Originally Posted by Stan-Lee
Only 3 of the 9 images were frozen.
I mean that taking a photo (whether the on screen action is moving or not) obviously freezes the image.
Take a photo of a tennis game on your screen and obviously the picture freezes the action. Since the screen-shot-photo is frozen, you don't have any moving images and scene-lighting changes to distract the eye, hence easier to notice hot-spotting.
I hope that's more clear.
I was seriously considering the Firehawk for years for my projection screen, and since it's the single most popular screen in the AV stores (or used to be) I've seen it in all manner of set-ups, screen sizes, throw distances, height from screen etc. I was aware of the advice about how the Firehawk is best employed, with some saying as you have that if used as advised it would not hotpsot (though I don't think even Stewart makes that claim, only minimizing it).
Yet I always have seen it hot-spotting. I've seen it in perfect set ups that, on the principles you've mentioned, it would not hot-spot. It's hot-spotted the same pretty much every time. Upon learning more about how screens work, I realised why that is the case. That is simply the nature of how the screen is designed, what it's optical coating does - it focuses light slightly more like a mirror does, vs a screen without the gain. That's why the projector hot-spot follows you as you move around, just as it would if it were shining in a mirror. It's literally impossible (I believe) for the Firehawk not to hotspot - The Firehawk simply can not even do what it is supposed to do (reduce influence of light reflections and raise image brightness at the viewer location) without
hotspotting, because that's how it works.
Not for a moment would I suggest others not look at the Firehawk because of this issue because most just don't notice or care as much as I do about that particular artifact.