The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread! - Page 87 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2581 of 2703 Old 04-02-2014, 10:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 55
How far do you guys place your LCR speakers from the screen? Is 1 foot (measured from the front of speaker to the screen) enough?
Skylinestar is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2582 of 2703 Old 04-02-2014, 10:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 4,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 77
With a woven screen, it almost doesn't matter. With a perf screen one neede distance to minimize problems.


nathan_h is offline  
post #2583 of 2703 Old 04-03-2014, 03:11 AM
Member
 
ClayliketheDIRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 21

I am in no means a sound tech professional, but I was told by some one in my build that one would want their screen at least 6" off the speakers, or the speakers will timbre shift.

ClayliketheDIRT is offline  
post #2584 of 2703 Old 04-03-2014, 05:21 AM
sa
Senior Member
 
sa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Does SeymourAV have any specific recommendation for optimum distance between speaker and screen for their AT-screens?
sa is offline  
post #2585 of 2703 Old 04-03-2014, 10:43 AM
Member
 
deromax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Shawinigan-sud, PQ, Canada
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
This was discussed before. The XD material needs almost no distance from the speakers. It's no more opaque to sound than the speaker grill itself.
nathan_h likes this.
deromax is offline  
post #2586 of 2703 Old 04-03-2014, 04:16 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
chriscmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: IA
Posts: 487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 34
The screen materials are designed for use over in-walls, effectively with about an inch of cone to screen distance. You can measure some improvement in the top octave by spacing it 2-3", but the improvement isn't audible.

Most woven screens have the inherent advantage, but there are some that unfortunately measure as bad or worse than microperfs.

Cheers,
Chris

Seymour AV
Seymour-Screen Excellence
chriscmore is offline  
post #2587 of 2703 Old 04-04-2014, 04:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Tedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 58
The hardcore answer is 6".

The speakers will timbre shift if they are less then 6" from the backside of the screen.
Tedd is offline  
post #2588 of 2703 Old 04-04-2014, 07:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 4,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedd View Post

The hardcore answer is 6".

The speakers will timbre shift if they are less then 6" from the backside of the screen.

Measurements indicate this is not the case. Golden ears may indicate otherwise.

I'm not just relying on the manufacturer, who says 3" is ideal (ie, about the distance the screen surface is from the speakers if you use in wall speakers, since the frame places the screen surface about this far from the wall).

Accucal has done his own independent testing of the acoustic properties, as well.


nathan_h is offline  
post #2589 of 2703 Old 04-04-2014, 08:18 AM
Member
 
deromax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Shawinigan-sud, PQ, Canada
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Never underevaluate the power of psycho-acoustic. A large part of the hifi industry is based on it actually.
GWCR likes this.
deromax is offline  
post #2590 of 2703 Old 04-04-2014, 01:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Hmm, I've got room to move with my speakers. I currently have them as close as I can to the screen and they seem to sound awesome. I'll move them back a bit and see if I notice a difference (highly unlikely). I've also been meaning to test extreme toe-in with them, so maybe this will be a good reason to try. Mostly I've just been enjoying watching movies and amazingly not really messing around with my setup.

blastermaster is offline  
post #2591 of 2703 Old 04-04-2014, 05:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Grab a sample of material and play back some full range pink noise and you'll hear the timbre shifting.
It is indeed audible.
Tedd is offline  
post #2592 of 2703 Old 04-05-2014, 05:58 PM
Member
 
ClayliketheDIRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I think Tedd means play the pink noise and allow some one to move the screen in front of the speaker at your 3" placement. Then pull it out of the way. Try that for testing. I don't think you will notice a difference by listening to something and then stopping it, then moving the speakers then play it again.

By moving the screen into the fire of the speaker you might just understand and hear the change as it happens.

I have not tried this so I can't tell you for sure if it does change the sound, but I have adjusted my build 3" to accommodate a 6" gap for my speakers to screen.

Yes I lose an inch of size on my screen but the screen is now closer and no one will notice one inch on a 110+" screen.

If some one would try it I would love to hear there findings.
ClayliketheDIRT is offline  
post #2593 of 2703 Old 04-05-2014, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 4,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClayliketheDIRT View Post

I think Tedd means play the pink noise and allow some one to move the screen in front of the speaker at your 3" placement. Then pull it out of the way. Try that for testing. I don't think you will notice a difference by listening to something and then stopping it, then moving the speakers then play it again.

By moving the screen into the fire of the speaker you might just understand and hear the change as it happens.

I have not tried this so I can't tell you for sure if it does change the sound, but I have adjusted my build 3" to accommodate a 6" gap for my speakers to screen.

Yes I lose an inch of size on my screen but the screen is now closer and no one will notice one inch on a 110+" screen.

If some one would try it I would love to hear there findings.

AccuCal measured the impact from 20 hz to 20khz with precise equipment. In the report he summarized the impact as:

"Treble was down 2db at 20khz compared with the level at 2khz...relatively smooth loss from 3khz to 20db."

http://www.accucalhd.com/documents/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf

In summary, there is a slight volume loss due to the screen material, it is mostly neutral (ie, a very consistent loss in level rather than wild swings in frequency response), and it is +/- 1db variance across the full audible spectrum. Just a reminder, 3db is usually considered the threshold of "that sounds different" but many people can hear a single db in difference.

That's less variation than most speakers introduce to a signal, and far less than even the best rooms introduce to a signal.

So yes there is an impact, but it's pretty minor. This test was run with the material three inches in front of the speaker.
ellisr63 likes this.


nathan_h is offline  
post #2594 of 2703 Old 04-07-2014, 05:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Tedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Not removing the sample, but moving the sample in front of the speaker, from 1" out to say 10".

I will add, I have XD and am very pro XD. It gets my recommendation but that comes with the
the information for one to make an informed decision. I gave up the 6" depth in my small room
where every inch of space was given careful consideration.

The slight volume loss is a non-event for most.
Tedd is offline  
post #2595 of 2703 Old 04-09-2014, 06:43 AM
sa
Senior Member
 
sa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
So the new CenterStage UF is slightly less accousticly transparent than the XD (-2.2dB vs -1.4dB). Is that noticabel? I guess it doesn't really matter as long as the attenuation is even.
sa is offline  
post #2596 of 2703 Old 04-09-2014, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriscmore View Post

The UF has about the same gain as our Enlightor-4K: nearly 1 when benchmarked against the other materials (measures the same as Screen Innovation's 1.1 gain Maestro, SnapAV/Dragonfly's 1.3 gain disaster of a screen material, and +14% brighter than Elite's 1.1 gain "4K"), but the unbenchmarked spec is 0.8.

The UF gain is about 20% lower than the XD, which is the brightest weave available. With brighter projectors such as Epson, a lower gain will have the advantage of deeper black levels. This material is developed for the closest of seating distances, which are typically not the 150"+ sizes we see, where more modest screen sizes should be lower gain.

Cheers,
Chris

Hi Chris,

Is it possible to create a tighter weave than the XD but still have about as much gain. Losing 20% gain is quite a lot. One of the biggest draw of the XD is that it appears to be the brightest AT screen available. Getting the UF might be like getting the EN4K if they have the same gain.
coolgeek is offline  
post #2597 of 2703 Old 04-09-2014, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Also, are the masking panels also acoustically transparent?
coolgeek is offline  
post #2598 of 2703 Old 04-09-2014, 10:52 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
chriscmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: IA
Posts: 487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 34
To reduce the thread diameter for an ultra-fine weave, say from .015" diameter to .003" (just a guess - I'm exhibiting at the PNWCEE show), you can't keep the pvc extruded coating. The pvc in the XD is what is doped with reflective powder to achieve the higher reflectivity, giving it that slight pearlescent look. If you simply reduce the openness factor to "tighten" the weave or chase gain, the acoustical transparency may no longer be adequate. I've measured "tight" weaves with over 6dB of attenuation to the tweeter. These products give the AT screen type a bad reputation. I talk daily with people who spec and install for a living and they lament that they hate AT for ruining the video AND the audio. I completely empathize with their frustrations; mine were the same.

The UF is still about 10% higher gain than the EN-4K. Keep in mind that lower gain also means deeper black levels, so it's not just an "awesomeness" rating. Whiter whites or blacker blacks; spec the screen properly to the application.

The masking panels are available either as Millibel AT or Fidelio non-AT.

Cheers,
Chris

Seymour AV
Seymour-Screen Excellence
chriscmore is offline  
post #2599 of 2703 Old 04-10-2014, 11:08 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedd View Post

Grab a sample of material and play back some full range pink noise and you'll hear the timbre shifting.
It is indeed audible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClayliketheDIRT View Post

I think Tedd means play the pink noise and allow some one to move the screen in front of the speaker at your 3" placement. Then pull it out of the way. Try that for testing. I don't think you will notice a difference by listening to something and then stopping it, then moving the speakers then play it again.

By moving the screen into the fire of the speaker you might just understand and hear the change as it happens.

I have not tried this so I can't tell you for sure if it does change the sound, but I have adjusted my build 3" to accommodate a 6" gap for my speakers to screen.

Yes I lose an inch of size on my screen but the screen is now closer and no one will notice one inch on a 110+" screen.

If some one would try it I would love to hear there findings.

Two things that should be noted. One, if the material is not stretched, it will not have the same sonic characteristics. Two, when placing the material in front of the speaker, you are attenuating the SPL. So a lot of the difference is just SPL. I guess a truer test would be two speakers, one with stretched fabric in front of it and the second speaker with nothing. Then level match the SPL between the two speakers. Now, I bet you can't tell a difference when done as a blind test.
nathan_h and ellisr63 like this.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales
Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com

Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/

 

Call for B-stock projectors

Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI & many more.
Klipsch, RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.

AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #2600 of 2703 Old 04-10-2014, 09:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DavidK442's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kelowna, BC Canada
Posts: 1,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 63
I received my 8" X 11" sample of Center Stage UF in the mail today. (Thank you very much Jon for the prompt service.)
For the past 3 years I have played around with various DIY acoustically transparent screen materials.
Tonight I rigged up a test board to compare Center Stage XD with the new Center Stage UF material.
What follows are my thoughts and observations. I have no video test equipment and made no attempt to listen for audible differences.
Everyone has different setups, different priorities and different visual acuity so please feel free to comment and rebut away.
My subjective opinion will remain exactly that.


Center Stage UF vs. Center Stage XD

Gain - As spec'd, the XD obviously has more gain and is noticeably brighter. In direct comparison this is not a subtle difference. The brightest image will typically appear to be the best, at least at first. After watching a few scenes though, and noticing how the XD elevated the black levels on my cheap DLP projector (BenQ W1070) I realized that for my setup the less bright UF provided a better balance.

Texture - I must be sensitive to texture, because in bright images (camera pans of the sky are the worst) at my relatively close viewing distance of 9.5 feet the XD weave is visible. This was absolutely not the case with the UF. At any sane viewing distance texture was simply not an issue.

Detail Resolution - The easiest way for me to determine detail resolution is by examining the visible pixel structure on my DLP projector. With the Center Stage XD material there is a resolution of fine detail that rivals even a solid screen. In comparison, the UF fabric had softer edges. With my nose on the screen this was obvious, beyond any difference caused by gain. From my viewing distance the pixels were obvious on the XD sample, whereas they were present but more subtle with the UF. On static images this translated into more detail for the XD, but with regular video the differences in detail were overshadowed by differences in brightness and texture. How this translates to an entire screen of fine detail at normal seating distance I can only speculate.


Summary

If I had a higher end projector with better pixel fill and excellent black level I would sit 11 feet away from an 11 foot wide Center Stage XD screen and be completely happy.
In my current setup, using a bright DLP projector with mediocre black level and incomplete pixel fill, sitting 9.5 feet away from a 9.5 foot wide screen, the Center Stage UF seems just about right.
Gary Lightfoot and chriscmore like this.

.
DavidK442 is online now  
post #2601 of 2703 Old 04-12-2014, 01:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Nice review. Thanks for posting.

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 online now  
post #2602 of 2703 Old 04-12-2014, 05:16 AM
Senior Member
 
jeffleonard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Westlake, Ohio
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
That's quite a review considering the size of the samples.

EDIT: This comment not really relevant now that the review is edited. smile.gif
jeffleonard is offline  
post #2603 of 2703 Old 04-13-2014, 03:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 36
On the right hand image, I can see lots of little black dots in the pixels, but I can't see them in the left hand image. Are the dots the DLP mirror hinge points or something else?

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 online now  
post #2604 of 2703 Old 04-13-2014, 06:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Thanks for the reply.

The holes looked too round to be the gaps in the weave, so thanks for clarifying.

The UF does give a softer look compared to the XD, but is better than Spandex in that regard from what you've seen, so is an improvement for not a great deal more money IMHO.

My seating distance will be around 8.5 feet from the XD screen material I have, but I've a feeling the UF may be a better bet. I'm wondering how noticeable, if at all, the softer image will be on the UF.

Gary
jeffleonard likes this.

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 online now  
post #2605 of 2703 Old 04-13-2014, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 36
It's going to be an 8,5 foot wide 2.35 screen. As you say, at that size, most projectors are going to produce a bright enough image for the lower gain to not be a problem. If I have to reduce the lumens down to get to an image brightness I like (around 12fL or less), then I can use an ND filter, and remove it later for 3D if necessary - but 3D isn't something that I'm overly into..

I think the only concern may be the detail level, but with moving video, it's less noticeable. Those using Spandex don't seem to have any issues with detail, or at least don't seem to say much about that, so with the UF being a step up, it doesn't look like it's going to be a big issue for most people who need to sit closer and can see the weave of the XD. In which case you have to pick your poison - slightly noticeable weave on brighter scenes, or slightly softer image which may or may not be noticeable during a movie.

Cheers

Gary
DavidK442 likes this.

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 online now  
post #2606 of 2703 Old 04-13-2014, 10:59 AM
Senior Member
 
jeffleonard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Westlake, Ohio
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidK442 View Post

If you have had a chance to compare the UF to your XD screen using a larger sample I would love to hear your thoughts. Maybe the results are different.

I haven't seen the UF material, but the reduction in gain would currently be a deal-breaker for me.

I went with a 150" wide 2.35 curved XD screen, based on reviewing member's comments here. My thought process was to get the biggest screen that fits in our theater. I know that I will upgrade projectors eventually, but the theater & screen size will remain constant. Future projector lumen output will likely improve with new bulb technology, but I needed the XD's gain to in order for the screen size to work with current projector tech. I really didn't want to reduce the screen size. The loss in gain on UF and the fact that I wasn't willing to spend the bucks on a 1st gen 4K projector locked me into the XD.

Long story short, the XD screen looks great with our Sony HW50ES in high lamp mode. There's not much difference between low/high lamp modes, but I have a spare bulb on the shelf...why not go high?

One final note...I think that a person would need to be OCD for the XD weave to bother them at normal viewing distance. I really never notice the texture unless I walk up to the screen. If you're sitting 6-7' from the screen, why bother with front projection at all?

EDIT: I have the black backing fabric on my screen...perhaps that reduces the effect? I doubt it. My seating distance comment is general & not directed at anyone in particular.
jeffleonard is offline  
post #2607 of 2703 Old 04-13-2014, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffleonard View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidK442 View Post

If you have had a chance to compare the UF to your XD screen using a larger sample I would love to hear your thoughts. Maybe the results are different.


One final note...I think that a person would need to be OCD for the XD weave to bother them at normal viewing distance. I really never notice the texture unless I walk up to the screen. If you're sitting 6-7' from the screen, why bother with front projection at all?

EDIT: I have the black backing fabric on my screen...perhaps that reduces the effect? I doubt it. My seating distance comment is general & not directed at anyone in particular.

Some people find some things distracting and it can take them out of the movie - image artifacts for example, or the weave if it becomes visible. I don't like to see either so I set up my system accordingly. I doubt many people have their seating as close as you say, but with smaller screens some people may like a more immersive experience so sit at around SMPTEs closest recommended seating distance which is around 2 x the image height (I know a few people who sit at that seating distance ratio). I have sat at that distance with some bigger screens and it's a very enjoyable and immersive experience, but with my room limitations and screen size that would put me at just over 7 feet away. That would also compromise audio I would think.

There aren't that many affordable 2.35 flat screen TVs available at the moment at the kind of sizes we'd like, so a projector with an A lens is the only way to achieve that right now.

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 online now  
post #2608 of 2703 Old 04-13-2014, 06:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Some people find some things distracting and it can take them out of the movie - image artifacts for example, or the weave if it becomes visible. I don't like to see either so I set up my system accordingly. I doubt many people have their seating as close as you say, but with smaller screens some people may like a more immersive experience so sit at around SMPTEs closest recommended seating distance which is around 2 x the image height (I know a few people who sit at that seating distance ratio). I have sat at that distance with some bigger screens and it's a very enjoyable and immersive experience, but with my room limitations and screen size that would put me at just over 7 feet away. That would also compromise audio I would think.

There aren't that many affordable 2.35 flat screen TVs available at the moment at the kind of sizes we'd like, so a projector with an A lens is the only way to achieve that right now.

Gary

Haha, too true. My first screen was a rolled on black widow formula. It took some getting used to the glittery look, but despite my meticulous efforts, I could see roller marks in really bright scenes (damn that metallic paint). It completely took me out of the movie and made me loathe bright scenes in movies. Even after getting a new screen it took me a while to enjoy bright outdoor scenes for fear of seeing some imperfection that could take me out of the movie. If you are gonna be sitting that close to the screen I'd say the minor loss in sharpness is less important than seeing the weave.

blastermaster is offline  
post #2609 of 2703 Old 04-13-2014, 06:58 PM
Senior Member
 
jeffleonard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Westlake, Ohio
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Agreed on the distraction of imperfections on the screen. I did several DIY screens over the years with different paints. Similar to DIY remodeling, you always know where the "little secrets" are. On a screen, there's no hiding. Another reason I went with a manufactured screen this go around.

Gary, you will probably see the weave on the XD at your viewing distance. It is totally invisible to me until I'm about 8-9 feet away. Even then, it is easily mistakable for film grain.
jeffleonard is offline  
post #2610 of 2703 Old 04-21-2014, 06:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Anyone know if using the Curved Seymour screens in 16:9 format and the projector at a distance of 14 feet is suitable? Is there a way to calculate the angles?

Also, who do I contact to order the screens?
coolgeek is offline  
Reply Screens

Tags
Seymour Av

User Tag List
chriscmore

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