Black Diamond from Screen Innovations? - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 01:50 AM
Member
 
haarec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Two things are coming to my mind looking at the picture. Number one: where is BLACK color of the material seen on SI pictures - 1,4 sample here looks grey and 0,8 too and what is real gain of Black Diamond material. Number two is what we all (probably) forgot: how much light do we need to make 120" screen USEFUL, which means to have not only a good black level but also satisfying WHITE level.
haarec is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 07:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mikenificent1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by haarec View Post

Number two is what we all (probably) forgot: how much light do we need to make 120" screen USEFUL, which means to have not only a good black level but also satisfying WHITE level.

Speak for yourself, don't include others on this board. Only an amature would just decide to use a 120" screen and "forget" to consider if he has enough lumens to light it up satisfactorily! Nevermind the fact that not everyone will even be using that size.
Although, I'm sure there at least a few users, especially the people ordering the largest sizes, who did not "forget" but think they have enough horse power to light up the BD, but might be dissapointed when they see the results. Even if the BD were exactly 1.4 gain, it would not be enough for some of the sizes people are thinking about IMO.
Mikenificent1 is offline  
post #543 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pottscb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

If you view both at their peak gains the whites will look whiter on the High Power not because it is white, but because it has more peak gain than the Silverstar from the testing I've done, despite the manufacturers claim of almost twice the gain with the Silverstar. If you move off axis to a position where the Silverstar has more gain, the whites will look whiter on the Silverstar than on the High Power. A matte white screen is white, but whites will look whiter on a Silverstar sample if viewing from a high gain position for it.

--Darin

This has not been my experience, I agree with hrd...a grey screen with high positive gain (~6.0 Silverstar) will not appear to have as bright of whites as a white screen of ~3.0 gain (Hi-Power). The best way to see this is to have two unity gain screens (1.0) next to each other, a grey and a white, and see which one produces the whitest white (the white one, in my experience). Now, move the comparison to an increased gain grey screen (Stuart Greyhawk 1.3 gain) and do the same experiment...the 1.3 gain grey will have brighter colors than the 1.0 gain grey and maybe even the 1.0 gain white, but the grey screen color will keep the whites from looking as white as the 1.0 gain white...just because it reflects more light back to the user doesn't necessarily say anything about the color shift due to the color of the screen material. I think the race is on to see who can minimize this effect best...enter the BD.
pottscb is offline  
post #544 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 10:44 AM
hrd
AVS Special Member
 
hrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottscb View Post

This has not been my experience, I agree with hrd...a grey screen with high positive gain (~6.0 Silverstar) will not appear to have as bright of whites as a white screen of ~3.0 gain (Hi-Power). The best way to see this is to have two unity gain screens (1.0) next to each other, a grey and a white, and see which one produces the whitest white (the white one, in my experience). Now, move the comparison to an increased gain grey screen (Stuart Greyhawk 1.3 gain) and do the same experiment...the 1.3 gain grey will have brighter colors than the 1.0 gain grey and maybe even the 1.0 gain white, but the grey screen color will keep the whites from looking as white as the 1.0 gain white...just because it reflects more light back to the user doesn't necessarily say anything about the color shift due to the color of the screen material. I think the race is on to see who can minimize this effect best...enter the BD.

I have seen Tryg point out many times that it is the contrast between the dark images and the lighter images on the screen that is what matters. Tryg fields load of concern from forum members that the high gain screens he reviews and loves elevate blacks by pointing out how the overall contrast will not be compromised and how that will make the darks seem plenty dark. My reason in pointing this out in the first post about it is because there was a concern about the darker appearance of the BD 1.4 sample compared to the adjacent material and I felt a conclusion about how well the overall contrast of the BD will make the whites appear cannot be drawn from such a comparison. After a demo at SI, h00kemh0rns reported the whites looked better than they did on the white screen, so hopefully the BD is excellent in this regard, in spite of how a small sample may appear when compared with other screen materials. Now it could well be that a large BD adjacent to a large 1.4 gain white screen is less impressive in terms of whites, but Tryg's point is the viewer won't even notice the whites are lacking when all that he is watching is one screen, whether it is a grey screen or a silver screen or a black screen.
hrd is offline  
post #545 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 11:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 3,130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottscb View Post

This has not been my experience, I agree with hrd...a grey screen with high positive gain (~6.0 Silverstar) will not appear to have as bright of whites as a white screen of ~3.0 gain (Hi-Power). The best way to see this is to have two unity gain screens (1.0) next to each other, a grey and a white, and see which one produces the whitest white (the white one, in my experience). Now, move the comparison to an increased gain grey screen (Stuart Greyhawk 1.3 gain) and do the same experiment...the 1.3 gain grey will have brighter colors than the 1.0 gain grey and maybe even the 1.0 gain white, but the grey screen color will keep the whites from looking as white as the 1.0 gain white...just because it reflects more light back to the user doesn't necessarily say anything about the color shift due to the color of the screen material. I think the race is on to see who can minimize this effect best...enter the BD.

Any gray screen that is a neutral gray shouldn't produce a color shift. When measuring the screens color or better yet doing a spectral reference curve you would get a RGB value of something where all 3 numbers are close or the same RGB = 220,220,220 for example a very light neutral gray. In the case of a spectral curve it would be a very flat line graph thru the RGB part of the spectrum.
All gray screens of equal dispersion to a unity gain 1.0 white are going to have a gain less than 1.0 because the black component of the gray is going to absorb some light. That doesn't mean you wont see white because the white component of the gray is still going to deliver the white but it will be white with brightness turned down. This darker screen can have improvements made to restore gain but the light has to come from someplace and it comes from the side viewing areas. Less dispersion tighter viewing cone. Often the way the cone is tightened raising the gain that is likely to introduce problems in the form of color shift etc.

All bets are off if the screen works in the mode of filtering out light that's not RGB such as has been discussed as possibly this works. Even how you measure gain would be brought into question with such a screen. The common method is to measure gain shooting white light at it and measuring what comes off wouldn't work because the filtering would kill much of the light. I have no idea how you would rate a screen that works under this method.

Below is a experimental screen I made from coal black paper the screen is very small and the foot lamberts is in the range of 500. the screen is so small it exceeded the minimal size the projector could focus to. It shows though that bright white and dark black can so exist under extremely bright ambient light given enough lumens. There is a link in my signature about the experiment if anyone reading is interested in knowing more.

The setup


The image under lots of light.


Bud

bud16415 is offline  
post #546 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 11:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 3,130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrd View Post

I have seen Tryg point out many times that it is the contrast between the dark images and the lighter images on the screen that is what matters. Tryg fields load of concern from forum members that the high gain screens he reviews and loves elevate blacks by pointing out how the overall contrast will not be compromised and how that will make the darks seem plenty dark. My reason in pointing this out in the first post about it is because there was a concern about the darker appearance of the BD 1.4 sample compared to the adjacent material and I felt a conclusion about how well the overall contrast of the BD will make the whites appear cannot be drawn from such a comparison. After a demo at SI, h00kemh0rns reported the whites looked better than they did on the white screen, so hopefully the BD is excellent in this regard, in spite of how a small sample may appear when compared with other screen materials. Now it could well be that a large BD adjacent to a large 1.4 gain white screen is less impressive in terms of whites, but Tryg's point is the viewer won't even notice the whites are lacking when all that he is watching is one screen, whether it is a grey screen or a silver screen or a black screen.

That is exactly correct. Our eyes can adjust 22 f stops to provide our optic nerves the proper stimulus to feed our brain a constant brightness of image. So in that regard white can actually be many different things. Ambient light robs us in two ways one it dilutes the image on the screen and in another way it closes our eyes iris and changes the image we see.

When we view two or three samples at once we have no idea what the eye has set as the reference for white.


Bud

bud16415 is offline  
post #547 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 11:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottscb View Post

This has not been my experience, I agree with hrd...a grey screen with high positive gain (~6.0 Silverstar) will not appear to have as bright of whites as a white screen of ~3.0 gain (Hi-Power).

You quoted the part where I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

If you view both at their peak gains the whites will look whiter on the High Power not because it is white, but because it has more peak gain than the Silverstar from the testing I've done, despite the manufacturers claim of almost twice the gain with the Silverstar.

and then went ahead and used the manufacturer's specs anyway. The Silverstar doesn't have a gain of 6.0. The manufacturer claims that, but it isn't true from my measurements. As I said, the Silverstar peak gain is less than the High Power peak gain. Since the High Power is retro-reflective you can find angles where the Silverstar has more gain than the High Power, but for the peak for both, the High Power had more in my testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottscb View Post

The best way to see this is to have two unity gain screens (1.0) next to each other, a grey and a white, and see which one produces the whitest white (the white one, in my experience).

It is important to know what rated gain means. It is basically for the peak, so the one with the more directional layer (like a gray base with a directional layer to get the gain up) will tend to have more falloff (at least using angular-reflective for each). So, if you look at an angle where the white has a gain of 1.0 and the gray has a gain of .8, of course the whites look whiter with the higher gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottscb View Post

Now, move the comparison to an increased gain grey screen (Stuart Greyhawk 1.3 gain) and do the same experiment...

The Grayhawk RS is about .92 gain (at least from what a Stewart Engineer told me) The old Grayhawk may have been less. Even with the Firehawk that is rated around there, the peak gain is closer to 1.2 from my measurements, but it falls off really fast because of the directional layer. So, if you compare anyplace except the brightest spot for the Firehawk, the gain you see will be lower. In lots of cases it will be down to close to .5 by the corners of the screen (depends on throw ratio, viewing ratio, etc.).

Which would you claim would have the more white whites, the Silverstar, a 1.0 matte white, or a 1.3 gain white (from a high gain viewing position, like in the center)?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #548 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 11:25 AM
Newbie
 
Dr_Audio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Although, I'm sure there at least a few users, especially the people ordering the largest sizes, who did not "forget" but think they have enough horse power to light up the BD, but might be dissapointed when they see the results. Even if the BD were exactly 1.4 gain, it would not be enough for some of the sizes people are thinking about IMO.[/quote]

What lumen output would you think would qualify as enough "horsepower"?
I have a Panasonic AE 2000u. But as someone else mentioned, you have to factor in preset modes such as the "color 1" setting I prefer as well as economy mode and bulb life. I hope my pj will be a good match. Any ideas?
Dr_Audio is offline  
post #549 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 12:11 PM
hrd
AVS Special Member
 
hrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Audio View Post

Although, I'm sure there at least a few users, especially the people ordering the largest sizes, who did not "forget" but think they have enough horse power to light up the BD, but might be dissapointed when they see the results. Even if the BD were exactly 1.4 gain, it would not be enough for some of the sizes people are thinking about IMO.

What lumen output would you think would qualify as enough "horsepower"?
I have a Panasonic AE 2000u. But as someone else mentioned, you have to factor in preset modes such as the "color 1" setting I prefer as well as economy mode and bulb life. I hope my pj will be a good match. Any ideas?

Screen size is one of the biggest issues discussed on this forum, what with few projectors being "light cannons". I'm probably going to switch back to a Mitsubishi HC1500, because of its rating of 1600 lumens. I don't mind running it in high bulb and the brightest mode and I like it with brilliant color on. I like a bright image and I think those settings on the HC1500 would give me an image that is plenty bright on a 110" 16X9 BD or on a 113.7" 16X9 image if I get a custom 142" 2.35:1 BD. This is what projectorreviews.com has to say about this projector:

"Sports mode starts out at 1263 lumens, but by cranking up Brilliant Color, to 10, the lumens jump to a dazzling 1824 lumens, making this projector a serious contender with the Epson Cinema 400 and Panasonic PT-AX100U, for those needing lots of lumens. With Brilliant Color set to 10 you no longer have the most natural image, but that is true of the brightest mode of just about every home theater projector."

As far as the Panasonic AE 2000u goes, I think you might find a lot of variation in what it can do in terms of lighting up a good-sized screen if you are willing to maximize the lumens by using shortest throw, high bulb, and dynamic mode or its equivalent.

As far as the 120" screen goes, we don't know whether the person posting is refering to a 16X9 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio or to a measurement of diagonal or width.
hrd is offline  
post #550 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 02:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike N Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I got my 1.4 BD screen sample yesterday and was really excited because from all the talk I really wanted this to be next screen. Alas, it's not to be.

When I 1st viewed it against my HCCV gray screen I thought the BD looked terrible. Dim is an understament. Thought I got the .8 gain but the invoice said 1.4.

After playing with it a while I realized that is indeed angular reflective - and quite extremely so. My PJ is floor mounted - well, it's actually 16" below the screen and if I stand on a chair and watch it from above it looks great. Seemed like the BD is not going to work with a low mount.

So I called and SI and they said, yes, it going to be best if the PJ is about 3' off the floor or higher. Sadly, my current PJ has a fixed 16% vertical offset and my ceilings are 18' so low-mount is the only way I can go.

So I'm really envious of all you ceiling mount folks!

I've been considering a new PJ (with lens offset) so if that happens I' be back!
Mike N Ike is offline  
post #551 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 02:39 PM
hrd
AVS Special Member
 
hrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike N Ike View Post

I got my 1.4 BD screen sample yesterday and was really excited because from all the talk I really wanted this to be next screen. Alas, it's not to be.

When I 1st viewed it against my HCCV gray screen I thought the BD looked terrible. Dim is an understament. Thought I got the .8 gain but the invoice said 1.4.

After playing with it a while I realized that is indeed angular reflective - and quite extremely so. My PJ is floor mounted - well, it's actually 6" below the screen and if I stand on a chair and watch it from above it looks great. Seemed like the BD is not going to work with a low mount.

So I called and SI and they said, yes, it going to be best if the PJ is about 3' off the floor or higher. Sadly, my current PJ has a fixed 16% vertical offset and my ceilings are 18' so low-mount is the only way I can go.

So I'm really envious of all you ceiling mount folks!

I've been considering a new PJ (with lens offset) so if that happens I' be back!

Are you saying that offsets that require the projector to be mounted either above or below the screen do not necessarily mean the projector cannot be used with the BD, that you just have to choose the above option?

Could you try this again, but with the arrows that are on the back of the sample pointing downwards?
hrd is offline  
post #552 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 03:11 PM
Member
 
funk74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hello all,

I have a question about picking the right size screen with the correct projector. How accurate are the screen calculators on either the SI website or projection central's website?

I was thinking about going with a 133" 1.4 gain 2.35:1 screen with the panasonic PT-AE2000U Projector. The calculators appear to say that it is ok, but I have never owned a projector and I am new to this and don't know for sure what I actually need.

One other thing on the projection central's calculator you are not able to pick a 2.35:1 aspect ratio? what is the most relevant comparison measurement then? hight or width?

Thanks.

**************************************
funk74 is offline  
post #553 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 03:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike N Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrd View Post

Are you saying that offsets that require the projector to be mounted either above or below the screen do not necessarily mean the projector cannot be used with the BD, that you just have to choose the above option?

Yes. My PJ does not have adjustable vertical lens offset. It is a fixed offset PJ. It must be mounted either 16%(of the screen height) above or 16%(of the screen height) below the screen. If could mount my pj above the screen (or at least 3' off the floor) I could use the BD. But due to my high ceiling, I must mount the pj below the screen; and in that case the BD image is not watchable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hrd View Post

Could you try this again, but with the arrows that are on the back of the sample pointing downwards?

That's one of the 1st things I did. While there does appear to be a very slight difference with arrors up or down, it did not make a significant difference with my low-mounted PJ.
Mike N Ike is offline  
post #554 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mikenificent1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike N Ike View Post

After playing with it a while I realized that is indeed angular reflective - and quite extremely so. My PJ is floor mounted - well, it's actually 16" below the screen and if I stand on a chair and watch it from above it looks great. Seemed like the BD is not going to work with a low mount.

So I called and SI and they said, yes, it going to be best if the PJ is about 3' off the floor or higher. Sadly, my current PJ has a fixed 16% vertical offset and my ceilings are 18' so low-mount is the only way I can go.

You say your PJ is 16" below the SCREEN, then you say SI told you to put it three feet off the FLOOR, that doesn't tell us much. By putting the PJ at 3 feet off the floor, how much below the screen will the PJ then be? Did SI indicate any other setup requirements? Thanks.
Mikenificent1 is offline  
post #555 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 04:58 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Xyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York, New York (say it twice, we're kinda slow)
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by funk74 View Post

Hello all,

I have a question about picking the right size screen with the correct projector. How accurate are the screen calculators on either the SI website or projection central's website?

I was thinking about going with a 133" 1.4 gain 2.35:1 screen with the panasonic PT-AE2000U Projector. The calculators appear to say that it is ok, but I have never owned a projector and I am new to this and don't know for sure what I actually need.

One other thing on the projection central's calculator you are not able to pick a 2.35:1 aspect ratio? what is the most relevant comparison measurement then? hight or width?

Thanks.

Fun there are wiser guys than I on this board so hopefully they will chime in as well. I would recommend speaking with the folks at SI and see what they have to say about the subject. There is a common formula you can use to get a rough (think shaving with a chainsaw) estimate of output but it alludes me at the moment. Does anyone remember the one I'm talking about?

Xbox Live: SubPrime Debt

Xyst is offline  
post #556 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 05:28 PM
hrd
AVS Special Member
 
hrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike N Ike View Post

Yes. My PJ does not have adjustable vertical lens offset. It is a fixed offset PJ. It must be mounted either 16%(of the screen height) above or 16%(of the screen height) below the screen. If could mount my pj above the screen (or at least 3' off the floor) I could use the BD. But due to my high ceiling, I must mount the pj below the screen; and in that case the BD image is not watchable.



That's one of the 1st things I did. While there does appear to be a very slight difference with arrors up or down, it did not make a significant difference with my low-mounted PJ.

I emailed Shannon to ask about this. One of the questions I asked was if placing the projector in the exact middle of the screen is ideal in terms of gain.

The Mitsubishi HC1500 I mentioned earlier has an offset and no lens shift (a little sacrifice has to be made to be able to buy an awesome 1600-lumen projector for the cost of two bulbs), but I believe it has to be inverted in order to be mounted above the screen, which I do not really want to do, plus the manual says you lose a little brightness when mounting that way.
hrd is offline  
post #557 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 05:39 PM
hrd
AVS Special Member
 
hrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike N Ike View Post

Yes. My PJ does not have adjustable vertical lens offset. It is a fixed offset PJ. It must be mounted either 16%(of the screen height) above or 16%(of the screen height) below the screen. If could mount my pj above the screen (or at least 3' off the floor) I could use the BD. But due to my high ceiling, I must mount the pj below the screen; and in that case the BD image is not watchable.



That's one of the 1st things I did. While there does appear to be a very slight difference with arrors up or down, it did not make a significant difference with my low-mounted PJ.

How about buying a ceiling mount that has a large drop?
hrd is offline  
post #558 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 06:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike N Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikenificent1 View Post

You say your PJ is 16" below the SCREEN, then you say SI told you to put it three feet off the FLOOR, that doesn't tell us much. By putting the PJ at 3 feet off the floor, how much below the screen will the PJ then be? Did SI indicate any other setup requirements? Thanks.

I see what you're saying. The bottom of my screen is currently 22" off the floor. PJ is roughly 6" off the floor, thus the PJ is roughly 16" below the bottom of the screen.

SI said a couple of things. First that the PJ should be at least 3' off the floor. Then they said it should be no lower than the bottom of the screen. When I said that was not exactly clear they went on to say that "many" screens were 36" off the floor and that is why he said level with the bottom of the screen. I have some doubt about the PQ with the pj level with the bottom of the screen but I'm going to give it a go just out of curiosity. It will be a mess and of course after I raise the pj the picture geometry will be hideous but I should be able to get an idea of the brightness. Likely won't get a chance till next week. They didn't mention any other issues.
Mike N Ike is offline  
post #559 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 06:20 PM
Member
 
PeckerHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Taylorsville, KY
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I suggest reading the article at Projector Central (http://www.projectorcentral.com/pana..._projector.htm). In here it shows the manufacturer states a lumen output of 1500, but their tests show lumen output around 350 with optimal color settings and a max of 900. If you use these numbers in the SI and the Projector Central calculators, you should get a resonable idea if the size is reasonable.
PeckerHead is offline  
post #560 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 06:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike N Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrd View Post

How about buying a ceiling mount that has a large drop?

Room has a cathedral ceiling that runs from 10' to 18' and at the point where the pj has to be the ceiling is about 15'. It could be done and it would be a large drop. Tried to get WAF. Wouldn't even discuss it. Not gonna push it. Already got concessions for dark drapes and other light blocking measures. I know when to quit while I'm ahead.
Mike N Ike is offline  
post #561 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 06:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mikenificent1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike N Ike View Post

I see what you're saying. The bottom of my screen is currently 22" off the floor. PJ is roughly 6" off the floor, thus the PJ is roughly 16" below the bottom of the screen.

SI said a couple of things. First that the PJ should be at least 3' off the floor. Then they said it should be no lower than the bottom of the screen. When I said that was not exactly clear they went on to say that "many" screens were 36" off the floor and that is why he said level with the bottom of the screen. I have some doubt about the PQ with the pj level with the bottom of the screen but I'm going to give it a go just out of curiosity. It will be a mess and of course after I raise the pj the picture geometry will be hideous but I should be able to get an idea of the brightness. Likely won't get a chance till next week. They didn't mention any other issues.

That really blows if the pj lens has to be at the same height as the top (in ur case bottom) of the screen. I don't know if the BD will work for me anymore Thanks for the info, that helped a lot.
Mikenificent1 is offline  
post #562 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 06:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mikenificent1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike N Ike View Post

Room has a cathedral ceiling that runs from 10' to 18' and at the point where the pj has to be the ceiling is about 15'. It could be done and it would be a large drop. Tried to get WAF. Wouldn't even discuss it. Not gonna push it. Already got concessions for dark drapes and other light blocking measures. I know when to quit while I'm ahead.

Take a look at the wall mount by omnimount, that's what I have since I also have a tall ceiling, not as high as yours though. Nice looking too.
Mikenificent1 is offline  
post #563 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 08:22 PM
hrd
AVS Special Member
 
hrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikenificent1 View Post

That really blows if the pj lens has to be at the same height as the top (in ur case bottom) of the screen. I don't know if the BD will work for me anymore Thanks for the info, that helped a lot.

I doubt if that's the case. We'll know more tomorrow if Shannon answers my questions, but I think there are two possibilities. One is the directional nature of the screen (we know its directional because it has arrows on the back indicating which way is up) means the screen was optimized for ceiling mounts, same as the Silverstar and the Firehawk, and mounting above the screen is the best possible location, while mounting below the screen is the worst possible location. Or, the reflective nature of the screen causes the gain to change when the projector is off-center, which means placing the projector even with the horizontal and vertical center of the screen is ideal, while the common ceiling mount, a necessity for DLPs that have offset and no lens shift, is just as bad as mounting below the screen. Hard to believe ceiling mounts could be problematic without SI cautioning on this.
hrd is offline  
post #564 of 3693 Old 05-07-2008, 09:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Mike N Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikenificent1 View Post

That really blows if the pj lens has to be at the same height as the top (in ur case bottom) of the screen. I don't know if the BD will work for me anymore Thanks for the info, that helped a lot.

I don't think you'll have that problem with a ceiling mount. This is, to one degre or other, a problem with low mounted pj's and angular reflective screens. I was going to get a Firehawk a couple of years ago but saw the same effect with the sample Stewart sent. My Dalite HCCV has an optical coating which mitigates the effect , but I still probably don't get it's full 1.1 gain.
Mike N Ike is offline  
post #565 of 3693 Old 05-08-2008, 02:17 AM
Member
 
haarec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Optimal recommended by SMPTE brightness of an image is 16 Foot-Lamberts. To calculate how big the screen CAN be, the formula is:

sq foot of screen = gain x measured lumens / 16

My estimation about true gain of this screen is 0,9 for so called 1,4 and 0,6 for 0,8.
So, if for example Panasonic AE2000 gives about 650 lumens of pretty good image (in corrected normal mode, lamp on normal), we have: 0,9 x 650 / 16 = 36,5 sq ft, which is about 110" 16/9.
If turned to calibrated mode it gives about 450 lumens: 0,9 x 450 / 16 = 25,3 sq ft, which is about 90" 16/9.

However lamps are going to be dimmer in time, so better choice would be a screen smaller then above and lamp set on low at the begining and turn lamp on hi over some time.
If those numbers are correct you can calculate how big the screen can be.
haarec is offline  
post #566 of 3693 Old 05-08-2008, 03:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Lawguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Try turning the screen upside down with the arrow pointing down.

Affable Nitwit
Lawguy is offline  
post #567 of 3693 Old 05-08-2008, 06:47 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
cal87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Got my sample yesterday. What I have not figured out is how to attack that thick plastic board to my screen. Any suggestions?
cal87 is online now  
post #568 of 3693 Old 05-08-2008, 10:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by panosp View Post

They didn't recommend anything specific as (I assume) the samples are small in dimensions. As long as they remain perfectly flat anything will do.

I would probably buy some black posterboard (in the Seattle area Fred Meyers sells it) and tape the material to it by using black duct tape on the front. This would require using part of the material to attach the tape too, but the duct tape allows tensioning it a little bit and doesn't risk having glue behind messing it up. This would be more like tensioning with a real screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cal87 View Post

Got my sample yesterday. What I have not figured out is how to attack that thick plastic board to my screen. Any suggestions?

My plan is to get black posterboard (maybe 24"x18" or so) and attach the sample to it by running black duct tape over the part without the screen material. Will probably hang the part of the sample with stickies on the back over the side of the posterboard, so that the sample will lay flat. I may have to put a little bit of tape on the side with the screen material, but probably wouldn't require much. Then I'll try to stand the posterboard up on something (being careful not to scratch any screens I have).

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #569 of 3693 Old 05-08-2008, 10:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Has anybody with this screen or a sample of it noticed a push toward purple compared to white screens? Especially with the .8 material?

A push toward red could be a good thing for digital projectors with UHP lamps, since they tend to be stronger in red. If they have higher CR modes that are weak in red then those could be used with a screen that has a shift toward red to get balanced colors with higher CR (kind of like a color filter on the projector). If the projector is already designed to be balanced for D65 then a push in any direction from that would be somewhat of an issue, even if the projector could be recalibrated, since it could hurt the CR.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #570 of 3693 Old 05-08-2008, 11:13 AM
hrd
AVS Special Member
 
hrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Has anybody with this screen or a sample of it noticed a push toward purple compared to white screens? Especially with the .8 material?

A push toward red could be a good thing for digital projectors with UHP lamps, since they tend to be stronger in red. If they have higher CR modes that are weak in red then those could be used with a screen that has a shift toward red to get balanced colors with higher CR (kind of like a color filter on the projector). If the projector is already designed to be balanced for D65 then a push in any direction from that would be somewhat of an issue, even if the projector could be recalibrated, since it could hurt the CR.

--Darin

A few months ago, while the screen was still in development, Ryan at SI told me the screen had a minor push. I'm pretty sure he said it was to blue.
hrd is offline  
Reply Screens

Tags
Projection Screens , Pure Acoustics Supernova C 250 Watt Center Speaker , Speaker Systems , Screen Innovations

User Tag List

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