AVS Forum banner

Options for modern high gain equivalent to DaLite HP 2.8 . . .

5K views 40 replies 13 participants last post by  Pip 
#1 ·
I have been looking for some time for a high gain AT screen, and I still can't seem to find a suitable material, so I have also been considering moving my speakers to utilise a solid high gain screen material. A fellow forum member has kindly sent me a sample of the HP 2.8 screen material, so I may look to try and secure one second hand if that seems suitable.

However given that the HP 2.8 is now out of production, I also wanted to find out if there were any alternative screen materials in current production that give the same gain and image quality that the HP 2.8 is known for.

If anyone has experience with any, particularly in direct comparison to the HP 2.8, please drop some links and comments on this thread.
 
#2 ·
Remember 1 thing, the 2.8 reflects back from light source, so it's best used directly back from screen center, aka a shelf mount just overhead etc...
Ceiling mounting a PJ to a 2.8 reduces gain to ~1.0 IIRC.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
#3 ·
Thanks, yeah, my PJ is not ceiling mounted, the hush box is around 2.5ft above seated head height. I have a sample of the 2.8 now to enable me to measure the light output anyway so its all good.

I'm more interested in any alternatives still in production though, if you know of any?
 
#5 ·
2.4 is no longer made. There are other manufacture that make a high gain product but I believe they are the a solid core type screen and way expensive.. The HP 2.8 was a very unique product and unfortunately with the advent of very bright projectors the market was not there anymore..
Hey Wookii, I am still in awe that sample made it across the pond in 4 days just going first class post!
 
#6 ·
The closest to HP I've seen talked about is from EluneVision. They advertise their 2.4 gain Vivid-Pro Cinema White material as being glass beaded for high ambient light situations, and I recall reading some saying it's at least similar to HP. But you would need to research it more to see what owners actually think about its performance. The viewing angle chart they show does look similar to the one Da-Lite had for HP 2.4. Here's a link.
 
#14 ·
Just found the following AVS post, and there are some more comments further down in that conversation:

I have two samples of the HP 2.4 and one sample of the Elune 2.4. They are the same, in appearance and performance. The Elune advertises a wider viewing cone, I do not see it personally. In my opinion these are the same materials from the same company and as far as I recall the Elune comes from China. Is the HP made in China?? Other than being identical in every way....hard to tell
From previous discussions on AVS it appears that EluneVision may have changed the names of their screen materials as there are also references to "Reference PureBright" and "Reference Studio." Very confusing. But it does seem that EluneVision may have continued to source something similar or identical to HP 2.4 from China after Da-Lite gave up on it. It may take a direct communication with EluneVision to figure out exactly what's going on.
 
#15 ·
I noticed some "presentation" screens by Elite that claim to be 2.0-3.0gain white materials, but I don't remember if any were retro-reflective (retro could perform particularly well for a projector-on-rolling-cart situation).
I'd bet other manufacturers have interesting options hidden away in categories HT enthusiasts might not normally check as well.
 
#16 ·
Currently on the Elite site the only front projection screen surface offered with a gain greater than 1.8 is StarBright 4. It's an angular-reflective surface coated with a dry-erase layer for use as a white board and is rated with a gain of 4.0. Elite used to advertise a similar StarBright 7 but no longer lists it on their site. It was similar to StarBright 4 but with a 7.0 gain. ProjectorCentral.com tested StarBright 7 back in 2009 and found it to have an actual 7.4 gain, but a very narrow viewing cone and obvious artifacts. They didn't recommend it for home theater use. Couldn't find any review of StarBright 4, but would expect it to have similar problems in home theater use. It's designed more for presentation use in conference rooms.
 
#18 ·
Hey Doug, yeah the HP 2.8 is very good indeed, very bright. Even with my less than optimum PJ positioning, I'm still getting 50FtL in high lamp (so I reckon a gain of about 2.0) - and its noticably brighter standing versus sitting. Artificating seems minimal in the seated position, especially compared to some of the other high gain screens I have samples of, which all seem to have around sparklies to one extent of another. The only exception being the Draper XTi1800X which has no artifacts at all.

The Draper is marginally better than the DaLite in outright image quality terms and is a very nice surface indeed, but only gets to 35FtL in high lamp in comparison (a real gain of around 1.4 in my set-up).

Problem with the Draper is its not available as material only, I'd have to get rid of my current screen in its entirety, rather than buy the material and re-use the existing frame (which I have customised to fit my space). Problem with the DaLite is it isn't made anymore, so I'm relying on a second hand purchase!

The rank outsider so far is Severston Cinema White 1.3. It has an actual gain of around 1.3, so around 31FtL in high lamp. It is also slightly sharper than both the DaLite and the Draper samples, and it is also available as material only. The only downside is very slight sparkling on the brightest white elements. When running closer to 16FtL the sparklies aren't evident, but if I want to use the chosen material for HDR, I don't want the sparklies to be evident in the highlights.

If I can get hold of some of the DaLite material at the right price, I will probably snap it up and go with that, but its a matter of finding a willing and friendly seller!
 
#27 ·
Thanks for that update. One less option to choose from.

I just spent a little more time on the EluneVision site reading up on their PureBright 4K 240 (2.4 gain white screen material). They make a big point of saying it's not glass beaded so you can easily clean the surface without damaging it. But they also say it's retroreflective, and I don't know of any retroreflective screens that don't have glass beads. Take a look at this page on the EluneVision site and see what you think.

Thinking back to the HP 2.4, it had glass beads embedded beneath a transluscent surface that resulted in the glass beads not actually being on the external surface of the screen. In fact Da-Lite advertised that the HP 2.4 could be easily cleaned without the risk of knocking glass beads off the screen. So I'm wondering now if EluneVision's PureBright 4K 240 may in fact be the closest thing available to HP 2.4. At least one person on AVS Forum made a direct comparison and said he believes they are exactly the same in this AVS post:

... I did receive both the Da-Lite HP (2.4 gain) & EluneVision Reference Purebright 4K (2.4 gain) screen materials. I have looked at them in ambient light, darkness, and under a magnifying glass and flashlight. As far as I can tell they are exactly the same, even down to the texture pattern. They fall off in brightness when moving off to the sides exactly the same as well. When I move to either far side of my couch, they look very similar in brightness to the Stewart ST130 G3 and JKP 1.1 & 1.3 samples I have up beside them. Though, head on they are definitely brighter. I do not notice any hotspotting or shimmering/sparklies either. But these are just samples so take the latter with a dash of salt. When I put one of the samples on the far right of the screen and sit in the far left seat, the brightness advantage disappears. Unless seated in the two middle seats (sweet spot), the image would look brighter on the side closest to you and gradually dim towards the other side farthest away from you (120" 16:9 image from 12' seating distance). Black levels also rise with both materials equally. ...
The main problem I see with PureBright 4K is that it's much more expensive than either of the old HPs.
 
#29 ·
Here's my latest theory based purely on assumptions including the EluneVision data: Da-Lite suspended sales of HP 2.4 for a long time, telling those who asked that they were having a supplier issue but eventually would begin selling it again. Da-Lite finally said they were dropping HP from their screen material catalog without explanation. Then EluneVision began selling an HP 2.4 clone at a considerably higher cost than Da-Lite was charging after everyone had always said that HP was a bargain at the price Da-Lite was charging.

What may have happened is that the HP supplier significantly raised their wholesale prices on HP screen material and Da-Lite decided there wouldn't be a big enough retail market for a much more expensive HP. With Da-Lite out of the picture EluneVision decided to give it a go at the much higher price. For anyone who hasn't priced PureBright 4K a 100" fixed frame screen sells for more than $1,500. I still remember when you could buy a 100" DaLite HP screen for less than $300. And let's not forget that Draper was also selling an HP 2.4 clone (Draper Radiant) at similarly low prices and suspended and then ended selling it at about the same time Da-Lite did.

I guess it won't matter to a few customers that the folks at EluneVision don't seem to know exactly what they're selling or that it's much more expensive than HP, only that something virtually identical to HP 2.4 is still available. But the full HP market will never come back at the price level EluneVision is charging.
 
#30 ·
I think you're probably right Dave, and the fact that Elunevision probably can't commit to ordering in sufficient quantities from the manufacturer, has led the manufacturer to stop producing the material, and therefore Elunevision to discontinue it.

Anyway, I tested the materials I have again last night, from a purely subjective perspective, and my current short list of three is:

Dalite HP 2.8:
Pros:
- Very bright
- No sparklies
- Good sharpness
- Durable
Cons:
- Only available second hand
- Slight 'sheen'

Severston Stellar White 1.4:
Pros:
- Good brightness
- Sharpest material so far
- Available material only
- No visible sheen
- Durable
Cons:
- Some sparklies when on same vertical axis as projector, slightly of vertical axis sparklies disappear
- Not 100% opaque, so may require black backing

Draper TecVision XTi1800X:
Pros:
- No visible texture, sheen or sparklies at all
- Decent brightness
- Decent sharpness
Cons:
- Only available with a frame
- Very fragile material, surface easily damaged and material easily creased

On balance, and given that I want to use my existing frame, I think the Severston is the way to go.

However I have just found out on the Severston website, that the Stellar White is also available in 1.8 and 2.2 gains. These will probably add more sparklies or other artefacts, but I need to test them to be sure. If these disappear when off vertical axis to the PJ as they do with the 1.4 sample, then they might deliver an even brighter image whilst seated, without any visible artefacts, so I have requested samples.

One small point worth making, every single Severston material I have tested (6 in total) have all delivered the same or more than their stated gain. Every other manufacturers material I have tested has delivered substantially less . . . interesting!
 
#32 ·
It's a shame they don't make it anymore. I have a 119" 2.8 screen and have yet to find anything even close to its quality. It makes every projector look even better, amazing really. We tried many others at my brothers place and nothing compared to the "punch" and sharpness of the high powered. I would love to find a bigger one, 130" or so. Currently have the model C 119".

Any ideas where to find one now?
 
#35 · (Edited)
Thanks for the link - I've had a quick skim over that thread and there doesn't seem to be a great deal of detailed user comment or measurements on it.

I note you have it though? How have you found it:

- if sitting within the screen width, is the brightness fairly uniform?
- perhaps more importantly (to me at least) is there any shimmer/sheen/sparkles in bright white areas of the screen?
- what would you estimate the on axis gain to be?
 
#36 ·
I only did a quick test on it as the pj is not permanently set up. You might be able to see that room is under construction.

1) It seemed uniform
2) I didn't examine it close enough, but it had a little IIRC
3) High gain. It really needs to be measured with a meter.

Tigerfan tested it as well and has a High Power screen. He is better able to compare and contrast. I would really like to see the gain curve measured, as it fell off pretty quick.
 
#37 ·
I agree with Eric about the material from China. It is interesting.
Compared to HP 2.4, the material from China is a bit brighter at dead center view. The blacks were a bit darker but probably due to the brightness.

As Eric said the material biggest drawback is how quick brightness falls off. Even from 2 foot from center there is a big drop.
HP 2.4 drops very gradual and stays well above 1.0 gain even off at 45 degrees.
The material will drop well below 1 and even as much as 1/2 gain. I would consider this material if not for the brightness drop.
 
#41 ·
Elunevision makes (until recently - made) two retro-reflective 2.4 materials: Vivid Pro Cinema White, and Reference PureBright. Their website used to describe correctly that PureBright was retroreflective. When they say it doesn’t have glass beads, they mean it doesn’t have glass beads ON TOP of the surface.

I used a High Power 2.8 for a dozen years, but wanted a larger screen. I now have the Vivid Pro. I haven't measured it, but side by side gain seems very close to my High Power. However, the material is nowhere near the quality of my High Power. The Vivid Pro substrate is much thinner, and translucent. The surface is very rough, and the pearlescent particles are very easily abraded off the surface, leaving dark patches without any retro-reflective particles.

That said, as far as function, brightness and image quality: the Elunevision Vivid Pro 2.4 is amazingly close to the 2.8 High Power.

According to the Elunevision rep, the Reference PureBright is much higher quality, but I have not been able to find anyone providing firsthand experience.

The Vivid Pro 2.4 was very inexpensive material but was only available on their inexpensive screens. The Reference PureBright was expensive and only available on their high end screens. Given that both are being discontinued, I suspect they may have been the same material.

Still a shame they’re dropping it.


The Dalite 2.8 was manufactured for over 10 years with NO QC problems. It was made beginning before 2000 - very cheaply - one of the least expensive screens available. They could easily have charged triple for it. It's toughness and durability were beyond comparison.

It was made somewhere in a factory on machines - using a production protocol. It was not sewn together by magic elves in a cave. There may be a patent on file, which by now must be public domain.

The 2.8 CAN be manufactured again. This is 2016. We make human body replacement parts with 3D printers.

There is a lot of money sitting on the table for any of the many new small screen companies out there.

Pip
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top