Originally Posted by rcohen
150" wide is probably pushing it for a low gain screen with that projector. Not sure about 144". Your best bet is to get some samples, put them and the projector at the right positions, and experiment.
With Seymour, some people buy the material and DIY, but if Falcon gives you good results for a lower price, go for it. Just try the samples. BTW, for AT screens, you should test them against a black background (like a black sheet of paper).
Most of the AT screens have around 1.0 gain, with minor/indistinguishable-practical-usage variance. If one claims 1.2, it's still not a significant difference with a light controlled room...think 0-60mph times....either you're going for a land speed record to prove something with millisecond differences or you're enjoying the experience. Anyone that has demoed my screen thought it was one of the more expensive options being discussed. When a PJ is throwing out a very good amount of lumens, such as the panny 8000, it's one less concern. Even a basic calibration with a WOW disc calls for lower brightness.
I compared samples of XD against elite, and the difference was very minor in shade of white...the xd was a bit brighter, which again, works against contrast...and contrast is something more desirable to have with a pj setup...aka better black levels.
On a side note, the audio performance claims are almost ridiculous... it's a very desperate attempt for a manufacturer to distinguish themselves in some form to convince consumers it's some type of advantage when it's really not. For arguments sake, let's say there is measurable difference of 0.5 of a decibel...how does one compensate for that? Turn up the volume. But again, could you discern even one whole decibel? Basically, unless there's 5-10 decibels the screen material is blocking (and no self respecting AT company will even sell such material), this factor is just inconsequential. For any of the very minor measurable differences, Audyssey calibration or the like will set levels accordingly anyway.
Originally Posted by jlpowell84
Falcon does 150" wide or 140" wide at 2:35. I would rather go 150" but PJ light loss vs throw distance, etc is an area I know very little about.
has the Panny ae8000 with his size and seems to do ok. I want as big as possible but want performance too. The Panny has lens sift so thats a nice feature I should consider and it seems to be in the same performance/cost tier as the Sony 40es. My room will have no windows and 100% light controlled with walls and ceilings constructed for absolute minimal reflection as possible. I am building the room from the ground up. I could swing the Falcon Horizon if it truly offers the performance. I wouldn't need a screen as long as it lasted for years into the 4k turn in the future. I read somewhere the anamorphic lens boosts brightness? Maybe thats needed for this size? Again I'm speaking gibberish here as this is not my arena
I bought a Silver Ticket 92" screen for my LR setup at the previous house. The frame I agree is superbly built with that all aluminum frame. It's exceptional quality and was only $150 or so.
What size is your screen?
The main factor you have left is pj placement really. This is where the panny allowed for a lot of flexibility...there's a calculator on the Panasonic website to show you max image at different lengths...the zoom range is a lot more than other pjs I looked at. Mine shoots from about 19' away to fill the entire 176" 2.35 image and can still zoom in to fill a 166" 16:9 166" image...btw, power lens memory and power focus is a huge feature and should be a deciding factor for any pj shopper. If you have enough length flexibility for pj placement and wall width, just go for the larger 2.35 screen if nothing else is stopping you.