Need help picking a 2.35:1 Acoustic screen that will support 4k resolution - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 20 Old 08-20-2015, 05:01 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Need help picking a 2.35:1 Acoustic screen that will support 4k resolution

Hi guys, I'm looking for a 115 to 120 inch acoustic 2.35:1 screen that can support upto 4k resolution. I'll be placing in wall Triad LCRs behind the screen. So want a good quality acoustic screen that will allow good quality sound and picture. Looking for a white 1.0 gain (if possible), woven microperfed if possible. It has to be a fixed frame. If have total lighting control in my room.

Any dealers out there that can get me some pricing options and names of some screens? My internet search was rather limited.

Thanks,

Ankur
ankurjohriddsmd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 Old 08-20-2015, 08:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankurjohriddsmd View Post
Hi guys, I'm looking for a 115 to 120 inch acoustic 2.35:1 screen that can support upto 4k resolution. I'll be placing in wall Triad LCRs behind the screen. So want a good quality acoustic screen that will allow good quality sound and picture. Looking for a white 1.0 gain (if possible), woven microperfed if possible. It has to be a fixed frame. If have total lighting control in my room.

Any dealers out there that can get me some pricing options and names of some screens? My internet search was rather limited.

Thanks,

Ankur
First, theres no woven microperfed. Its either Woven or Microperfed. Woven is superior for sound transparency. Theres a new breed of Perfed 4K rated screens that aren't as restrictive supposedly but unless your sitting closer than 10-12ft my recommendation is the woven Seymour XD which can be made to your specs. Even with the slight grain I love the pic. More importantly, theres no measurable loss with my mains an inch and a half behind it when I've graphed the FR pre and post installation.
coolrda is online now  
post #3 of 20 Old 08-21-2015, 12:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Is SmX still around? I have what is the known as original fabric (sourced locally) and I have tested SONY 4K on it with no issues. I thought due each pixel being 1/4 the size of a 1080 that there might be some issues. None were seen and the sound through this cloth is awesome.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #4 of 20 Old 08-21-2015, 07:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 781 Post(s)
Liked: 384
No, they're not, there's a thread in the screens forum. Suffice to say, it didn't sound pretty.

I think Seymour (Screen Excellence) has a new, brighter "4K" material, but I can't remember where I saw that.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #5 of 20 Old 08-21-2015, 10:16 AM
Senior Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 38
In addition to Seymour, check out Falcon Screens Horizon and Vision HD AT materials. http://www.falconscreens.com/screens/

For Sale: ISCO Cinema DLP 1.25x Anamorphic Lens for Sony 4K Projectors
Small 12' wide x 10' deep HT: JVC RS4910, Mits HC7900DW DLP, Falcon AT Vision HD 2.35:1, Triad In-wall Gold Omni SE, In-wall Silver Surrounds, PSA XS15-base, Marantz SR7008, Oppo 103D, Tivo Mini, HTPC
jjcook is offline  
post #6 of 20 Old 08-21-2015, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Another +1 for the Seymour. I also checked out Screen Innovations and Screen Research. All three offer woven materials.

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #7 of 20 Old 08-22-2015, 11:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
First, theres no woven microperfed. Its either Woven or Microperfed. Woven is superior for sound transparency. Theres a new breed of Perfed 4K rated screens that aren't as restrictive supposedly but unless your sitting closer than 10-12ft my recommendation is the woven Seymour XD which can be made to your specs. Even with the slight grain I love the pic. More importantly, theres no measurable loss with my mains an inch and a half behind it when I've graphed the FR pre and post installation.
I'll join this endorsement. Awesome product acoustically, and I found the same performance even with the black backing (to my surprise/disbelief). The rub is the viewing distance verses size needed for 4K. By that I mean, if you are to sit beyond 10' where the weave in invisible during projection, you won't need a 4k image unless you go to a very large screen; larger than you have indicated. If you will have a 120" wide screen and sit out at 15' or so, you are still in 2K territory, and the XD looks fantastic.
Cam Man is online now  
post #8 of 20 Old 08-22-2015, 06:51 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
I'll join this endorsement. Awesome product acoustically, and I found the same performance even with the black backing (to my surprise/disbelief). The rub is the viewing distance verses size needed for 4K. By that I mean, if you are to sit beyond 10' where the weave in invisible during projection, you won't need a 4k image unless you go to a very large screen; larger than you have indicated. If you will have a 120" wide screen and sit out at 15' or so, you are still in 2K territory, and the XD looks fantastic.
Awesome. thanks guys. i will check out seymour and falcon. so far have looked at screen innovations and da-lite - both of these are in the $2500 price minimum. lets see what these other two cost thru my local dealer.
ankurjohriddsmd is offline  
post #9 of 20 Old Yesterday, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 6,350
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1757 Post(s)
Liked: 624
If you're worried about the type of resolution you're able to get from your screen I would seriously reconsider the XD material. Seymour Screen Excellence makes a much nicer material called Enlightor 4K. It's a MUCH finer material better suited for video reproduction over the (overly) recommended XD material. I've had a large (enough for a 133" diagonal 16/9 screen), angle cut, piece of XD material here and it's a very coarse material when it comes down to it. I could also easily make out the weave of the material from 12 feet back and it was still slightly visible even from 15 feet. I had to sell it. The Enlightor, from a normal seated distance, looks to be a solid piece of screen material. If you care about video resolution go with the Enlightor 4K material over the XD. You'll be glad you did.

Here's some comparison pictures:




Last edited by Seegs108; Yesterday at 12:38 PM.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #10 of 20 Old Yesterday, 02:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 781 Post(s)
Liked: 384
How's the contrast and brightness of the Enlightor vs the XD? I got samples of the "UF" fabric which is the Seymour (not Seymour Screen Excellence) "4K" fabric and IMO it's local contrast is not as good, it kind of "glows" and it's not nearly as bright. Also for some reason I was thinking they had a new brighter "4K" fabric out or coming out, but I can't find anything...

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #11 of 20 Old Yesterday, 03:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I, too, tried both the XD and Enlightor 4K materials. I sit more than 15' back and actually preferred the look of the XD. I agree with Seegs though, if you are sitting close enough you will see the weave. The XD is cheaper as well (if that is factoring into it).

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #12 of 20 Old Yesterday, 05:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B View Post
I, too, tried both the XD and Enlightor 4K materials. I sit more than 15' back and actually preferred the look of the XD. I agree with Seegs though, if you are sitting close enough you will see the weave. The XD is cheaper as well (if that is factoring into it).

B.
Five factors affect the decision process:
Is distance adequate to make XD weave invisible?
Will the XD weave induce moire? You have to test a sample to be sure, but your planned size suggests it will not be a factor.
Will the Enlightor 4K allow you to reach adequate luminance?
Are there other factors of physical properties that may adversely effect PQ? Kind of like mentioned by stranger89.
What fits your budget? Enlightor is about twice the price.

The XD weave can easily be seen from 30' away when not projecting if there is a strong light from the side (window open door, etc). But with the angle of incidence just about 0 (as when projecting), the weave is invisible beyond 10'-12', maybe closer...and I've got 20/15 vision.

The Enlightor 4K is not quite as good on HF transparency.
Cam Man is online now  
post #13 of 20 Old Yesterday, 10:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 144
I had a film up tonight, and before shutting down for the night, I thought I'd explore how close I would have to be able to break out the weave. I was quite surprised, but I (of all people) should have anticipated this. The distance was 6', and even then the field viewed had to be very even in luminance, and the frame frozen/paused.

Grain/texture that is native to film, and added to some extent to digital movies obliterates the weave, completely hiding it. Release the pause so that everything is in motion, including the grain, and the weave is even tougher to see unless moving closer.

I think some who are critical of XD being visible are using a 100% luminance field or window pattern. There is no grain in the image. Not exactly real-world conditions by which to judge.

So, the great majority of things people watch (especially on a scope screen) are going to be feature films, and will assist XD in becoming quite invisible.

Finally worth mentioning is that Seymour is always innovating. The XD of today is not the XD of the past.
Cam Man is online now  
post #14 of 20 Old Today, 04:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 781 Post(s)
Liked: 384
What I find with my SMX (pre company) screen, is that it's really not that the weave becomes visible, but the weave obscures the pixel structure.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #15 of 20 Old Today, 08:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 6,350
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1757 Post(s)
Liked: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
I had a film up tonight, and before shutting down for the night, I thought I'd explore how close I would have to be able to break out the weave. I was quite surprised, but I (of all people) should have anticipated this. The distance was 6', and even then the field viewed had to be very even in luminance, and the frame frozen/paused.

Grain/texture that is native to film, and added to some extent to digital movies obliterates the weave, completely hiding it. Release the pause so that everything is in motion, including the grain, and the weave is even tougher to see unless moving closer.

I think some who are critical of XD being visible are using a 100% luminance field or window pattern. There is no grain in the image. Not exactly real-world conditions by which to judge.

So, the great majority of things people watch (especially on a scope screen) are going to be feature films, and will assist XD in becoming quite invisible.

Finally worth mentioning is that Seymour is always innovating. The XD of today is not the XD of the past.
Static shots are typically fine unless the content was particularly bright. I normally saw the weave with any type of motion ahot. Pans, quick movements ect. It stuck out like a sore thumb. I should note that I'm only 26 so my eyes are quite a bit "fresher" than the average poster here on the forum. My eyes can see more light than your average poster here and I have excellent vision. Another factor is how many lumens are hitting the fabric. I tend to like 20+ftL hitting my screen. The more light you have the easier it is to see the fabric.

Cam Man, how many ftL are you getting off of your screen?
Seegs108 is online now  
post #16 of 20 Old Today, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
Static shots are typically fine unless the content was particularly bright. I normally saw the weave with any type of motion ahot. Pans, quick movements ect. It stuck out like a sore thumb. I should note that I'm only 26 so my eyes are quite a bit "fresher" than the average poster here on the forum. My eyes can see more light than your average poster here and I have excellent vision. Another factor is how many lumens are hitting the fabric. I tend to like 20+ftL hitting my screen. The more light you have the easier it is to see the fabric.

Cam Man, how many ftL are you getting off of your screen?

Yes, awesome age for "eagle eyes." Your luminance level explains a lot. Back off to the DCI reference white luminance spec of 14-16fL and take a look. Maybe more concerning is that is sounds like you may be experiencing the early signs of moire ... before it gets super obvious. That it's worse when there is movement certain supports that possibility.
Cam Man is online now  
post #17 of 20 Old Today, 10:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 6,350
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1757 Post(s)
Liked: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
Yes, awesome age for "eagle eyes." Your luminance level explains a lot. Back off to the DCI reference white luminance spec of 14-16fL and take a look. Maybe more concerning is that is sounds like you may be experiencing the early signs of moire ... before it gets super obvious. That it's worse when there is movement certain supports that possibility.
I noted earlier my piece was angle cut to avoid moire from occurring. What I was seeing was the screen's weave.

You pose an odd solution. The home theater standard is 16 ftL but most prefer to run more if they can. I'm not in the minority when it comes to wanted luminance values. I shouldn't have to mask the screen's weave by projecting less light onto it. I should have the option to run brighter if I wanted to. This is why I don't paticularly like the XD material. It's just too coarse for me and the weave/material sticks out even from a normal seating distance. And this is why I suggested the OP looking into another material. He's looking for the best video reproduction he can get with an AT material and unfortunately the XD material isn't the solution. For a competitive price, I think the Falcon HD material is better. I have a sample piece here and I like the material as far as visible texture goes.

Last edited by Seegs108; Today at 10:45 AM.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #18 of 20 Old Today, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
I noted earlier my piece was angle cut to avoid moire from occurring. What I was seeing was the screen's weave.

You pose an odd solution. The home theater standard is 16 ftL but most prefer to run more if they can. I'm not in the minority when it comes to wanted luminance values. I shouldn't have to mask the screen's weave by projecting less light onto it. I should have the option to run brighter if I wanted to. This is why I don't paticularly like the XD material. It's just too coarse for me and the weave/material sticks out even from a normal seating distance. And this is why I suggested the OP looking into another material. He's looking for the best video reproduction he can get with an AT material and unfortunately the XD material isn't the solution. For a competitive price, I think the Falcon HD material is better. I have a sample piece here and I like the material as far as visible texture goes.
The twist to running "non-standard" is that the medium is not created for other than the standard, therefore there may be unintended effects using something else. Presumably, our BD transfers are being created on monitors that conform to the 29fL luminance spec... which seems logical for enabling luminance that high for projection. Since the BDs are not DCI files, I'm not sure what is reasonable to expect in projection. I can just tell you from my long experience in the movie business that we watch things as close to the designed/specifications as possible so that we are making decisions based on a reference starting point. There are often things revealed when outside of those specs that we don't want you to see. Sometimes those are imposed by limitations of the display source (direct and projected), but we consider those, too.

The advent of HDR, Dolby Vision, etc, is a different animal since they are proprietary technologies with new specs.


Food for thought.
Cam Man is online now  
post #19 of 20 Old Today, 01:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 6,350
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1757 Post(s)
Liked: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
The twist to running "non-standard" is that the medium is not created for other than the standard, therefore there may be unintended effects using something else. Presumably, our BD transfers are being created on monitors that conform to the 29fL luminance spec... which seems logical for enabling luminance that high for projection. Since the BDs are not DCI files, I'm not sure what is reasonable to expect in projection. I can just tell you from my long experience in the movie business that we watch things as close to the designed/specifications as possible so that we are making decisions based on a reference starting point. There are often things revealed when outside of those specs that we don't want you to see. Sometimes those are imposed by limitations of the display source (direct and projected), but we consider those, too.

The advent of HDR, Dolby Vision, etc, is a different animal since they are proprietary technologies with new specs.


Food for thought.
The thing is, even at 16 ftL, I'm positive I would've still been able to see the material from a normal (1.5x screen width) seating distance. The material is just not for me. This is nothing against what I assume is now thousands of happily satisfied owners. I just wanted to play devils advocate and put out another option and opinion on what he could use to get even better video reproduction. I think the photo's I posted are really the best evidence about the difference in "texture" between the two materials. The XD material has a higher gain than most of the other materials out there, so if he does choose another AT material projector choice, more specifically lumen output, should be taken into consideration.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #20 of 20 Old Today, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ, Telluride, CO, & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
The thing is, even at 16 ftL, I'm positive I would've still been able to see the material from a normal (1.5x screen width) seating distance. The material is just not for me. This is nothing against what I assume is now thousands of happily satisfied owners. I just wanted to play devils advocate and put out another option and opinion on what he could use to get even better video reproduction. I think the photo's I posted are really the best evidence about the difference in "texture" between the two materials. The XD material has a higher gain than most of the other materials out there, so if he does choose another AT material projector choice, more specifically lumen output, should be taken into consideration.
Absolutely. You made the right decision for your expectations and observations. That's what counts.
Cam Man is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

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