The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread! - Page 102 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 70Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3031 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 05:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,173
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgwalsh View Post
This is something I would really like to see. I can't stand 3D glasses or any glasses for that matter.
You would still need 3D glasses. With 2 projectors the image will just be crisper, brighter, and better colors.
coolgeek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3032 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 05:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pgwalsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: COS,CO
Posts: 1,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post
You would still need 3D glasses. With 2 projectors the image will just be crisper, brighter, and better colors.
Bummer. Probably still be n eat to see.

Diy Sound Group - Information & Tips
Builds: Maelstrom 21 Ottoman Build, Dual Opposed MFW's x 2, Statements, SEOS-12/TD12M x 5. 
pgwalsh is offline  
post #3033 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 05:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
BrolicBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Charles County, MD
Posts: 3,643
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 645 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by jago1911 View Post
I've watched your "Lumagen Radiance 16:9-to-2:35 using NLS (Non-Liner Stretch)" video several times and was going to get the same for my 2.35 screen build out in a few months. Your video is what convinced me to stay away from getting a 16:9 screen. Do you think masking a giant 16:9 is superior to doing NLS on a 2.35 screen now?

Greetings! Well, my situation has changed somewhat. In many theaters, there are height and width limitations that affect screen size. In my last theater, I could only get a 92" 16:9 screen in my room (which I used happily for three years). After it started to look "small" to me, I kept the height constraint (center speaker on top of credenza) and increased the width to a 2:35 image, and the screen was huge!! The NLS was an amazing way to get 16:9 content onto a 2:35 screen.


In the new theater I am putting together, there aren't any applicable height constrains, which means I can go as high and as wide as I want. So, I figured--why not use the whole height of the room since it's available? on a 2:35 screen, the NLS is superior to raw 16:9 with masking, in my opinion. And, once Lumagen releases a 4k processor, I'll probably NLS most programs anyway, just because the 2:35 aspect ratio looks awesome. Now, what I look forward to testing is how the Lumagen treats 2:35 content reformatted to 16:9 displays. I wonder if it'll be as impressive? I'll know soon! I know ith as the capability because I tested it out a few times before switching to 2:35...but the screen was small and not a good representation of large-scale performance.


I hope this dissertation answered your questions. I tend to be long-winded when I'm excited about something
BrolicBeast is online now  
post #3034 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 06:56 AM
Member
 
mv038856's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgwalsh View Post
This is something I would really like to see. I can't stand 3D glasses or any glasses for that matter.
The Dolby 3D that Dolby lincensed from Infitec and that is/was used in a number of cinemas as an alternative to Real3D also uses glasses. In contrast to Real3D, Dolby 3D works with color band filters, i.e. RGB are split for the right and the left eye. The channel separation is outstanding, so there is no ghosting. The glasses are much lighter than the active shutter glasses. They are comparable in weight to the Real3D glasses one wears in the cinemas.
mv038856 is offline  
post #3035 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 09:47 AM
Senior Member
 
simon_templar_32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk44 View Post
Hello Simon T.

i plan to build a deep curved screen by seymour XD material like nils here (aka follgott)
My Room "Restructions" give me viewing distance of max. 10-11 feet by screen wide 157".
How wide is your sceen ? Your post make thing to switch from XD to UF again.

Best dirk
My screen is a 95 inch wide 16:9 screen. I happen to be very sensitive to screen artifacts. I would get some samples (the larger size if you can afford it) and do some careful test viewing with bright, panning scenes. The Seymour screens are a good value; just make sure you get the right material.
simon_templar_32 is online now  
post #3036 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 09:48 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
chriscmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: IA
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Is that like the system Sim2 uses, with precision magenta and green lenses? While it's easy to cringe at the thought of the anaglyph / color method of 3D, the Sim2 system had lab-grade glass filters and everything blended perfectly with no color artifacts.

Cheers,
Chris

Seymour AV
515-268-3369

Seymour-Screen Excellence
515-450-5694
chriscmore is offline  
post #3037 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 09:53 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
chriscmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: IA
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon_templar_32 View Post
The UF banding is a more subtle artifact, and I can live with it. I can see both the XD weave and the UF banding from 12 feet, and even further, but I know what to look for and when to look for it. Having said all that, it is all dependent on my eyesight, my processing chain, and my viewing environment--YMMV.
As much as I love all the Panasonics I've owned, their convergence isn't perfect and I've found that they can therefore sometimes not play nice with the UF. Test if tilting either the screen or projector helps and we can one-off a replacement UF with tilt (if we didn't do that already on your screen). We don't do that as standard because 99% of projectors are converged ok. But as a longtime Panny fan, I admit that its convergence sometimes causes problems. I think this is overall a temporary issue in projection.

Cheers,
Chris

Seymour AV
515-268-3369

Seymour-Screen Excellence
515-450-5694
chriscmore is offline  
post #3038 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 04:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovingdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,941
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrolicBeast View Post
Greetings! Well, my situation has changed somewhat. In many theaters, there are height and width limitations that affect screen size. In my last theater, I could only get a 92" 16:9 screen in my room (which I used happily for three years). After it started to look "small" to me, I kept the height constraint (center speaker on top of credenza) and increased the width to a 2:35 image, and the screen was huge!! The NLS was an amazing way to get 16:9 content onto a 2:35 screen.


In the new theater I am putting together, there aren't any applicable height constrains, which means I can go as high and as wide as I want. So, I figured--why not use the whole height of the room since it's available? on a 2:35 screen, the NLS is superior to raw 16:9 with masking, in my opinion. And, once Lumagen releases a 4k processor, I'll probably NLS most programs anyway, just because the 2:35 aspect ratio looks awesome. Now, what I look forward to testing is how the Lumagen treats 2:35 content reformatted to 16:9 displays. I wonder if it'll be as impressive? I'll know soon! I know ith as the capability because I tested it out a few times before switching to 2:35...but the screen was small and not a good representation of large-scale performance.


I hope this dissertation answered your questions. I tend to be long-winded when I'm excited about something
Yes that is essentially the same mindset I had in planning my room. I went with the tallest screen I could fit and then will go with the width that makes that a 2.40 AR (in my case about 140"w). I've had a Lumagen for years but never a 2.35 screen. Does the NLS work THAT well whereby you can stretch most 16:9 materials and even sports to 2.35? If its that good I wonder if I'll even need to do a masking screen then (since I'd likely always have everthing at 2.35 or 2.40)...
lovingdvd is offline  
post #3039 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovingdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,941
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Has anyone with the XD screen and a black pit room measured their ANSI CR at the screen, and if so, what did you get? All weave screens Seymour or not are pretty poor at ambient light rejection, so I have some concerns that even with black velvet on the side walls and ceiling that it may be hard to get really good ANSI CR with this (or any) weave screen. Thoughts?
lovingdvd is offline  
post #3040 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 111
I think with some weave screens, there are some potential issues with a drop in intra-pixel ANSI CR because the light bounces off the weave and may affect dimmer adjacent pixels, and we don't get that with perf pvc because the pvc is still flat. I think if you did a normal ANSI test using the chequerboard pattern, you'd get similar results compared to another screen with the same gain. Hopefully Chris can give us a more definitive answer though.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #3041 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovingdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,941
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I think with some weave screens, there are some potential issues with a drop in intra-pixel ANSI CR because the light bounces off the weave and may affect dimmer adjacent pixels, and we don't get that with perf pvc because the pvc is still flat. I think if you did a normal ANSI test using the chequerboard pattern, you'd get similar results compared to another screen with the same gain. Hopefully Chris can give us a more definitive answer though.

Gary
Thanks Gary. I think the issue is more about ambient light control. One thing I noticed about all the weave screens I tested (a half dozen or so) is that they all were very poor with any ambient light. The manufacturers even state this up front - that it is not intended for use with ambient light. In my case I'll be filling a 140" screen with 1500+ lumens. That is a LOT of light to go scattering all over. I am specifically designing the room to have a velvet screen wall, 5-6 feet of velvet on each side of the screen, velvet on the ceiling and dark carpet. This should really help control the reflections, but even so there will be a fair amount of light still bouncing around. This can have quite an impact on the ANSI CR. And in a room without dark walls I imagine it would be even more significant. That is why I am wondering if anyone has measured it at their screen (not at the pj).
lovingdvd is offline  
post #3042 of 3046 Old Yesterday, 10:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DavidK442's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 1,439
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovingdvd View Post
Has anyone with the XD screen and a black pit room measured their ANSI CR at the screen, and if so, what did you get? All weave screens Seymour or not are pretty poor at ambient light rejection, so I have some concerns that even with black velvet on the side walls and ceiling that it may be hard to get really good ANSI CR with this (or any) weave screen. Thoughts?
It seems to me that unless you are looking at a high priced retro-reflective screen specifically engineered to fight ambient light all typical wide angle white screens (woven or not) will reflect ambient light right along with the projected light.

(Hey Mr. Seymour sir: Please make me a screen that has at least 1.0 gain with near perfect color accuracy, negligible impact to audio and no noticeable weave at 8 feet...and oh ya, please make it suck up ambient light so I can watch my horror movies with the lights on so I don't get scared. Thanks.)
DavidK442 is online now  
post #3043 of 3046 Old Today, 04:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Grey screens, or grey screens with a little gain work best to combat ambient. Lower gain weave screens are better than unity screens because they reflect less light, but ambient light will kill the black floor of any projector.

Black velvet will certainly help with reflections, but ambient (I assume you mean some actual light in the room rather than reflective walls etc) will negate a lot of what you do.

What is the source of your ambient light?

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #3044 of 3046 Old Today, 05:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 530
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked: 75
One option for rooms with ambient light is to use a screen material for ambient light that is perforated. There are tradeoffs with woven vs. perforated but depending on the situation it might be a solution to consider. Like other aspects of audio and video it is about finding the right product for your application, there is no perfect screen, speaker, etc. that works in all situations.
Dirk44 likes this.
Ellebob is online now  
post #3045 of 3046 Old Today, 06:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lovingdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,941
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Grey screens, or grey screens with a little gain work best to combat ambient. Lower gain weave screens are better than unity screens because they reflect less light, but ambient light will kill the black floor of any projector.

Black velvet will certainly help with reflections, but ambient (I assume you mean some actual light in the room rather than reflective walls etc) will negate a lot of what you do.

What is the source of your ambient light?

Gary
Ah yes, I should clarify. In my case, by ambient light I mean the light that is reflected from the screen back into the room and the reflections from that. No other light sources or outside room light or daylight etc.

I will have 140"w with screen edges (not frame edges) just 4" from ceiling and only 15" from each side wall and about 2feet from floor. So with 1500-1700 lumens it'll be throwing light all over the place.

The velvet should help a great deal but with this much brightness and this close to the surfaces (even the blackest of velvets have some sheen and are not a complete black hole) and this many lumens it's going to be a challenge maximizing ANSI CR with any woven screen and especially one like the XD which has among the best gain (which is one thing I love about it since I have a large screen to fill).
lovingdvd is offline  
post #3046 of 3046 Old Today, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
simon_templar_32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriscmore View Post
As much as I love all the Panasonics I've owned, their convergence isn't perfect and I've found that they can therefore sometimes not play nice with the UF. Test if tilting either the screen or projector helps and we can one-off a replacement UF with tilt (if we didn't do that already on your screen). We don't do that as standard because 99% of projectors are converged ok. But as a longtime Panny fan, I admit that its convergence sometimes causes problems. I think this is overall a temporary issue in projection.

Cheers,
Chris
Chris,

Thanks for the quick response! The UF screen came tilted. I saw that you made a comment about the Panasonic projectors in another thread so I had asked Jon to make sure the UF material was tilted. My suspicion is that if you have a textured screen, then you will be aware of that from time to time under typical viewing distances. In my room, for example, the regular room ceiling light alone will produce some angled banding (following the weave tilt) that can be seen from my viewing distance of 9.5 feet..
simon_templar_32 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Screens

Tags
Seymour Av



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