Because of my D-ILA G11 and ISCO lens combo, I have an unusual screen size of 138w x 72h. this means that I need to get a custom screen made if I am to go that route, increasing the cost substantially, at least to $800.00. If I do it, it will probably be the stewart studiotek 130, even more.
currently, however, based on following this forum, I am using matte white paint, which I have to say looks quite good to my inexperienced eye. But, my friends laugh at me and tell me that I can't chintz on the last component of my system when I have spent so much money to get the sound and picture out.
I have been following the posts on this forum re painted screens and various types of paint, etc, with a lot of opinion re the performance of the surface. however, does anyone have any real information re how a painted screen compares with a draper m2500, vutec 1.5 or stewart 1.3? What exactly is it that makes a real screen better?
Of note, prior to painting the wall, I did make a blackout fabric screen according to the specs on this forum--in direct comparison, there is no perceptible difference (to me) between the painted surface and the blackout fabric.
We have all spent a lot of time and money on our home theaters. It would be great to get some objective measurements on the commercial screen vs painted wall choice--can anyone supply such data? If I need to spend the cash, I have no problem with it. I just would like to know that I will have a noticeable improvement.
[This message has been edited by ham (edited July 30, 2000).]