Misty Evening + Silver "one-coat" solution - Page 4 - AVS Forum
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last
DIY Screen Section > Misty Evening + Silver "one-coat" solution
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan 05:20 AM 11-11-2003

Originally posted by sportster64
"You CAN have your "big cone" and eat it too" - MM - that pretty much sums it up for me too - I guess all these folks spending the big bucks on SS are buying a screen with a narrow viewing cone for no reason according to your theory - NOT ! Screens are indeed passive devices - there is no black magic here. You can make screen material more efficient at light transfer - but there are ALWAYS tradeoffs PERIOD. Again - your NOT creating light energy here - only manipulating it.

>>>>>Once again, your twisting things around to suit your own statements. I never made any such claims, they only came from your direction to help support your caustic point of view.

certainly there are those who buy into the SS because that's their prerogative to do so. Their reasons may be convenience, belief in the Mfg claims, or practical experience, but none of which discounts any other viable alternative. If we were all here experimenting just to make do, I wouldn't be here.

I never said or wrote a word that inferred that my screens were putting out more light than received. I only stated that I'm have indeed gotten improved results across a wide spectrum that easily compares to, and even exceeded the performance of mfg. screens. Why does that scare you or ruffle your fur? Did you bother to comment on my pic? No. Are you afraid to make the observation and offer an honest opinion? Are you a Vutec rep lurking about in disguise? Or just someone who has spent too much money in the past and responds to poster who have gotten by for less, with the usual "sour grapes" attitude? Could it be that you know if you discredit the obvious performance shown on the pic without justification, it will show you up as nothing more than a malcontent?

No, I just think your just spoiling to create friction. Your responses cannot be seen as anything other than that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am not trying to offend you and I certainly don't want this good thread that Scoob started to get pulled- but when you come on here and make claims like all these people are looking at your screens like they are big Plasmas - well - be prepared to get lots of video interference from people that know a little more than the window shoppers

<<<<<<well of course I expect some of that, but on this Forum it usually takes the form of courteous disagreement, not thinly veiled flaming. Funny thing how stating something that goes against established and accepted thinking brings the discordant and even jealous sects out of the wood work. Not so funny is that instead of doing what your obviously can do so much better, spray your own sample and prove or disprove my "claims', you choose to discredit me, my work ethic, and my viewpoint personally. There's the truth of it and you wear it like a badge of shame.>>>>>>>>

And as far as your comment on using a paint gun being easy - well - now I know your experience in painting anything custom with a paint gun is at best questionable.

>>>>>>That's your specialty, not mine, nor did I ever claim it to be so. Obviously that is at the root of your funk.>>>>>>>>>

You actually made it clear to me that there is a lot of money to be made in selling this stuff to the average joe who doesn't know S-video from DVI from Component .
There was a thread a while back on this that discussed making money on installing HT equip. i forget which forum or the thread starter though.

<<<<<<< You were once one of the ignorant, weren't you? Or did you start out from the gate with the knowledge and the right to insult and dismiss out of hand the work and results of others? You have still got plenty left to learn, a big part of it courtesy and tact. I never made the statements I made about people mistaking my Screen for a Plasma as a way to discredit anyone or any product, only to point out that it was so good that it had a lot of people completely fooled. People you obviously have little or no respect for since you have achieved your loft seat so far above them. And for the record, I try very hard not to mention my business on this Forum, and I can only remember having to do so when self righteous and/or myopic individuals feel that they cannot accept a simple, true, and honestly made observation if it flies in the face of accepted reason. Your not the first, and you won't be the last, but you certainly are among the most inconsiderate. But do yourself and others a favor and stay out of the A/V business. You obviously don't have the mentality or the desire to "help" while providing a service and making a living. ALL my 3200+ clients have also become "friends" who appreciate what they wound up with, not regretted having made the choice they made, or the person they had to deal with. Only you can say if you can say the same, and yes, that reply belongs somewhere else. Try SlashDot.Com >>>>>>>

SO - yes lets get back on track with this thread - scoobs misty Premium.
If I get time this weekend I am planning to do a test panel of it myself !!

Don't you or anybody else forget that it was you who disrupted the flow of ideas and info, not me. That I won't back down is no discredit to me, nor to this thread, and certainly not to Scoob. It is, sadly, only a waste of a lot of bandwidth on the likes of you. Your use of AVS as a soapbox to infuriate and discredit is deplorable, and I'm sadly dissapointed that only Whitemist seems to be willing to call "a spade a spade".

Paint your screen and make a real contribution. Stop trying to bait those who are really trying to push the envelope for the good of all. Many may opt to paint, many more may opt to roll, and quite a few will undoubtedly opt to buy, but ALL who frequent AVS deserve responsible and considerate response. Even if they are dead wrong in thier veiws or observations.

MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan 05:23 AM 11-11-2003

Originally posted by CMRA
MissMan, I eagerly await your offerings. Actually, I've been waiting. You bring much good meat to the table and I'm famished.

Thanks CMRA. You'll be the first to know. I'll try to expidite it all.

...........and I'm sorry about the mess above, Scoob.
sportster64's Avatar sportster64 07:07 AM 11-11-2003
Better read the post again MM - I was simply questioning the need to use expensive behr Silver versus what I believe is a cheaper alternative - your reply to that was that I wasn't "informed " or knowledgeable on the subject or use of silver - So - I believe you are the one with the sour grapes in your mouth.
You can come here with all the expericence you want - but the bottom line is that this business is ever evolving - you can't always apply the principles you learned 26+ years ago to the high tech digital spectrum - yeah - you may me able to install A/v equipment - but READ THE forum topic - That's right - its SCREENS - in this case the thread is a DIY formula - Are you now gonna come in here the the King of experts and tell us that you have 26+ years with DIY screen experience ?
so Again - go back and read the original posts from yesterday - then you decide who hopped on whos back first.
It seems like you are always eager to jump in and "throw your weight around" in here with all this supposed experience you have. read your snippy replies to CRMA.
So I am gonna forget your rude comments that were directed towards me
And re-wind the thread back to my original commits in the thread - Why use the expensive silver as a base - when there are ,,again in my opinion AND experience,, cheaper alternatives to achieve the same results??????
Please MM - stick with answering the LAST sentence!!!
johnstof's Avatar johnstof 07:08 AM 11-11-2003

Let's get back to what I hope is a productive post aimed at the advancement of DIY screens.

MM made an interesting point about ditching the faux glaze. Both the faux glaze and the accent base dry clear.

Last night I dipped one end of a wooden paint stick into the glaze and the other end into the flat accent base. This morning I find that the glaze dried completely clear but somewhat shiny. The accent base is mostly clear (still a tad milky) but is totally flat.

My question to you is....how much screen sheen do you have with your ME+ formula? Is it too much? I recall you indicating earlier that there is little to no sheen and no hot spotting. In which case, I wonder why you are considering removing the glaze from the formula.

If sheen is a concern, have you considered simply replacing the glaze portion with more of the accent base? (60% flat accent base, 20% SM, and 20%ME).

I know you have tried variations before. Did you try something like this? Do you have any thoughts on how it might roll on?

scoob5555's Avatar scoob5555 07:19 AM 11-11-2003
Ok guys, that's enough.

I agree with most of what you say and I welcome your comments - and your incredible angle SS. I love that and I think the SilverStar camp should be frightened by such a viewing angle with a bright picture. I know each of your applications is a little different, but have you ever measured the "gain" from one of your completed screens? Since you're not using glaze, I imagine it wouldn't be much more than 1.0, but the silver should definitely enhance it.

As a scientist myself, I'm not discouraged by anything people say about ME+ or my ddog overcoat, etc. I'm the only one I'm trying to please. I simply write on here to share my experiences. If others benefit, great. I'm just giving back to the community because I'm grateful that CMRA shared ME in the first place. I'm proud to say that's still the number one choice for my screen and will be until I "perfect" ME+.

That being said, let me clarify for everyone my current method for applying my layers, as requested:
First, find a flat surface that you can size to your screen size specs. I used a doable board from Home Depot, 4'x8'. Because the white surface was glossy, I scuff sanded then added Kilz2 primer in 2 coats.

For my permanent screen, I then added 2 or 3 layers of pure ME (it's been long enough I don't recall). Between each coat, I allowed a full day of drying (because it was easy to do and I had other stuff to do around the house).

For my test panels, I bought another 4'x8' doable and cut it in half. I've tried several different formulation, basically one on top of the other. But because I'm rolling, I apply pretty heavy coats to try to avoid as much translucency issues as possible (so one isn't affected by the undercoats). That said, I acknowledge that there may be undercoat issues, but since my formulations are so related, tweaked usually very slightly, the effect should be simply of having 2 coats of the same formulation.

In my ddog overcoat days, much of the multi-coat issues were obvious and necessary/desirable. Now with the ME+, not so much, so I've been painting a coat of pure ME on top of "failed" formulations and starting fresh (as will be the case with my permanent screen).

As yet, I have not wet-sanded because I'm not overly concerned with the texture on the test panels. However, when I do "perfect" ME+, I will wet sand the permanent screen before and between coats. I will try on a test panels first, but I have sanded large surfaces before, so I'm not worried about technique, etc.

I've mentioned several times previously that I'm using a 6" foam roller (from HD) and I find it much easier to use (and it eats less paint) than a 1/4" roller. I can control the paint coverage and pressure much better with the foam roller, so I'm sticking with it. I tried an 8" 1/4" nap roller and wasn't pleased with the size and controllability of it. To each his own.

As far as mixing the formulas, I'm using a simple 2-cup glass measuring cup (don't tell my wife). It's easy to see the amounts in both English and metric units. Mix it up, roll it, and let it dry.
sportster64's Avatar sportster64 07:25 AM 11-11-2003
Scoob: I am not convinced one way or the other yet ,that the glaze is adding any gain to the formulas we have seen here so far -I do believe it is adding depth to the formulas or as some have described - a 3D effect - try it for yourself and see what results you get. Take a test panel and just roll some glaze over one half of the test panel - then project onto it and see if it seems to increase the gain.
scoob5555's Avatar scoob5555 07:28 AM 11-11-2003
There is not shining or sheen or hotspotting with ME+. As I explained somewhere else, the method for removing the glaze was convenience: I'm almost out of the qt of glaze, but still have a bunch of flat base left. And in my completely light-controlled, dark-blue room, I have no real need for extra gain from the glaze.

I did try a different formula the other day with much more flat base, but I also added more silver (call me silly). The results were deplorable, both to roll (reminiscent of ddog rolling) and the way it dried (completely uneven and generally nasty). At some point this week I will try a formula with the same proportions of silver and ME, but with only flat base, as you mention.
MississippiMan's Avatar MississippiMan 08:18 AM 11-11-2003

Originally posted by sportster64
Better read the post again MM - I was simply questioning the need to use expensive behr Silver versus what I believe is a cheaper alternative - And re-wind the thread back to my original commits in the thread - Why use the expensive silver as a base - when there are ,,again in my opinion AND experience,, cheaper alternatives to achieve the same results??????
Please MM - stick with answering the LAST sentence!!!

You must of missed it...three times.

Silver & Silver Metallic are two completely different animals.

You were right in stating that mixing Silver with white gets you a grey.
So does mixing lamp Black with white, but that is a dingier grey.
Mixing SM with a Flat white, and it will result in a more reflective surface than without the SM. Add a little Red Oxide, or Thallo Green, or both...and who knows?

The silver metallic "flakes" are what makes the reflectivty become enhanced. Similar properties are what drives the SS, and yet that greatly enhanced reflectivity is what also creates a limited viewing cone by directing too much light straight back to the PJ, just like a flashlight or flashbulb creates a intense reflection when viewed head on into a really reflective surface such as aluminum, or worse, a mirror.

Diluting that effect just to the point where it is under control, and then adding the wide viewing angle aspects of lighter shades applied on smooth surfaces goes a lot further towards creating a good blend of attributes without making to deep a sacrifice in any one direction. A SS is best utilized when you have no other choice, not as the "only Choice" IMO Such a statement shouldn't threaten anyones sensibilities. Simply put, it works, and I have already proven it. Whether it works best of all...I've never dared make that claim. It is now for others such as you, Scoob to confirm, disprove, or ignore as each sees fit.

Too long have 'learned' HT people been stuck in the conventional rut of designing HTs on a long axis. It's merely a status quo thing aggravated by the fact that MFg understandably could produce equipment more suited to that design than to designs were people might actualy sit closer than 10'

That is changing daily.

CMRA knows I'm on his side, and excepting the potential of a noticable SDE effect from his Z1 when viewed 'way' too close, his results verify that you can start to crowd the screen closer than ever before. Use a good DLP and 6' isn't "too close". At that distance, a smaller image still represents a correct viewing aspect ratio, and produces an even brighter and sharper image. And that is what we are all looking for. All undisputable facts. I don't dwell 26 years in the past, either. I prepare for the future...constantly. And the Future lies in adjusting one's thinking for progress and innovation.

I hope the above explanation clears up a few misconceptions on what I said and did not say. And I hope this post is perceived as being, "On Track" for it certainly was meant to be.
sportster64's Avatar sportster64 08:38 AM 11-11-2003
Well - I think that is acceptible as being back in the lab MM.
That leads me to believe again that possibly using the separate 'components' of the behr silver - again using the irredescent additive from liquitex or I think behr even sells this irredescent stuff in there 31oz tubs - along with a base and also with a separate grey - possibly the Misty evening -combining these in a controlled fashion possibly might lead to something. I'm not sure if the irredescent has a flake additive like the silver or not. But adding different amounts of the irredescent to control the viewing cone may or may not work - don't know at this point.
CMRA's Avatar CMRA 01:03 PM 11-11-2003

Originally posted by scoob5555

As a scientist myself, I'm not discouraged by anything people say about ME+ or my ddog overcoat, etc. I'm the only one I'm trying to please. I simply write on here to share my experiences. If others benefit, great. I'm just giving back to the community because I'm grateful that CMRA shared ME in the first place. I'm proud to say that's still the number one choice for my screen and will be until I "perfect" ME+.

Talk like this makes me wish I owned the patent on ME. Of course, even I, stubborn as the next, can see the handwriting on the wall. ME will give way to a new and improved solution such as ME+. How do I know? Well, I did take a trip to Home Depot today. Dang, that SM really does cost $20.00 a quart! I'm only a trip to Walmart away from real world results.
Thanks again and again Scoob for all your efforts
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 02:41 PM 11-11-2003
I finally got around to putting ME+ on 1/2 of our drywall screen (pic attached, ME+ on the left.) The formula was ABOUT:

33% Walmart 5053 latex base
33% Sherwin Williams 6403-16006/A46T6 Faux Finish Glazing Liquid
20% Misty Evening "clone" I made from True Value E-Z Kare ceiling paint
15% Sherwin Williams 6403-35857/A46S100 Translucent Metallic Technique Finish-Silver

Applied over a drywall with two coats of ME already on it, with a foam roller. Application was a little more difficult than the ME but still easy. It definitely has an eggshell or satin finish compared to ME.

Conclusion? Too early to tell. The pics I will post after this one were done with my HS10 calibrated for ME, not ME+. My first reaction to ME+ was not positive but my 11 year-old likes the blacks (I've got her trained right, eh?) We will watch the 1/2-1/2 screen for a few days, calibrate for the ME+ and then draw some conclusions.

More pics to follow.

John in Northern NY
ender611's Avatar ender611 02:41 PM 11-11-2003
Here's the Misty Eve in one corner getting deeper blacks without much sacrifice of the whites for the most part and then on the other end is silver metallic undercoat enhancing the brightness and therefore the whiteness ( perceptually ) and yet somehow not hurting the blacks. And now the ME+ going through alot of appreciated effort trying to push the envelope on both sides at once. Wow

Hec, if I'd went with a screen a few months back based on posts I'd probably be geering up for a redo after following all this. Where is this all going to be a few months from now.

I'm still favouring sm for the undercoat just from maybe skewed logic that I want the light to experience the paint color of my choosing ( misty light maybe ) before it comes back to my eyes but if the ME+ ( top coat reflective ) reflects half the light back to me in that color and the other half back to me in the actual color thrown by the projector ( as maybe it was in the first attempt of 50/50 mix ) can push the overall envelope bigger without downgrading other aspects of the image that would be huge.

What aspects of the image could take a negative hit from such a mixture?
If on an extreme level if one had a fully absorbant black mixed half and half with metallic you would be watching your whole image with half the pixels if each paint particle were the size of a pixel ( hey we're extreme here, remember ). Now taking the black and moving to ME we would be watching ME flavoured colors on half the pixels and the actual colors ( brightened up ) in the other half of the pixels. And if that turns out to be the holy grail then wouldn't it be a good feature on television sets to have two settings for all the colors, one for the even numbered pixels and one for the odd numbered pixels for by doing so we would get a much higher range of black to white......

go scoob
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 02:49 PM 11-11-2003
A Toy Story 2 shot. ME+ is on the left.
CMRA's Avatar CMRA 02:49 PM 11-11-2003

Originally posted by ender611
Hec, if I'd went with a screen a few months back based on posts I'd probably be geering up for a redo after following all this. Where is this all going to be a few months from now.

You'll get use to it. We enjoy 'flavor-of-the-month' here. What price glory, right?
cjd's Avatar cjd 02:53 PM 11-11-2003

Originally posted by CMRA
Dang, that SM really does cost $20.00 a quart! I'm only a trip to Walmart away from real world results.
Thanks again and again Scoob for all your efforts

$20 is cheap. Go dig up artists acrylic metallics, and figure the cost for a quart.

I have a PJ finally, so I'll be able to add some screenshots as I get things going and do more testing.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this stuff fascinating and fun.

My wife being amazed at the detail on a plain blackout cloth screen watching Monsters inc. was worth it. (X1, mounted now, uncalibrated). It also means I get to keep it.

actonweber's Avatar actonweber 02:56 PM 11-11-2003
The hand shot from Gladiator. ME+ on the left, ME on the right.
johnstof's Avatar johnstof 02:59 PM 11-11-2003

You can find Silver Metalic at Lowe's. It's made by Valspar, comes in a 16 oz bottle, and sells for under $9.

It's a similar price per oz as the quart at HD but for many DIY screen makers a pint (especially when comprising only 20% of Scoob's formula) will go a long way.
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 03:03 PM 11-11-2003
Gollum, ME+ on the left. I must say the pics from my Canon S20 3.3 do not do my screen shots justice. I am a point-and-shoot kind of guy with a snapshot camera so other than turning off the flash I did not do anything special for these pics. The actual pictures are brighter and with more accurate color. BUT, having said that, the RELATIVE difference you see between ME and ME+ is fairly accurate.
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 03:09 PM 11-11-2003
I meant to ask in the first post today if you thought perhaps my S-W Silver paint is not the same kind as yours. It is silvery, smooth in appearance but does not have any metallic flakes in it - it has a sheen, like mercury, to it. Sound familiar or similar to what you used?

Another Gladiator shot.
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 03:16 PM 11-11-2003
This Toy Story 2 shot shows some 3D effect. A little better, I think, on the ME side (right.)
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 03:23 PM 11-11-2003
The last pic post. The ME, ME+ line runs right through the bottom barb of the arrow.
scoob5555's Avatar scoob5555 05:47 PM 11-11-2003
The SM from HD is actually very "flaky" in appearance. Sounds like what you have is more like regular paint. The SM is very gloopy and sparkly, like the surface of the FireHawk.
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 06:00 PM 11-11-2003
Thanks for the feedback, scoob. Anyone out there know of an equivalent to the HD, SM flaky paint? I am a long way from a HD - 75 miles or one year (in a year it will be three blocks away!)

John in Northern NY
scoob5555's Avatar scoob5555 06:00 PM 11-11-2003
Looking at these pics, I have to say how washed out they look; I can barely make out the dividing line on most of them. I hope this is mainly the camera as you mentioned. Can you try to lower the resolution to 1024x768 or 800x600? Also, I'm interested to see what you think when you calibrate to ME+.
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 06:05 PM 11-11-2003
Actually, I think I am back to the drawing board with the ME+ until I can get some real Silver Metallic paint. I think that the S-W Translucent Metallic is more of a glaze than metallic paint so I really haven't seen ME+ yet.

Sorry to take up your bandwidth with those pictures. I am heading towards civilization this weekend to see my grandson and will pick up some HD Silver Metallic when I am there and try this again next week. Hey, I'll do a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 test! Good thing I have a big screen!

John in Northern NY
johnstof's Avatar johnstof 09:59 PM 11-11-2003
John in Northern NY-

How about a Lowe's? They carry Valspar Silver Metallic Paint. I've never seen it side by side compared to HD's Behr but I think they are basically the same.
johnstof's Avatar johnstof 10:29 PM 11-11-2003
Before I start spreading a potentially false rumor I would like for someone to comment on my aforementioned Valspar Silver Metalic that I've indicated is available at Lowes.

The exact name is: Valspar Metal and Patina Paint Glaze. As the name indicates, it's not a paint but a glaze.

So before I start using it...and worse, telling others that it is basically the same as Behr Silver Metallic, I'd like to know if it is.

The attached image is from the Lowe's website and shows the bottle (the example is copper) but the stuff I bought is "Silver" number 99734.

I spread a little on a white board and it is definitely metalic...not simply a paint called silver. But as Scoob described the Behr stuff I wouldn't say it's flaky. It looks more like a mercury.

Comments? My main problem is that my local HDs in Connecticut do not carry the Behr Silver Metalic anymore. So does anyone know of an "equivalent" to the Behr stuff if this Valspar stuff is all wrong.
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 11:21 PM 11-11-2003
The Lowe's is the same distance from home, just a different direction. Northern NY is a barren but beautiful place, trust me. It is more like the wilds of New England than any Mid-Atlantic clime. There is both Lowe's and HD where I am going Saturday (PA). I am hoping the HD has Scoob's Behr Silver Metallic stuff!

I just compared my side-by-side pic against Scoob's from this thread's first post. There is a huge difference. Mine shows none of the sparkle that his ME has. That is obviously due to me using the wrong kind of Silver Metallic material. Mine was a glaze. His was "thick, flakey, gloopy." If the HD's are no longer carrying it we are going to have to find a substitute. Any paint guru's out there?

John in Northern NY
kin_ng5's Avatar kin_ng5 02:49 PM 11-12-2003
If you don't see any Behr paints in your local HD, just go to the Behr site and get the customer service phone # and order them. I did twice for the Silver Metallic paint. They didn't even charge me shipping...may be because I told them the local HD didn't carry it.
actonweber's Avatar actonweber 06:34 PM 11-12-2003

King's idea was great. I went to the Behr website but now am confused (nothing new!) You wrote on page 2 of this thread that the SM paint # was 748. According to the Behr website, that is a "Premium Plus with Style, Faux Glaze" for mixing with other paints. #743 is a silver "Premium Plus with Style". The picture for 743 looks more like what you have described as the SM in your ME+ recipe and it appears to come in quart jars instead of cans. Which one of these products is the flaky, goopy, sparkly stuff? Per the website, I would guess that it is #743.


John in Northern NY
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last

Mobile  Desktop