Originally Posted by R Harkness
Hmm...I still have a sheet of 105" 16:9 diagonal HP screen - the 2.8 gain material.
Sounds like there might be a market for it when I decide to sell it. (I replaced it with a much larger Stewart ST130 screen and have kept the HP screen ...well...I'm not sure why. I've considered setting it up as an alternate 3D screen, but probably
can't make that work so I'll probably end up selling it).
It is a pretty amazing material.
We have to talk
I'm using the Solar 4K 1.3 which is pretty much the same as your Stewart ST130 on a 2.35:1 120" diagonal screen. I too have the 500ES, I think you have the same or it is on order, can't remember. Anyway, I am on the fence about
running a curved masking single screen( with 2.4HP) v's adding the 2.4HP for a second electric drop down option. I have the Panamorph UH480 A lens, I believe you do too and that makes the decision complicated.
With the A lens on my current 1.3( flat screen) I am very happy with 2D and just about 95% so in 3D on my 120" screen. I'm thinking about adding 20% of screen size screen going to a 136" diagonal. I know this will suffice for 2D but I am fearful the 3D will suffer.
My samples of the 2.4 I have look fantastic in 3D and work well in 2D as well probably because I only get about 1.8 gain with my PJ mounted 12" below the screen top edge. I used the screen gain calculator to arrive at this number and I have a sample of the BD 2.7
to gauge the brightness. This in between position of the PJ on the HP lowers the brightness and increases the black level, I call it my hybrid location.
Bottom line is are you happy with the 130 compared to the HP overall or is that just from a 2D perspective ? The most common complaint about the HP is loss of black and viewing cone. One other reviewer said the image was flat
on the HP in comparison to the unity
gain screen. To me , the blacks are a little lower but the contrast ratio is the same because the whites are so much better. The color has more pop and the picture ( from my three samples) more vivid , certainly better for 3D . As far as being less dimensional I have no idea
because I can only see the image on samples which to me actually look like there is more dimension.....funny thing.
This is where your comments will be helpful, I am really stuck with this decision. I should probably just give up on the curved screen option and get two electric masking screens and be done with it. One with the HP and the second a ST130 or equivalent.