Black Flame vs. Neutral Gray Discussion - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 225 Old 03-07-2006, 11:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
biglyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a screen sample drying that is 1 part Folk art sterling silver metallic, 1 part metallic pearl, 1 part matte poly, 1/10 white, 1/10 raw umber

Will let you know what it does, if anything

"The only reason you're still conscious is because I don't want to carry you" - Jack Bauer
biglyle is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 225 Old 03-08-2006, 10:02 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
movielvr2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by biglyle
I have a screen sample drying that is 1 part Folk art sterling silver metallic, 1 part metallic pearl, 1 part matte poly, 1/10 white, 1/10 raw umber

Will let you know what it does, if anything
biglyle,
did you get a chance to test this new screen? sounds really interesting. is the "1/10 white" UPW?
movielvr2006 is offline  
post #93 of 225 Old 03-08-2006, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
biglyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just another grey screen. Good in ambient light, but still all the short comings of every other grey screen on these boards.

"The only reason you're still conscious is because I don't want to carry you" - Jack Bauer
biglyle is offline  
post #94 of 225 Old 03-09-2006, 01:01 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by movielvr2006


so, from a technical point of view, the individual pigments that are used in any paint are solids. that is the definition of a pigment. the solids do not dissolve and retain the same properties that they have when not mixed into a liquid base such as latex or acrylic. now, if any dye based paints are being used, then the story is different since dyes are already liquid. i believe that the different metalic pigments being used (silver, pearl, gold, copper, etc.) are all slightly different mica pigment paints. solid particles of mica.

when it comes to light, all things work at the molecular level whether it be paint, metal, wood, or that apple you're eating. red pigment reflects red because at the molecular level, red light is at just the right wavelength that it reflects off the molecular structure, and other wavelengths are absorbed.

Although you wanted such to come from me or PB_Maxx, you've done a good job of explaining how Black Flame works. Individual pigments tend to separate in a thin mix more completely, but they do not combine. This means that light reacts differently to each component, either negating, adjusting, or enhancing as each proponent's contribution is intended. The use of the term "Molecular" simply brought out the naysayers into the open again, because they themselves never considered that proposition before as something that could/does happen. They just never considered such because thier minds never gravitated to delving into the need for such a consideration. So it became a point of amusement, much like a Biology Text Book with Color Plates does to a preschooler with no ability to appreciate what the pictures represent. No, they just snicker at the statement like a child would Transparencies that show human anatomy because they don't really know anything about what they represent.

MovieLvr2006, your own questions are far more rooted in wanting to know, not in dismissing something 'outright', so you should just stop and review what you already know, combine it with posted knowledge, and draw your conclusions from the sensible compilation of known facts. That is how I personally have made every decision I have ever made about DIY Screen paints. Nothing was the "CrapShoot' some would try to make it seem. Sometimes I made hasty judgements myself, but almost every time they were based upon what someone else had said before, and made seem plausible. I try to refrain from doing so anymore. I appreciate your creation of this thread, and the purpose you intended for it. Make no mistake about that.



now, when it comes to black flame, i don't think that their specific mix does anything different than any other color balanced gray metallic paint. it's nothing more than a balance act, the same balancing act that behr does with silverscreen.
[/quote]

You go on to compare BF to SS, which is a completely useless comparison, for the latter cannot begin to do anything remotely like Black Flame can as far as maintaining good color balance while offering great contrast in ambient light. It (SS) can do quite a decent job under the right circumstances and with appropriate tweaking however, and BCortez is right to advocate it as a cheap, workable '1 can' application.



now, when it comes to metallics, i agree that their affect is to give some degree of gain which must decrease viewing cone when no latex or poly is present. when the latex and poly are present however, the gain is either completely negated or dimished to a point that it's hard to detect. if that affect is completely negated, then the use of the metalics makes no sense because you can get the same thing from using a titanium dioxide based paint.
[/quote]

Those statements do not reflect the reality of the results of previous mixes or Black Flame. They are yours to make as an opinion, but they are not based in actual fact, except the one made in reference to the effect of metallics in the first half of the first one. But even that is not all that accurate, because the arrainment of the reflective Mica Flakes in most all metallics is not nearly equally enough to result in the extreme retro-reflectivity that a flat Metallic surface would present, because those Flakes are suspended within a translucent mix at every angle possible. Also, despite claims to the contrary, they (Mica) have the tendency to shed paint, not get covered by it, especially when the paint mixture contains ample amounts of water, and a translucent additive.


i agree that if mississippiman is going to put forward statements about the paint working at the molecular level, then he should be able to explain how it works to us. that request so far goes ignored.
[/quote]


Not ignored, I'm just guilty of being involved in more than moot Forum discussions, as well as sitting around watching how a few use your thread as a ways and means to try to discredit something and somebody/s. I knew that would be the focus of such a discussion, no matter what I posted anyway, and that sort of thing belongs elseware than on a thread dedicated to helping others get started on a new Application. You obliged me, and I thank you for that sincerely.

I figured that somebody would validate my previously derided statement, because it is based on known Physics, like all of our work. You stepped up and did so pretty easily for someone who professes to want to have it explained "Scientifically". Even still, a few try to make a derersive distinction between what Black Flame is, and the work on Ambient Light issues previously done by our partner PyrometMan. There is none to make since we are in fact partners. We have augmented each other's efforts. As it should be, not as what other's would have it be for thier own reasons.




i in particular have concerns about whether black flame reduces view cone, and whether or not it can truly reflect more projected light than ambient light. think of it like this. assume you have a gray paint that reflects 50% of the light that hits it. it reflects 50% of all the projected light that hits it and 50% of all the ambient light that hits it. this is exactly what a neutral gray screen should do. how is black flame any different? that is the main question i have. that is why i have asked for scientific proof.
[/quote]


You seem to expect a lot of answers at levels of proof that no one needs to offer to validate an application. Barring the use of Graphs that only show results as someone relates them on paper, there is no other way to offer such than by written discourse. If your looking for an involved White Paper on the subject however, your going to be disappointed. It's just not required of us or even necessary to illustrate our viewpoint, or the facts, as they are.

You start to provide yourself with the correct answers, then dismiss them as being irrelevent. Grey Screens have decidedly bad viewing cones. So do HG & UHG Screens to an even worse extent. Benven's CG Formulas belonged to the latter genre, and though they are bright, they really detract from Contrast rather than increase it. Black Flame and RS_MaxxMudd screens have virtually no Viewing cone at all, they increase Black Levels without unduly crushing whites and colors, and that itself should say everything needed to dismiss the comments you made in the last paragraph above.

Many Screen Shots have shown that Black Flame has no Viewing cone issues AT ALL. None of the MMUd variants have ever had such. Nor does the statement that the use of Latex or Poly cannot be truly beneficial hold up. There are other factors that help mitigate any loss of gain, primarily that the mixes involved are somewhat translucent to allow the easy passage of light.

I cannot provide you with exacting measurements of what percentage of light goes where, only why. I doubt that such can/will be afforded except via some degree of mathematical equation, and that isn't my strong suit. besides, the level of description and the requirement to provide formula and equations is totally non-existent in a patent application, only the general description of what is being claimed to be done. So asking for a scientific dissertation from me on the subject is just that...., asking. The evidence shown already has proven that Black Flame, as well as RS_MaxxMudd, both do a better job overall than anything else that came before....., or since.




i don't want to bash anyone, just want to find the answers. the fact that mississippiman hasn't responded to the request, does not help me gain any respect for him or his mix. supposedly, the mix is protected by a patent application so technical discussion of the mix should be flowing freely. since that is not happening, it gives me the impression that mississippiman doesn't completely understand how his mix works. i hope he can disprove me so we can all benefit from a reasonable/logical explanation.
[/quote]

You have what you asked for, in the manner I can give it, and via your own approximation of what you see as correct. Thanks for providing the venue. Now, to show yourself what it going on, you'll really have to attempt to do a BF Screen yourself. Compare it to a known standard, or delve into making some of the other DIY apps to do so. But use your own actual experience and observations to make judgements, not supposition, or the off-color comments of those who are noticably biased against all that I do or say.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is online now  
post #95 of 225 Old 03-09-2006, 06:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
1Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Molecularly speaking... so MMan, why don't you post comparative screenshots?
1Time is offline  
post #96 of 225 Old 03-09-2006, 08:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
schooner2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Time
Molecularly speaking... so MMan, why don't you post comparative screenshots?
I think most know the answer as to why.
schooner2000 is offline  
post #97 of 225 Old 03-09-2006, 10:21 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
movielvr2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan

Although you wanted such to come from me or PB_Maxx, you've done a good job of explaining how Black Flame works. Individual pigments tend to separate in a thin mix more completely, but they do not combine. This means that light reacts differently to each component, either negating, adjusting, or enhancing as each proponent's contribution is intended. The use of the term "Molecular" simply brought out the naysayers into the open again, because they themselves never considered that proposition before as something that could/does happen. They just never considered such because thier minds never gravitated to delving into the need for such a consideration. So it became a point of amusement, much like a Biology Text Book with Color Plates does to a preschooler with no ability to appreciate what the pictures represent. No, they just snicker at the statement like a child would Transparencies that show human anatomy because they don't really know anything about what they represent.

MovieLvr2006, your own questions are far more rooted in wanting to know, not in dismissing something 'outright', so you should just stop and review what you already know, combine it with posted knowledge, and draw your conclusions from the sensible compilation of known facts. That is how I personally have made every decision I have ever made about DIY Screen paints. Nothing was the "CrapShoot' some would try to make it seem. Sometimes I made hasty judgements myself, but almost every time they were based upon what someone else had said before, and made seem plausible. I try to refrain from doing so anymore. I appreciate your creation of this thread, and the purpose you intended for it. Make no mistake about that.



now, when it comes to black flame, i don't think that their specific mix does anything different than any other color balanced gray metallic paint. it's nothing more than a balance act, the same balancing act that behr does with silverscreen.
You go on to compare BF to SS, which is a completely useless comparison, for the latter cannot begin to do anything remotely like Black Flame can as far as maintaining good color balance while offering great contrast in ambient light. It (SS) can do quite a decent job under the right circumstances and with appropriate tweaking however, and BCortez is right to advocate it as a cheap, workable '1 can' application.

it was not meant to be a comparison between the two. i was only bringing up the point that the color balancing methods between the two are essentially the same. However, can you direct me to a comparison between black flame and silverscreen so i can see the difference in contrast under the same lighting conditions?



now, when it comes to metallics, i agree that their affect is to give some degree of gain which must decrease viewing cone when no latex or poly is present. when the latex and poly are present however, the gain is either completely negated or dimished to a point that it's hard to detect. if that affect is completely negated, then the use of the metalics makes no sense because you can get the same thing from using a titanium dioxide based paint.
[/quote]

Those statements do not reflect the reality of the results of previous mixes or Black Flame. They are yours to make as an opinion, but they are not based in actual fact, except the one made in reference to the effect of metallics in the first half of the first one. But even that is not all that accurate, because the arrainment of the reflective Mica Flakes in most all metallics is not nearly equally enough to result in the extreme retro-reflectivity that a flat Metallic surface would present, because those Flakes are suspended within a translucent mix at every angle possible. Also, despite claims to the contrary, they (Mica) have the tendency to shed paint, not get covered by it, especially when the paint mixture contains ample amounts of water, and a translucent additive.

does the shedding of paint make a difference and can you show what you mean by shedding the paint? is there some air gap between the paint and mica? i understand what you are saying about the dispersion of the metalics and the translucent nature of the mix, but do the metalics truly reflect more overall light than titanium dioxide?


i agree that if mississippiman is going to put forward statements about the paint working at the molecular level, then he should be able to explain how it works to us. that request so far goes ignored.
[/quote]


Not ignored, I'm just guilty of being involved in more than moot Forum discussions, as well as sitting around watching how a few use your thread as a ways and means to try to discredit something and somebody/s. I knew that would be the focus of such a discussion, no matter what I posted anyway, and that sort of thing belongs elseware than on a thread dedicated to helping others get started on a new Application. You obliged me, and I thank you for that sincerely.

I figured that somebody would validate my previously derided statement, because it is based on known Physics, like all of our work. You stepped up and did so pretty easily for someone who professes to want to have it explained "Scientifically". Even still, a few try to make a derersive distinction between what Black Flame is, and the work on Ambient Light issues previously done by our partner PyrometMan. There is none to make since we are in fact partners. We have augmented each other's efforts. As it should be, not as what other's would have it be for thier own reasons.


mm, this is the kind of response that i don't feel is necessary. it's just heckling the hecklers. please, out or respect for what i've intended this thread to be, refrain from this behavior. the truth is, i still feel that if you are going to offer theories, then you should do your best to prove them in as scientific a manner as possible.


i in particular have concerns about whether black flame reduces view cone, and whether or not it can truly reflect more projected light than ambient light. think of it like this. assume you have a gray paint that reflects 50% of the light that hits it. it reflects 50% of all the projected light that hits it and 50% of all the ambient light that hits it. this is exactly what a neutral gray screen should do. how is black flame any different? that is the main question i have. that is why i have asked for scientific proof.
[/quote]


You seem to expect a lot of answers at levels of proof that no one needs to offer to validate an application. Barring the use of Graphs that only show results as someone relates them on paper, there is no other way to offer such than by written discourse. If your looking for an involved White Paper on the subject however, your going to be disappointed. It's just not required of us or even necessary to illustrate our viewpoint, or the facts, as they are.

You start to provide yourself with the correct answers, then dismiss them as being irrelevent. Grey Screens have decidedly bad viewing cones. So do HG & UHG Screens to an even worse extent. Benven's CG Formulas belonged to the latter genre, and though they are bright, they really detract from Contrast rather than increase it. Black Flame and RS_MaxxMudd screens have virtually no Viewing cone at all, they increase Black Levels without unduly crushing whites and colors, and that itself should say everything needed to dismiss the comments you made in the last paragraph above.

Many Screen Shots have shown that Black Flame has no Viewing cone issues AT ALL. None of the MMUd variants have ever had such. Nor does the statement that the use of Latex or Poly cannot be truly beneficial hold up. There are other factors that help mitigate any loss of gain, primarily that the mixes involved are somewhat translucent to allow the easy passage of light.

did i make a statement that latex and poly aren't beneficial? i think i missed something here.

I cannot provide you with exacting measurements of what percentage of light goes where, only why. I doubt that such can/will be afforded except via some degree of mathematical equation, and that isn't my strong suit. besides, the level of description and the requirement to provide formula and equations is totally non-existent in a patent application, only the general description of what is being claimed to be done. So asking for a scientific dissertation from me on the subject is just that...., asking. The evidence shown already has proven that Black Flame, as well as RS_MaxxMudd, both do a better job overall than anything else that came before....., or since.

i hope you will change your viewpoint on this issue. scientific measurements would only help you to prove black flame for what it is. i agree that screenshots are good proof, but they are not "exacting" as you have put it. other screen manufactures make the measurements...wouldn't it help you compete?




i don't want to bash anyone, just want to find the answers. the fact that mississippiman hasn't responded to the request, does not help me gain any respect for him or his mix. supposedly, the mix is protected by a patent application so technical discussion of the mix should be flowing freely. since that is not happening, it gives me the impression that mississippiman doesn't completely understand how his mix works. i hope he can disprove me so we can all benefit from a reasonable/logical explanation.
[/quote]

You have what you asked for, in the manner I can give it, and via your own approximation of what you see as correct. Thanks for providing the venue. Now, to show yourself what it going on, you'll really have to attempt to do a BF Screen yourself. Compare it to a known standard, or delve into making some of the other DIY apps to do so. But use your own actual experience and observations to make judgements, not supposition, or the off-color comments of those who are noticably biased against all that I do or say.

i had hoped you would make the comparisons against known screens since you can produce a well made black flame with all of your experience. the burden of comparisons is usually placed on the person who creates something. i've seen a few comparisons but what about comparing against sony's screen, or some of the other commercial offerings? i have to make a few comments about the comparisons i have seen however. i think comparisons have to be done in one photo (single exposure), not separately taken photos. it makes no sense to me to compare to surfaces using a shot from a movie as the content is usually different from once part of the picture to another. what about some comparison shots using projected white/black/colors...some kind of test pattern i guess? [/quote]

mississipimans most recent comments are in "yellow"
my new comments and questions are posted in "orange"
movielvr2006 is offline  
post #98 of 225 Old 03-09-2006, 10:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brookfield, WI
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan
...because the arrainment of the reflective Mica Flakes in most all metallics is not nearly equally enough to result in the extreme retro-reflectivity that a flat Metallic surface would present.
Flat metallic surfaces are not only retroreflective, but have extreme retroreflectivity?
Marc G is offline  
post #99 of 225 Old 03-09-2006, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
biglyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
With every post MMan you simply prove that you know less and less about what the hell you are talking about.

"Individual pigments tend to separate in a thin mix more completely, but they do not combine. This means that light reacts differently to each component, either negating, adjusting, or enhancing as each proponent's contribution is intended."

LOL, that is so untrue it isnt even funny. Besides more than half of your colorants are not pigments at all, they are simply craft paints. If what you said was even remotely true, it would still be impossible to distribute the mix evenly either via roller or spray.
The colors combine to form a shade of grey, simple as that. No secret physics, or molecular anything.

Black flame = grey paint, congrats on that 12k patent.

"The only reason you're still conscious is because I don't want to carry you" - Jack Bauer
biglyle is offline  
post #100 of 225 Old 03-09-2006, 12:24 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc G
Flat metallic surfaces are not only retroreflective, but have extreme retroreflectivity?
Not in my book, at least. I'll take a stab at this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan
But even that is not all that accurate, because the arrainment of the reflective Mica Flakes in most all metallics is not nearly equally enough to result in the extreme retro-reflectivity that a flat Metallic surface would present, because those Flakes are suspended within a translucent mix at every angle possible. Also, despite claims to the contrary, they (Mica) have the tendency to shed paint, not get covered by it, especially when the paint mixture contains ample amounts of water, and a translucent additive.
A flat metallic surface is definitely NOT retroreflective, nor is any metallic paint, regardless of opacity. To be retroreflective, a surface must return light along the same path that it arrived. This is usually accomplished with glass beads or microspheres, usually added after coating, and not as a paint ingredient.

Light reflects from the glass beads in two ways; directly off of their outside surface, and internally, entering through one side, then reflecting off their back surface. This back reflection is what causes their retroreflectivity. The ideal application of these beads results in them being half-embedded in a reflective media. This increases their reflectivity on their BACK surface, creating millions of individual reflectors, like tiny curved screens. If they are merely suspended in a transclucent media, their reflectivity is greater on their outer surface, substantially reducing their retro-reflective qualities.

Any simple flat reflective surface (like a metal plate) has normal reflective qualities, i.e. angle of incidence equals angle of reflection, and some degree of diffusion, which results in random scattering of the light. This surface could range from a perfect reflector (i.e. a mirror) where there is no diffusion, to a matte white surface where there is 100% diffusion.

This 100% diffusion surface describes the perfect 1.0 gain screen. Viewing cone is 180 degrees, or equal brightness regardless of viewing angle. The other end of the spectrum is, as I have said, a mirror. It offers perfect reflection (infinite gain), but its viewing cone is ZERO degrees, so it obviously won't serve as a screen.

Any positive gain screen is a balance between these two hypothetical screens. If gain at zero degrees ("on axis") is greater than the 100% diffusion surface, then viewing cone (by simple physics) must be decreased.

But I digress - back to metallics. Their metallic content is either mica, metallic powder, or a combination of both. Both come in many sizes, and both may be present in different sizes in the same paint, particularly craft paints.

The metallic elements are flake shaped, i.e. they have two parallel flat surfaces, and an irregular overall shape. The flat sides obviously have the highest reflectivity. When applied in a translucent media (which is basically the only way they can be used effectively), their flat sides tend to orient themselves randomly. The size of the flakes and the thickness of the applied media play a large part in this orientation, though.

If the applied dried film is thinner than the flake diameter, they tend to lie flat, increasing reflectivity - IF they are more reflective than the dried surface of the media, which is assumed here (and is the subject of an equally interesting matter...). Spray application is the best way to accomplish this thin film; rollers tend to apply a thicker film, so orientation is often random then. But even more factors are involved - with a highly evaporative media, roller application can orient them flat. This may be what MM means by "shed paint", though actual paint shedding would result in poor dispersion and surface defects.

Other factors affect mica orientation. Of particular interest is the static charge that is often present when spraying plastics. This can have a very large effect, as any body man who has sprayed metallics on a plastic bumper can tell you.

But even when oriented flat, metallics are never retroreflective - but they are an effective way to increase gain. Remember our two screens: flat white and mirror? Metallics are a way to combine the two. The metallics are the mirror; the matte white (or gray) base coat is the diffusion element. In other words, millions of tiny mirrors covering a certain percentage of a matte screen.

Bored yet? :)
prof55 is offline  
post #101 of 225 Old 03-09-2006, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bruce can's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kamloops BC. Canada
Posts: 1,493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
But even when oriented flat, metallics are never retroreflective - but they are an effective way to increase gain. Remember our two screens: flat white and mirror? Metallics are a way to combine the two. The metallics are the mirror; the matte white (or gray) base coat is the diffusion element. In other words, millions of tiny mirrors covering a certain percentage of a matte screen.
Are you sure ?




Shape and size of the reflective particles will have more to to do with retro vs angular than Colour . Colour has nothing to do with it.

A mirror is just the surface smoothness and sheen .


Bruce
bruce can is offline  
post #102 of 225 Old 03-10-2006, 05:39 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
movielvr2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i've thought through what has been posted here and have continued reading other threads as time allows. here is a laundry list of my thoughts. everyone is welcome to comment if you think i have something right/wrong.
  1. i still don't fully understand why the metalics are providing any enhancement unless the viewing cone is reduced somewhat. as far as i can see it is a simple matter of conservation of energy. a non-metalic screen that will give a full 180 deg viewing cone can't be any different than a screen containing metalics that has the same gain curve. it looks like any screen that has metalics will not have a flat gain curve.
  2. i definitely see the benefit of a screen with metalics as long as the gain drop-off near the screen edges does not impact the visual enjoyment of the image. this will be more efficient than a screen without metalics. i think black flame has this type of gain curve...but i need to see one for myself or someone needs to make the measurements.
  3. i think that maybe a lot of the "magic" may be coming from the use of the minwax polycrylic. i agree that it adds depth to the image and increases the transparency enough that the undercoat can begin to work effectively. that's my own visual perception from the screen i am currently using.
  4. mississippiman posted this comment: "Individual pigments tend to separate in a thin mix more completely, but they do not combine. This means that light reacts differently to each component, either negating, adjusting, or enhancing as each proponent's contribution is intended." biglyle completely disagreed with it. i agree with part of it. the components used in black flame don't combine. the pigments are solids and stay in suspension in the acrylic/latex. i agree that each component can "negate or adjust" the image that is returned to the viewer. each component either reflects or absorbs the light that hits it. nothing more...there is no "enhancement". my definition of enhancement is that there is an efficiency increase. that can only happen at the expense of a reduced viewing cone.
  5. if black flame can indeed reflect more projected light than it reflects ambient light, then i don't think that can be proven by anything less than using a good, high resolution spectraphotometer. I don't think our own eye's can really determine the difference. the only way we could see this with our eye's is if we create a paint that has no colors but has the same proportions of metalics and base components as black flame, then use that as a side-by-side comparison to see if black levels are better in black flame.
  6. last, i got on mississippiman about one part of his response. please, everyone else, excersize some temperance and don't start a word war here on this thread. it want to keep this as a technical discussion thread as much as possible. i'm not saying that you shouldn't disagree, just don't throw in unnecessary jabs after disagreeing.

on to the mix i am using. here is a little history. i have a an EIKI EIP-1000T projector. 854x480, six-segment 5x color wheel DLP. it's somewhere between 500-550 lumens in economy mode.

for my screen, i was at first using "glidden snowfield". this is simply too bright as i can only run 60" diagonal. also, the black levels just suck. so, i made a guess and decided on a paint from the same paint line as behr silverscreen. i had home depot mix up "dark ash" but had them change the base from "accent" to "pastel" to lighten it up. i tried that and it was a little too dark for my liking. also, the image seemed too flat, no depth.

so, here is what i did and this is what i am using now. i mixed a new batch of paint with the following recipe:
  1. 50% modified "behr dark ash" (dark ash recipe but change base from accent to pastel
  2. 25% "glidden snowfield"
  3. 25% minwax polycrylic satin

this mix was painted over my existing glidden snowfield screen. the depth is good and the colors are accurate and saturated. of course the brightness dropped but it no longer hurts my eyes when going from a dark scene to a bright scene. the big improvement was in black level. i am even able to easily tolerate 3 to 4 60watt light bulbs that are about 15 to 20 feet from the screen. the original screen and the new gray screen were rolled with a foam roller. the performance of this screen is why i am still questioning the use of metalics, and feel that the a lot of improvement comes from the minwax poly. pbmaxxx and mississippiman are right about the poly helping the appearance.

from this experience, you could devisie a system of paints that use "neutral grays" to create a screen that matches your required screen size, and projector output. the fact that i only project a 60" screen does help me a lot going with a darker paint. does anyone have a feel for whether or not my mix is darker or lighter in appearance than black flame? i'm guessing darker.

that's it, hope to see some responses.
movielvr2006 is offline  
post #103 of 225 Old 03-10-2006, 07:02 PM
Senior Member
 
mission313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Battleground, WA
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by movielvr2006
i've thought through what has been posted here and have continued reading other threads as time allows. here is a laundry list of my thoughts. everyone is welcome to comment if you think i have something right/wrong.
  1. i still don't fully understand why the metalics are providing any enhancement unless the viewing cone is reduced somewhat. as far as i can see it is a simple matter of conservation of energy. a non-metalic screen that will give a full 180 deg viewing cone can't be any different than a screen containing metalics that has the same gain curve. it looks like any screen that has metalics will not have a flat gain curve.
  2. i definitely see the benefit of a screen with metalics as long as the gain drop-off near the screen edges does not impact the visual enjoyment of the image. this will be more efficient than a screen without metalics. i think black flame has this type of gain curve...but i need to see one for myself or someone needs to make the measurements.
  3. i think that maybe a lot of the "magic" may be coming from the use of the minwax polycrylic. i agree that it adds depth to the image and increases the transparency enough that the undercoat can begin to work effectively. that's my own visual perception from the screen i am currently using.
  4. mississippiman posted this comment: "Individual pigments tend to separate in a thin mix more completely, but they do not combine. This means that light reacts differently to each component, either negating, adjusting, or enhancing as each proponent's contribution is intended." biglyle completely disagreed with it. i agree with part of it. the components used in black flame don't combine. the pigments are solids and stay in suspension in the acrylic/latex. i agree that each component can "negate or adjust" the image that is returned to the viewer. each component either reflects or absorbs the light that hits it. nothing more...there is no "enhancement". my definition of enhancement is that there is an efficiency increase. that can only happen at the expense of a reduced viewing cone.
  5. if black flame can indeed reflect more projected light than it reflects ambient light, then i don't think that can be proven by anything less than using a good, high resolution spectraphotometer. I don't think our own eye's can really determine the difference. the only way we could see this with our eye's is if we create a paint that has no colors but has the same proportions of metalics and base components as black flame, then use that as a side-by-side comparison to see if black levels are better in black flame.
  6. last, i got on mississippiman about one part of his response. please, everyone else, excersize some temperance and don't start a word war here on this thread. it want to keep this as a technical discussion thread as much as possible. i'm not saying that you shouldn't disagree, just don't throw in unnecessary jabs after disagreeing.

on to the mix i am using. here is a little history. i have a an EIKI EIP-1000T projector. 854x480, six-segment 5x color wheel DLP. it's somewhere between 500-550 lumens in economy mode.

for my screen, i was at first using "glidden snowfield". this is simply too bright as i can only run 60" diagonal. also, the black levels just suck. so, i made a guess and decided on a paint from the same paint line as behr silverscreen. i had home depot mix up "dark ash" but had them change the base from "accent" to "pastel" to lighten it up. i tried that and it was a little too dark for my liking. also, the image seemed too flat, no depth.

so, here is what i did and this is what i am using now. i mixed a new batch of paint with the following recipe:
  1. 50% modified "behr dark ash" (dark ash recipe but change base from accent to pastel
  2. 25% "glidden snowfield"
  3. 25% minwax polycrylic satin

this mix was painted over my existing glidden snowfield screen. the depth is good and the colors are accurate and saturated. of course the brightness dropped but it no longer hurts my eyes when going from a dark scene to a bright scene. the big improvement was in black level. i am even able to easily tolerate 3 to 4 60watt light bulbs that are about 15 to 20 feet from the screen. the original screen and the new gray screen were rolled with a foam roller. the performance of this screen is why i am still questioning the use of metalics, and feel that the a lot of improvement comes from the minwax poly. pbmaxxx and mississippiman are right about the poly helping the appearance.

from this experience, you could devisie a system of paints that use "neutral grays" to create a screen that matches your required screen size, and projector output. the fact that i only project a 60" screen does help me a lot going with a darker paint. does anyone have a feel for whether or not my mix is darker or lighter in appearance than black flame? i'm guessing darker.

that's it, hope to see some responses.

There is no magic inthe Minwax polycrylic, it is no different than the other clear water based polyurethanes we have all been experimenting with for 2 years now.

Here is what is different and why you see a difference when you added it to your mix.

It is simply that it is a satin and adds a sheen to your mix which increases the gain of the screen. I have tested with this stuff add nausium and there is no magic in it at all. It is that simple.

What I will say is that the water based polys do well is...If flat or matte it works to flatten up a WOP or Metallic mix and add even more translucency and rollability to a mix. Which does add value.

I never understood why no one got this? For example the RS_MAXX mix if you had the same shade of grey and the same sheen you would get almost the the same exact results. I tested it, no one can convince me otherwise.

313

Click Here for DIY Screen Chat Click here for DIY Screen Chat
mission313 is offline  
post #104 of 225 Old 03-10-2006, 07:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
1Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
@ mission313

I still have plenty of CCPM and MinWax left to use, but have not compared them. Thanks for your comparison and for saving me the trouble. You've posted you like American Traditions poly. What quality does it offer different than CCPM or MinWax?

Thanks
1Time is offline  
post #105 of 225 Old 03-10-2006, 08:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
1Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by movielvr2006
from this experience, you could devisie a system of paints that use "neutral grays" to create a screen that matches your required screen size, and projector output. the fact that i only project a 60" screen does help me a lot going with a darker paint. does anyone have a feel for whether or not my mix is darker or lighter in appearance than black flame? i'm guessing darker.
If you're willing to assume you can produce a screen that will perform better than black flame, I suggest going with something in a lighter shade of gray.

Edit:
The dark ash looks pretty dark so I'm guessing a mix with 1/3 white paint won't lighten it up enough so yours probably is darker than black flame. I think you would prefer lighter shade of gray, but please report back on how you like your mix.
1Time is offline  
post #106 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 08:59 AM
Senior Member
 
ender611's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
movielvr2006 - just curious what the colorants and amounts in the black ash and snowfield paints. Did they stick the formulas on the cans? Maybe I'm just a bit over obsessed with those formulas. Curious what the black flame mix would come out as. A while back I threw up a summary of a few of the more popular mixes but searching isn't all that easy.

That was a good group of questions/thoughts you threw out there for discussion. I think talk of 180 degree viewing cones implying perfect diffusion cant even be had by the best totally flat white screens. Its just about creating screens that have absolutely no viewing cone issue. On all screens the brightest from a seated position in front of a ceiling mounted projector is about 3/4 the way up from the bottom of the screen. The dimmest spot will be either bottom corner. Hotspotting is totally unacceptable but after overcoming that, then acceptable uniformity is the quest. Screens that you notice get darker when you stand up or walk to the side are high gain killers of uniformity. If one doesn't notice the darkening as you move from center to the 90 degrees position then there is no viewing cone issue. If I had a 2000 lumen projector and took a seat 70 degrees off centre I may be watching the equivalent of a 500 lumen projector. I would be as content as I'm am now watching my 500 lumen projector head on. If one had an instrument pointing directly at the screen from the front measuring lumens coming back it would be measuring the returning light from an area much smaller then if you had that instrument tilted at 70 degrees ( thats why us canadians are colder, cause the suns angle makes us have to share the same amount of light over a bigger area...i think we need to landscape our yards to tilt south..then we can pretend we're in florida ). But since a bigger screen surface is being crammed into ones eyeball as you walk to the side only the unacceptable viewing cone screens go perceptably darker. I don't know where I'm rambling to but just wanted to maybe soften that 180 degree viewing cone thing abit. It just has to be a watchable picture if you sitting at 80 degrees off centre and those are going to be cheap seats in any case. Everything is so slight with the screens ( the projectors handling 99 point whatever ). A 2 or 3 percent preservation of light, a 5 or 6 percent extra viewing cone...all seems little but when painted on a big mother of all screens is candy for the mind.

edit:found that old post
ender611 is offline  
post #107 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 10:00 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
movielvr2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ender611
movielvr2006 - just curious what the colorants and amounts in the black ash and snowfield paints. Did they stick the formulas on the cans?
here are the forumulas

Glidden Snowfield (00NN 72/000)
Evermore Interior Latex Flat (Base 1)
(for 1 quart)

Colorant..............................OZ.....48.......96
AX Perm Yellow.....................0........0........1
B Lamp Black........................0........2........1
R Exterior Red.......................0........0........1


Modified Behr Dark Ash (Regular Dark Ash is 770F-5 and uses Accent Base)
Behr Premium Plus Interior Flat Pastel Base (2-1500)
(for 1 quart)

Colorant..............................OZ.....48.......96
B Lamp Black........................1.......23........0
C Yellow Oxide......................0.......10........0
F Red Oxide..........................0........2........0
movielvr2006 is offline  
post #108 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 10:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
schooner2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
mission313 - What is the current mix you are using for your own screen?
I'm currently using Behr SS and looking to move a step up. BF seems like a lot of work for nothign if it amounts to nothign more than gray with SM mixed in, which seems to be the case from what I've been reading here.
schooner2000 is offline  
post #109 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 11:13 AM
Newbie
 
Pyrometman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've been experimenting with a totally different set of colored pigments, all of them being non-metallic. Of course, this has all been on my DIY projector, so my light output is very low, and throw is very short.

When I was using metallics, way back in the past, I could never fix the hotspotting issues. I've moved away from that because of my low light output and short throw. I have experienced the same issues with Minwax Polycrylic. So, my point is that you really need to have enough light to make BF work properly (probably 500+ actual lumens). So, I won't comment further on the metallics or Polycrylic.

Now, with regards to being able to reflect more projected light than ambient light, this is possible. I've been working on this issue, rather slowly these past few months, but with the right combination of pigments I've had some small success. The major hurdle is color shifting. If some of you have seen what I've posted at Lumenlab you will know. The issue right now is that the particular combination of pigments has a slight lavender push. I hope to work this out and hopefully the knowledge of my work will help make BF better. Pb_Maxxx has worked hard to get the BF mix to a color balanced state, but somewhat at the expense of giving up a little of the true contrast enhancement. All things in these mixes come down to a delicate balance.

Jason
Pyrometman is offline  
post #110 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 12:15 PM
Senior Member
 
mission313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Battleground, WA
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
@1TIME I like the american traditions becuase it is clearer than the CCPM and flatter. The CCPM has a slight yellow to it, it clears mostly after curing. The AT is pretty clear to start with so when doing test panels and quick drying them I can know it is not going to color shift on me as it cures.

I am curently using the 313HC screen. It is decent. I mean I am a pretty happy with it in my current situation, but if I had light control like I used to I would still be using a KILZ2 screen.

Click Here for DIY Screen Chat Click here for DIY Screen Chat
mission313 is offline  
post #111 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 12:16 PM
Senior Member
 
ender611's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Probably is a slightly diffierent solution for different ambient light situations. With the incandescent light being forty some percent red light, a third green light and a small portion of blue light I guess if the screen leaned to the blue side with a fair amount of green and a touch of red, and then the red on the projector were cranked up and the blue lowered, it would do not bad in a lit room. I know, I know you color correct guys are cringing.
ender611 is offline  
post #112 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 12:25 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by schooner2000
mission313 - What is the current mix you are using for your own screen?
I'm currently using Behr SS and looking to move a step up. BF seems like a lot of work for nothign if it amounts to nothign more than gray with SM mixed in, which seems to be the case from what I've been reading here.
Only a very few people espouse the above claim, so don't let that deter you in the least. a viewing of the already many happy BFLF DIY'ers make those claims seem pretty sparse indeed.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is online now  
post #113 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
1Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan
Only a very few people espouse the above claim, so don't let that deter you in the least. a viewing of the already many happy BFLF DIY'ers make those claims seem pretty sparse indeed.
MMan, so why don't you post comparative screen shots? Would that not be the best way to show differences between BF and any other gray screen?
1Time is offline  
post #114 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 01:24 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
Welcome, Jason. I've been following your work at LL. Nice to see you here.
prof55 is offline  
post #115 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 01:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
schooner2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan
Only a very few people espouse the above claim, so don't let that deter you in the least. a viewing of the already many happy BFLF DIY'ers make those claims seem pretty sparse indeed.
Just looking for something simple that works be it BF or otherwise but I'm not looking for a witches brew of 99 components that turns out to be basically gray paint in the end. I'll wait until I can see some more proof hopefully via the shootout writeup if it still happens. As for now the BS around BF has me holding off bothering it with it. In all honesty the "hype" made by you and other supporters just has me off and suspect of it at this time. In the end it might be the solution but as of now I am wary is all. If it sounds to good to be true...
schooner2000 is offline  
post #116 of 225 Old 03-11-2006, 03:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
benven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Time
MMan, so why don't you post comparative screen shots? Would that not be the best way to show differences between BF and any other gray screen?
I agree with 1Time, just do a comparison. Not once have I seen a comparison of BF, other than a white screen in ambient conditions. Just do it and we will all see what the hype is about. I would like to see a white screen, for light controlled viewing, and say CGII or another ambient light viewing mix. You could have your own shootout instead of putting psennett on the spot. I've done my shootout. Anyone else...............

Meow.
benven is offline  
post #117 of 225 Old 03-12-2006, 10:02 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
movielvr2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Time
If you're willing to assume you can produce a screen that will perform better than black flame, I suggest going with something in a lighter shade of gray.

Edit:
The dark ash looks pretty dark so I'm guessing a mix with 1/3 white paint won't lighten it up enough so yours probably is darker than black flame. I think you would prefer lighter shade of gray, but please report back on how you like your mix.
i compared my mix to the behr and glidden color cards that i have. it is closest to "glidden granite grey", just a bit darker. it is lighter than "behr gray area". the mix shows accurate and saturated colors (to me that is). the brightness is good for me on my 60" screen (16:9) and if i were to guess, i would say that my mix has a gain of 0.5 to 0.6. the major impact is with the black level. even with the lights on, the image looks really good to me.
movielvr2006 is offline  
post #118 of 225 Old 03-12-2006, 07:43 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by benven
I agree with 1Time, just do a comparison. Not once have I seen a comparison of BF, other than a white screen in ambient conditions. Just do it and we will all see what the hype is about. I would like to see a white screen, for light controlled viewing, and say CGII or another ambient light viewing mix. You could have your own shootout instead of putting psennett on the spot. I've done my shootout. Anyone else...............
This is Funny? Your trying to make it seem like I've been guilty of putting PSennet on the spot?

Don't anybody fault me for this lenghy response, or state how they don't bother to read my posts.

What you obviously don't know is that I've asked PSennet repeated via private discourse to tell some of you to go to hell and to let me help him arrange a real showing of EVERYTHING" anyway. He wanted no part of it, or the resulting 'issues" it would bring. But let's NOT hear any more crap about me passing off MY responsibility to ANYBODY to provide comparisons. If you think I want to bother to go to the very real effort to oblige, just to see more of the same crap get slung back at me, your mistaken. I don't need it, and what I'm doing these days won't ever require that I oblige. But I would do it, and do a completely through job of it for those who want to see it done for the right reasons,and for those who are easily led to believe the naysaying being spouted about Black Flame and it's comparison to an ordinary Gray screen. Already, a few newbees have said, "I really want to do a Black Flame, but not if it's no better than a Gray Screen." That's sad. "Molecularly Speaking" of course. :p :D

ANY time (....and there have been several in the closed Threads...) that I have responded to such requests, and bothered to do a comparison with the then requested "White Reference" panel, the results were very clear, but were summarily dismissed by those whose agenda of fostering disbelief and discord in all things "MMan" was not furthered by my having done such comparisons myself.

Because a few decided that I was then guilty of "promoting" my "efforts" by having posted such telling shots, that I was doing so only for "promotion" sake. Never mind that I was doing only what was being continually demanded of me. No, it only caused a few to take up the sword or righteousness again. I get reported. Alan responds without reading. The thread then get's closed down. The People who WANT help lose out on getting the info. The naysayers feel they've won another round.

Not even the plainly positive posts by those who had the screens can, or have ever made any dent in those kinds of attitudes.

But the whole affair did spur you and others to try to pursue getting some other similar work accomplished. As I remember it, the Ambient Light Development thread became most popular for a spell directly after my thread got canned. It was created because someone had gained enough information that they thought they could execute the compilation of our Mix, and to save the DIY Minions from our/my evil designs.

Fast forward. No one is getting anywhere fast on their own, and experimentation is leading then down dead end streets or in the least, less than desirable results. I'm asked by at least two "unnamed" individuals to post up another Thread to help clarify and instruct those wanting to be successful at making BFLF screens. I just have to "Keep it Clean". That we have done. And helped a bunch of people actually. The ALD Thread? It served no purpose whatsoever once the Black Flame Thread was reposted, so it's now dead & buried. But the some very few same people still expressed disbelief. The same people who felt that the concept itself had merit, but was being dragged down into the MMud by my involvement

So no matter. Now it's changed back into, "It's no better than a Gray Screen". A claim that is ridiculous. And of course, because I have refrained from posting the very type of shots now being requested of me, I've been hiding something, or I'm afraid.

Hardly.

Can't any of you remember that you asked this very thing of me a while back, then it was thrown out that Bruce Can should do it because I could not be trusted to do it fairly? That Thread deteriorated into nothing but a farce of further reciminatory statements. So then, it reverted to PSennet because he "volunteered" to do so. And then, my offer to come in and help him was thrown back by a statement, "Why the hell does "HE" have to be there?" We all know who said that. But that determination became an "Edict", on of the most unfair that has ever been levied on this Forum, and blatantly insulting as well. But it did quiet the clamor, and that was solely to PSennet's benefit.

We all share some blame for PSennet's situation and what happened, myself no less than any other.

So now we have returned to the beginning. No doubt my recollection will be disputed. But again, I'll say this.

Yes. I'll be glad to do a complete comparison, including any submitted formula. Done up rightly, EVERYTHING sprayed the same, as any should know I can. I'll even bring in a Sony Chroma View. And paint a neutral Gray Panel. Hell, I'll even paint up a neutral Gray LF as well. It actually would be a pleasure to do so at this point, and invite any who want to serve as Monitors to come on in and observe, then submit "Their own" evaluation. I can do this thing in a really comprehensive manner. Believe that.

Not to promote, but to put to rest (....for a while only, of course....) all the misconceptions being touted by once again, just a few.

I don't know why it's a sin for me to be able to travel almost at will, but since I can, I'll probably do this kind of thing in Indy or Chicago. Or do it here in Memphis if that serves my convenience. I'll not be dictated to, however.

Line 'em up Boys. Make some reasonable requests. Send us your best stuff. And for goodness sake somebody/s who can maintain the appearance of impartiality "volunteer" to come see it all happen. This all has far more significance to many more potential DIY'ers than any other kind of Muti_PJ Shoot-Out ever could. Might the purveyors of a reputed commercial endeavor, one that has yet to sell a single screen, benefit from such a comparison? Certainly. Or it could relegate the entire thing to the Junk heap, as some would have it be. The only difference now is that the "Do-er" isn't in it just to find a good screen for a 4805. This would be to specifically show the results on every screen submitted / made up the end image from at least 4 levels of projection potential. 800 Lumens. 1000-1200 Lumens. 1500-2000 Lumens. 2500-3000 Lumens. The latter with only a 400:1 CR

I want to see it myself. You all have me wondering. (....right....)

In any case, once again, just as I did in asking about reestablishing the Black Flame Thread, if enough of the few who matter give it their blessing, or at least a tacturn agreement, then I'm game. It will be interesting how the response will develop.

Now I know full well that the tone of my response above will irritate some. That's to be expected, as well as my having to take the pains to state the things in the manner I did. I can easily fall back into the mode of working to help instead of fighting to defend, if there is just a little effort to allow me to do it.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is online now  
post #119 of 225 Old 03-12-2006, 07:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
1Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So MMan, are you saying won't post comparative screen shots because you can't show differences between BF and any gray screen?
1Time is offline  
post #120 of 225 Old 03-12-2006, 08:01 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Time
So MMan, are you saying won't post comparative screen shots because you can't show differences between BF and any gray screen?
Are you saying you cannot read? Where you could come up with that line of reasoning is beyond comprehension. Read the post again. I made a very valid suggestion and offer. I just want to know that it will not be a moot effort.

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

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