Originally Posted by OzHDHT
Mark, just trying to gain some screen material insights if you don't mind. With the setup you are using with the Snomatt screen, its dedicated theater room at AVS correct? I'm very tempted by what you are saying re the extra precision of screen material of the Snomatt 100, but concerned in my less than dedicated room with it's dark front and back walls, I would regret not having the small bit of gain the 130 provides at any times other than full lights out viewing? Particularly if I made the step up to 107" wide 1.78.
Speaking window to reality, I'm finding with the best 3D source material, I now get that affect with the 1000 as well and the sense of immersion makes it even more incredible.
The theater is in my house in Maryland. We use it as an AV Science Sales showroom and test facility. Tom Huffman also uses it quite a bit.
Its a black pit except for the fromt chairs which are cream colored which I purchased long ago before I knew better.
The Snomatt is not to be used in a less than black pit room. It has a gain of one and sprays light all over the place. My black everything sucks it up killing all reflections. yYou can see a lot more of the black fabric on the walls with the Snomatt vs the Studeotec 130. My screen is small but I do not miss the gain in 2D. There is a noticeable drop off in brightness because of the reduction in screen gain. This is not surprising given how much more noticeable it is to ones eyes given how low in brightness 3D is to start with. Remember to perceive a doubling in brightness to ones eyes the brightness must increase by a factor of four. Start with a low number to begin with and a 30% increase in brightness shows up as considerable brightness. start with a much higher number as in 2D and a 30% increase is nowhere near as noticeable. I think with this projector a large screen requires a higher gain screen though I would not go much higher than 1.4 except if the throw were enogh to exceed the optical srface gain. This means with a high gain gray screen such as a Firehawk (1.25 gain) with a substrate gain of about 0.8 but a sprayed on coating of about 1.6 (.8 x 1.6=1.286) a throw of 1.6 would be needed to avoid hotspotting.
Although I know my views on HP 2.4 are not widely agreed to by owners of this screen, I would coinclude that the HP2.4 is much better thn the 2.4 because of a much greater half angle, I think one just gives up too much for the benefits of the gain. Its really easy to prefer the brightest image and the HPwill give one that, but so much else is given up. 4K requires a very good smooth textureless viewing surface. I would much rather have a dimmer screen to get what I am getting with the 1000ES.
I have sold many Studeotec 130 screens over my life and few ever complain about it. But I have seen the err darkness. The Snomatt just removes a layer of guaze from the picture. We are talking liquidity here. No grain just a smooth clear liquid. I am sure some of the 4K new materials out there would allow the machine to shine but even with my small size screen (54 x 96) I could not go down to a gain of 0.8, it would just be too dim. With this machine and its calibrated lumens in the 1600 lumens range, with a large screen one must go to a higher gain and not get some of the benefits that would be there with this machine with a screen gain of one or so. Everything we do in HT is a tradeoff, there is no perfect choice when one has a very large screen.
That said for 3D in my HT, I would choose the 2.4 HP, brightness is just too important for 3D. I will probably be getting a floor standing HP 2.4 for 3D.
Its all a personal and there is nothing wrong with liking bright over all else. To me I will take 2D less bright and not miss any bit of magic this projector is capable of and it is magic.
I am just trying to express my views here. Not start a flame war with those who think the HP 2.8 was the best screen ever and the second best the HP 2.4. I really didn't know how much more the 1000ES had to give until I switched to Snomatt.