ACTUAL difference. Thus your photo is highly overexposed, making the white look worse. If the photo were exposed such that the white surface half of the image were properly exposed, the RSMM side would likely look unacceptably dim. This is one of those limitations of digital cameras that you are unwilling to accept.

In fact it's impossible to tell much from ANY of your photos. You've admitted to taking them all in "Auto" mode. So the camera just tries to get an average exposure level. This would set exposure to benefit your darker RS screen -- which occupies most of the frame -- and would thus overexpose your "reference" sample.
curttard is offline  
post #16 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Finally, this was no small screen...but 135" 16:9 and the PJ was only 600 lumen...a early JVC 720p And the Lamp had over 1000hours on it too boot.

And? This is me with a 124" wide 2.35 -- equivalent image size of a 142" 16:9 -- on a Mits HC4000 (569 calibrated lumens supposedly, and that's in Normal lamp -- my pic is in Low) and a piece of unpainted blackout cloth. We can compare photos all day.


curttard is offline  
post #17 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 01:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
MM, how would your RSMMLL look in a photo taken in ambient light side by side with BOC? Its whites would be blown out and its blacks would be light grey. It would look just like your RS vs "reference board" photos but with BOC being the winner. Does that mean BOC has magical contrast enhancing properties?

In fact I think I'll recreate your Pirates photos tonight, only with RS vs BOC. Should be interesting.
curttard is offline  
post #18 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 01:17 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Ambient light...or reflected light is almost always an issue for 98% of those who come onto this Forum.

You cannot effectively nor accurately sample pixels off your monitor. That has always been a standard response....and is based on widely variable differences that exist across the entire gamut of Servers, as well as Monitor equipment. Also, the amount / degree of light coming off the Screen will have more to do with such appearances, and the ability of a Camera to make a correct exposure. Every shot I take is compared to Real Life" and I stand firmly behind them all. Such sampling has always been a fall back for those who want to dismiss photographic depictions.

What can be construed is that you cannot dismiss the fact that any image taken in the dark will almost always be at least a bit over exposed...and that is why you do not see me post them hardly ever.

BTW, all you have ever posted is opinions....not a single instance of direct photographic comparisons between BOC, so until you do, you bet....I light years ahead of you in that respect. I personally have done so in about a Dozen separate dedicated Threads...and always there is someone like you who strives to dismiss, discount, and deny the very worth of having done so. All you have to say is that what you see does not apply to "your" limited circumstances. What I post is intended for the consumption of the majority, who do have very real issues to deal with on a daily basis.

The real truth is, none of us has any real idea what your showing or have, because you really do not offer any real proof" of such....just your own stated opinions and statements. I do not post "Eye candy" anymore...I post to show what can be accomplished. You have a lot of work to do...actual representative photographic comparison to make that can prove your stated points before you can come close to justifying what you have espoused.

And as i said before, both the tone of and the content of your posts are driving all this back-n-forth......not me.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #19 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 01:20 PM
Member
 
farleyville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: GA
Posts: 173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastertiger101 View Post

Yeah, thank you all. I do realize it would be hard as most people I imagine directly make their own screen rather than having bought a premade screen beforehand. Also just as a question, for a light controlled room, that can remove all ambient light, then the MaxMud-ll is the best paint mixture right? Silver fire is for ambient?

OP, Have they answered your question? or are you even paying attention anymore? eek.gif If you arent concerned with gain, getting more brightness out of the image, I would suggest a basic paint will meet all you need. For me, I would go with a neutral gray and get a little better ambient light performance, because no one watches only in the dark, There will be times when there is some light.
farleyville is offline  
post #20 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 01:20 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

MM, how would your RSMMLL look in a photo taken in ambient light side by side with BOC? Its whites would be blown out and its blacks would be light grey. It would look just like your RS vs "reference board" photos but with BOC being the winner. Does that mean BOC has magical contrast enhancing properties?

In fact I think I'll recreate your Pirates photos tonight, only with RS vs BOC. Should be interesting.

Well another issue would be your own ability to accurately convey via a Camera what you think your seeing in person. That, and it's not too terribly difficult to manipulate things to allow you to do exactly that. Go ahead though....I think your in for a surprise since it will constitute a first for you.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #21 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 01:37 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyville View Post

OP, Have they answered your question? or are you even paying attention anymore? eek.gif If you arent concerned with gain, getting more brightness out of the image, I would suggest a basic paint will meet all you need. For me, I would go with a neutral gray and get a little better ambient light performance, because no one watches only in the dark, There will be times when there is some light.
Yeah, I am still paying attention to this thread, it is very interesting as you can see.

Yes i have been paying attention to this thread as it is very interesting indeed. The neutral grey paint is a good idea as you said for cases of ambient light though since the home theater will be in my basement where there is only one small window which I will mostly cover off. It will be dark when watching movies, though I admit when I have guests over or on normal use most likely Il have some lights or other electronic devices on so the grey would help in those times. I almost wish I could make two screens one for ambient one for dark. The only thing that worries me is that the optoma hd25e is pretty bright projector and in dark room at a 110" screen it might get really bright, though it probably not be that bright as reviews had it on standard and not on eco like I plan to.

If I manage to have some extra money after buying the projector and the materials for the screen, I might make another screen and do a formal and scientific comparison between BOC and MaxMUDD, and Sherwin Williams etc. MY friend has a high end camera which can certainly help to remove most of the overexposure and make it as neutral and fair comparison, though since all would be in same shot all would have same exposure. My friend is a photographer so He would know how to set up everything to get the best natural neutral result. But currently I am on a tight budget so not sure If i will be able to, and most likely go with my current plan, which is to do a basic BOC screen and test it and see how I like it, if I am satisfied then probably stay like that if not I might try a paint solution, hence the fact I was asking about it because I would want to maximize the performance of my home theater.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #22 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 04:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Ambient light...or reflected light is almost always an issue for 98% of those who come onto this Forum.

And yet not for OP, the person asking for recommendations in this thread, which is why I recommended a white screen for him.
Quote:
You cannot effectively nor accurately sample pixels off your monitor. That has always been a standard response....and is based on widely variable differences that exist across the entire gamut of Servers, as well as Monitor equipment.

You are betraying your woeful lack of technological knowledge. I'm not sampling anything off my monitor. I am, within Photoshop, sampling the actual values of the image file you posted. Your picture is overexposed and the fact that you don't realize this makes your claims that you are some expert at taking these screenshots even more laughable.
Quote:
What can be construed is that you cannot dismiss the fact that any image taken in the dark will almost always be at least a bit over exposed...and that is why you do not see me post them hardly ever.

Some of us actually know how to use a camera and can use manual settings and set the exposure however we'd like. There is no reason whatsoever why a projector image taken with lights off has to be overexposed. There are endless examples of excellent ones all over this forum.
Quote:
BTW, all you have ever posted is opinions....not a single instance of direct photographic comparisons between BOC

They are in my thread. A direct comparison gif cycling through the whites (and then another through the blacks) of the solutions I tested.

Where is YOUR direct photographic comparison between RS and BOC? Or RS and Sherwin Williams? Or RS and Glidden? All you could dig up was some pictures of a formula from 2005 vs some anonymous "reference board". This despite the fact that the alternatives I mentioned are cheap and easily obtainable, and you repeatedly tout your solutions' superiority to them as though you have them on hand and have compared them directly. Then you have the gall to ask for MY proof?
Quote:
The real truth is, none of us has any real idea what your showing or have, because you really do not offer any real proof" of such....just your own stated opinions and statements.

Now you're just being ridiculous. You can see my screenshot of my screen in the HC4000 thread from two years ago, before I ever painted it. Then you can find my threads this year where I announced my intention to paint it, and followed your instructions to do so with RS-MM-LL. Where is YOUR proof that any of your photos are of what you say they're of? You could be comparing any two screen materials or paints at all and just saying whichever one happens to look better in your latest "Auto mode" photo is your own. The difference between us is that I'm not touting a solution that I have any personal or financial investment in whatsoever and I derive literally zero benefit from recommending OTS solutions to yours.
Quote:
Well another issue would be your own ability to accurately convey via a Camera what you think your seeing in person.

I am far more equipped to do so than you are, since I am not wholly dependent on a camera's "auto" mode, nor do I just throw up my hands when a picture taken with the lights off is overexposed -- I just lower the exposure. I actually manually adjust settings to get the most representative picture, or the picture most illustrative of whatever quality is being compared. Crazy, I know. I also, unlike you, am well aware of the limitations of a digital camera.
Quote:
MY friend has a high end camera which can certainly help to remove most of the overexposure and make it as neutral and fair comparison, though since all would be in same shot all would have same exposure.

A true comparison of lights and darks between two solutions requires two photos. One must be overexposed so that more of the camera's range is available to cover the dark values; in other words, blacks will appear grey, so that they are not near the end of the camera's range. In this photo, light areas will be entirely blown out. The other photo must be underexposed, so that the white areas are not pushing the end of the camera's range. Whites in the photo will appear grey, and the dark areas will be complete black. With enough of the camera's range available, you can compare the blacks between two solutions and the lights -- just not in the same photo. The only way to get a decent comparison in a single photo would be to project a grey ramp -- the ends of the ramp would still max out the camera's range, but there would be enough distinct steps between them that some kind of comparison could be made.
curttard is offline  
post #23 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 05:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
The only thing that worries me is that the optoma hd25e is pretty bright projector and in dark room at a 110" screen it might get really bright, though it probably not be that bright as reviews had it on standard and not on eco like I plan to.

According to ProjectorCentral that projector with that screen size would get you 35ftL. Granted, that's on high. Still, I would say that's way too bright. If I were you I would make the screen bigger if possible, first of all. Then consider a grey screen or at least BOC, which is somewhere around .8 or .9 gain iirc. I personally wouldn't go near something like Sherwin Williams or the Glidden, since those are both above 1.0 gain.

BOC + low lamp might be the right solution for you. At .8 it would be 28ftL on high, maybe as low as 22ftL on eco, which would actually be pretty good considering the lamp will dim significantly over the first 100 hours or so and then over the life of the lamp.

Personally I'd prefer something like BOC over a paint simply because painting can be tricky to get a perfect texture. Any little bumps or streaks or irregularities can appear as graininess or "dirtiness" to the image in light areas. I found stretching BOC over a frame to be immensely easier than spraying or even rolling paint -- and with a lot less cleanup. If it provides the right shade/brightness for your situtation, it's definitely a good solution imo.
curttard is offline  
post #24 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 05:30 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
Yeah thats what I was worried. I wonder if I can turn down the brightness on it, maybe on eco mode. Not sure. The benq w1070 has less lumens but the 3d is better on hd25 though 2d image apparently is almost identical.

Also unfortunately 110" is the max I can get as the ceiling is a bit low so i wouldn't have any space at all.
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #25 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 05:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
22ftL on eco, and then you'd probably lose a bit more if you calibrate, should be pretty decent. Certainly you can try it out and if it's really too bright, just paint it grey. Just keep in mind you will lose brightness over time.
curttard is offline  
post #26 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 08:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
BOC vs RS-MM-LL with ambient light (floor standing lamp plus overhead light 6 feet out from screen wall plus overhead light in adjoining open room).





Unsurprisingly, the darker screen appears to have "deeper color" and better blacks with only a slight different in lights, while the lighter screen is more washed out looking with pale blacks and some blown out highlights -- when photos are taken in Auto mode.

And with all lights off:







BOC is on sale at Joann right now for $2.79 a yard, btw.
curttard is offline  
post #27 of 55 Old 09-12-2013, 09:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
And lastly, inspired by MM's "any statement that says that [rs-mm-ll] does not enhance perceived contrast over a White surface, while in fact being both darker (...only by a little...granted...) and higher gain than unity white, is blatantly false" -- here is the $80 "absolutely not a white paint" RS-MM-LL vs "definitely a white paint" Glidden GLN9000, a no-mixing-required, off-the-shelf white paint available at every Home Depot for $9.87/qt or $20/gallon:







...and with all lights on:

curttard is offline  
post #28 of 55 Old 09-13-2013, 02:44 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
Wow, the difference is not much at all, and the MaxMudd is 80$. I would do the gliden, but the BOC seems to do great as well, plus the glidden might make it too bright as I stated in my previous post. BOC is my route to go, and if I see that its not too bright, then I can always add some glidden over it couldnt I?
mastertiger101 is offline  
post #29 of 55 Old 09-13-2013, 08:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastertiger101 View Post

Wow, the difference is not much at all, and the MaxMudd is 80$. I would do the gliden, but the BOC seems to do great as well, plus the glidden might make it too bright as I stated in my previous post. BOC is my route to go, and if I see that its not too bright, then I can always add some glidden over it couldnt I?

Yes, exactly. The BOC might still even be a little bright, but I think it will be good in Eco mode and especially once you calibrate. If it dims over time you can always paint it. In fact my test panel of Glidden in those pictures is painted onto BOC -- all my paint panels are on BOC stretched over some styrofoam panels, so that they'd all be painted on the same surface to make for a more accurate comparison. If BOC works for someone in terms of brightness, I would always recommend it over a paint solution, simply because with paint you are likely going to have a not-perfectly-uniform texture and will thus probably get some graininess in the image that may be noticeable in bright, solid-color areas.

In person I would say the Glidden is superior to the RSMMLL. It has a better, more consistent texture and more uniform look, which is unsurprising since it's just pure white paint with no particles, nothing mixed, etc -- although I wouldn't necessarily put a ton of stock in this, because this can come down to individual painting technique. I'm no expert at it. For what it's worth, I rolled the Glidden and sprayed the RSMMLL. Brights and darks are essentially indistinguishable from the RS.

And it has better off-axis uniformity. I don't consider it a big real-world deal, because if I move around the room while looking at the RSMMLL I don't notice a dropoff in gain, but the fact remains that if I put up that panel of Glidden on it, from my center seat they are virtually identical, but if I slide just one or two seats over on the sofa, the RS has dropped off and is then noticeably darker than the Glidden.





I literally see no advantage to the RSMMLL, and once price and time and convenience are factored in, it becomes a no-brainer IMO.
curttard is offline  
post #30 of 55 Old 09-13-2013, 08:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
By the way, and I'll have to do more tests and research to confirm this, but it appears that Auto mode -- at least in my camera, but probably in others (maybe even all) -- appears to actually compress the dynamic range. When I take photos of the ANSI checkerboard in Manual mode, it's impossible to get both blacks and whites within the camera's range -- one of them will always max out, with blacks registering as 0 in the image file or whites hitting the top end at 255. But in Auto mode, suddenly everything "fits" -- blacks are comfortably in the teens with whites simultaneously in the 220s. So comparison photos, at least in Auto mode, are even more worthless than I thought.

All pics in the last few posts are in Auto mode since that's what MM insists "tell the tale".

My two shots further up the thread of Kick-Ass are in Manual mode, with each being taken at identical settings, thus giving a slightly better idea of the difference between ambient light and no ambient light.

Edit: Should have realized this. Auto mode saves the photos as JPEGs -- a compressed format -- rather than in RAW format as Manual modes do on my camera. So of course the pictures are inaccurate -- loads of data is just being thrown out in the conversion from what the camera sees to the JPG it actually saves. This makes MM's insistence that his photos are accurate even sillier: They are taken in Auto mode, and they are saved in a compressed format that squashes the dynamic range, throws out color information, and creates compression artifacts in the image.
curttard 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