Attaching Hi-tack light trap material directly to a motorized screen....? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 13 Old 08-03-2012, 04:22 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Sindy Ahh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi everyone. First post, so please be gentle. smile.gif

I've done quite a bit of reading here, but could not find the answer(s).


I have a brand new 92" 16:9 motorized screen with an Epson EX7200 projector. The projector is native 16:10, so that means when I'm watching 16:9 material I have about a 4" space at the top and bottom of the image (gray bars) due to the projector's lack of good black levels. Note: All my testing was done on a blank wall, because I have not yet mounted my new screen.

I was thinking about eventually making a mask as some of you have done to help fill in that gray space, but as of right now that is further down the road.

I came across various threads taking about different kinds of masking material (and how to build masking bars), and the Hi-tack light trap material with the sticky back caught my attention.

Would this material stick well to my screen, or would it eventually peal off? Yes, I said screen. I know most of you have used this material on separate masking bars placed in front of a screen, but if it sticks very well wouldn't it also work stuck directly to the screen?



My screen is relatively smooth (white), with a black 2.5 to 3" masked area all around the edge. I was thinking of adding/sticking the Hi-tack material to the top and bottom of the screen to help mask off that 4" space the projector produces. The screen itself should still be able to roll up fine since the Hi-tack material is pretty thin from my understanding.

Now I completely understand that wider aspect ratios would still produce the gray bars even with the extra masking added to the screen, but that is what a regular masking bar(s) will help hide in the future. I just want to have a good 16:9 image right now.

Any advice or any things I may have overlooked?


Thanks in advance for your help. smile.gif
Sindy Ahh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 Old 08-04-2012, 07:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
henrich3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Welcome Sindy!

I would use the projector's zoom so that a 16:9 image completely fills your 16:9 screen. The 16:10 letterbox bars should shine on the black masking that already surrounds your screen's viewing area. If the projector doesn't have enough zoom to fill the 16:9 screen, mount it a little closer so that it does.
henrich3 is offline  
post #3 of 13 Old 08-04-2012, 08:59 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Sindy Ahh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I thought about doing that, but the problem I have is if I do zoom the image to fill the 16:9 screen, the sides of the image would fall off the sides of the screen (which would then require a mask). I figure masking gray bars at the top and bottom would be easier than trying to mask a colour image on the sides, no?
Sindy Ahh is offline  
post #4 of 13 Old 08-04-2012, 10:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
henrich3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 48
16:10 is taller than 16:9 (width:height). Zoom the image so the width of a 16:9 image is the width of the screen. Let the light overspill above & below the 16:9 image land on the screen's masking above & below the viewable area. No need to add extra masking.
henrich3 is offline  
post #5 of 13 Old 08-04-2012, 03:07 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Sindy Ahh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
16:10 is taller than 16:9 (width:height).
That I understand.
Quote:
Zoom the image so the width of a 16:9 image is the width of the screen.
Yes, I can do that. I have been playing around with the projector's zoom lever to see what options I have.
Quote:
Let the light overspill above & below the 16:9 image land on the screen's masking above & below the viewable area. No need to add extra masking.
That is where the issue is. If I zoom the image to fill the screen (tested on wall), the top and bottom line up fine with the screen's masking edge, but the gray bars on top and bottom are still 4-5 inches in height. The screen's mask is only about 4cm (under 2 inches) all around, that means the gray bars will fall off the screen by about 2+ inches.



Also, maybe I missed something here.... but since the original movie image being projected is already 16:9 (with the added gray bars on the top on bottom to make it 16:10), if I zoom the image as you say, wouldn't the image now fall outside the screen's side masking (by the same amount as the top and bottom before...4-5")? Wouldn't it go as wide as the pink lines in the image below?

Sindy Ahh is offline  
post #6 of 13 Old 08-04-2012, 03:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
lewke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Are you sure the movie you are watching is in 1.78:1 (16:9)........4-5" of black bars sounds like you are watching a 2.35:1 movie
lewke is offline  
post #7 of 13 Old 08-04-2012, 03:28 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Sindy Ahh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I tested it with Avatar and Toy Story. (1.78)

When I tested Destrict 9 the gray was a little bit more. (1.85?)

When I tested Fast & Furious the bars where very wide. (2.40?)



Like I said before, I have yet to mount the actual screen I'll be using. When I do I will have exact numbers/width of the gray bars.
Sindy Ahh is offline  
post #8 of 13 Old 08-04-2012, 04:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
henrich3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Is your screen 92" diagonal or 92" wide? If it's 92" diagonal there would be 5" total vertical light spill from a 16:10 pj displaying a 16:9 image zoomed to screen width - 2.5" top & 2.5" bottom. Your original post said that your screen had a 2.5" - 3" mask around the edge so I figured the light spill should be covered by the existing mask. A 92" wide screen would have slightly more light spill (2.75" top & 2.75" bottom) so the screen's existing mask still should come close to covering the spillover without tacking on a homemade mask.

Perhaps my math or my understanding of the situation is off. (That's not a rare occurrence unfortunately...) Anyway, it should be easier for you judge the extent of the problem once you hang the screen.
henrich3 is offline  
post #9 of 13 Old 08-04-2012, 07:02 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Sindy Ahh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The mask on the screen is about 4cm all around (more or less). That would be around 1.6"

The 4-5" bars at the top and bottom of the image came from the Epson website when I popped in my screen screen size (which is 92" diagonal) and the distance that the projector would be from the screen (about 10 feet). That 4-5" gray bar at the top and bottom was also confirmed by a Epson US service rep when I called them. I asked them "so it's 4-5" total, or in other words 2.5" at the bottom and 2.5" at the top?". The guy said "no, it's around 4-5" at the bottom, and then another 4-5" at the top". That is why I was looking into masking options. At those widths my screen's masking would not hide it entirely.

I will know for sure once the screen is up and the image is projected. I just hope the size is less as you think, then I won't have to use any masking (crosses fingers). If it's not I'll let you know the exact sizing/spacing I see at various movie ratios.

Btw, thank you henrich3 for helping out. smile.gif
Sindy Ahh is offline  
post #10 of 13 Old 08-05-2012, 11:13 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Sindy Ahh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Since I have not yet revived an answer to my original question, and to get ready if I do need to get it.... does anyone know if the Hi-tack light trap material will stick well to a smooth surface screen without the fear of it peeling off? confused.gif

I left a message with them asking for a sample to test with, but have not received a reply yet.
Sindy Ahh is offline  
post #11 of 13 Old 08-06-2012, 10:39 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,825
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindy Ahh View Post

Since I have not yet revived an answer to my original question, and to get ready if I do need to get it.... does anyone know if the Hi-tack light trap material will stick well to a smooth surface screen without the fear of it peeling off? confused.gif
I left a message with them asking for a sample to test with, but have not received a reply yet.

Well here is a Definitive answer.

Yes. If this is the material of which you are referring to. http://www.protostar.biz/hitack.htm

It is very thin and flexible, more than enough as far as the degree of Bend it encounters. It adds no discernible bulk, nor will it "crease" any overlapping material as it rolls over it.

But.......,

One must take extreme care when applying it, as it does NOT suffer any attempt at loosening to re-position it. The same "stick-to it-ness" that would give you your needed assurance also brings with it a demand that you "Do it right the First Time".

The Screen would have to be "backed", by laying flat against a adjoining wall, or on the Floor. You would have to have help to keep the leading edge (length-ways) where you want it to be at the start, and carefully roll / press the Trapping down evenly, avoiding any wrinkle ridges.

I've use in on Retractables (4:3s converted) and solid Panel / Wall screen surfaces. Brook no mistake, applied correctly, nothing looks or performs better. Mess up, and the likelihood is you going to have to start over.

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is offline  
post #12 of 13 Old 08-08-2012, 09:56 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Sindy Ahh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Yes. If this is the material of which you are referring to. http://www.protostar.biz/hitack.htm
Yep, that's the stuff.

Quote:
I've use in on Retractables (4:3s converted) and solid Panel / Wall screen surfaces.
Would you happen to have any pictures of those two applications?

Quote:
It is very thin and flexible, more than enough as far as the degree of Bend it encounters. It adds no discernible bulk, nor will it "crease" any overlapping material as it rolls over it.
From reading some of the threads here I have seen many people mention that as well. That's why I thought it would work well on a roll up screen. I just wanted to make sure.

Quote:
Mess up, and the likelihood is you going to have to start over.
Duly noted.


Btw, I'm planning on putting up the screen next week to do some actual testing. Hopefully I won't need to do the masking. Then only only have to make some panels later on for the wider aspects,
Sindy Ahh is offline  
post #13 of 13 Old 09-12-2012, 01:26 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Sindy Ahh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well I finally got the screen up. Good news, Avatar (1.78) fit beautifully. I was able to have only a small overlap all the way around on the masking (about 1cm). For the other sizes I get more of bar. For 1.85 there is about a 1-2cm gap at the top and bottom with the same overlap as the 1.78, and for 2.40 it has big wide bars as expected. (that's ok)

Here are some shots of the image quality I'm getting from my Epson 7200. I'm quite happy. Pictures were taken from a distance of about 9 feet away. The projector was set (as best as possible) with the WOW disc. (Note: the screen looks angled because the camera was set up low)







The movies were being played/streamed from a PBO (Patriot Box Office) player and WD drive. Avatar was around 11gb, Cars around 7gb. I ordered a new WD Live Plus player with wifi last week so I can return the PBO to the living room (I kinda missed it up there). Btw, it seems obvious to me now that anything I rip that is smaller than 4gb in size for Blu-ray, starts to show it's shortcomings in terms of picture quality on a screen that size. I guess no more 2gb quick rips for BR movies that I really want to enjoy on the big screen. biggrin.gif


Oh and thanks for your help everyone. Now it's time for me to enjoy it with the family. smile.gif
Sindy Ahh is offline  
Reply Screens

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