DaLite "JKP Affinity" HD Progressive and Enhanced Matte White screens - Page 2

It is not fair to compare the two materials side by side based on how your eyes and brain work. This is a good way to determine how much brighter one is but not how much brighter it will look when viewed on its own.

For example I can take some 1.0 material and place it on my HP screen. From straight on, the 1.0 material looks incredibly dim and totally unwatchable. Then I move off axis so that they are both the same brightness. They both look watchable and are not incredibly dim anymore. I still prefer the brightness of the on axis viewing, but it isn't as dramatic as comparing two materials side by side.

I think there is problem of the 2 materials having different brightness levels, which is why I suggested looking at them from an angle where their ft-lamberts levels would be equal to try to figure out whether things like the screen being more or less visible were true regardless of how bright things were. Because of changes off angle it might be even better to use two equivalent projectors where one is dimmed down, but in any case, I do think comparing them at the same time in a way where both are equally as bright has merit as far as looking for whether what somebody is seeing with regard to sheen, etc. is because of how bright they are or due to something else.

--Darin

My theory is that the sheen goes away because of the angle and not because of the brightness. A good test would be to compare the image on axis and off axis with the same brightness to the human eye. This would be done by zooming one down to ~1/3 the screen area. I'll have to try this sometime. Obviously using a meter would help though since the brightness changes based on the zoom with certain projectors. (two projectors of different brightness would be even better as I think you are suggesting)

I'm not worried about the change of zoom effecting the sheen as I can see it at any zoom and any focus setting.

Oh using a ND filter would be even better to equalize the brightness.

I got my samples in the mail yestarday. I have had only a couple of hours to view them but so far I like what I see. Blacks are deeper. The overall image seems sharper and colors seem more saturated almost to the point where the other image on screen seems a tad washed out.

What is the gain like?

I have a sample received Monday to check against my existing high power.

I just called Da-Lite to request a screen sample and was told AV Science will not be carrying the screen because they are considered an online dealer. Da-Lite plans to market this screen exclusively at brick and mortar stores. At full retail. All I can say is Da-Lite had better be giving the dealers a much bigger profit potential than does Stewart or they will not be selling many screens.

Hmmm.


Thanks for the info.
Can someone at AVS confirm?
I know Jason is busy now with the JVC's and I'm sure other people on this thread would be interested.

Mike

I just called the nearest Affinity dealer and he said full MSRP. What with the much higher price than the discounted Da-Lites and the closest places to demo it currently in Kentucky and Indiana, this screen has a slim chance of being the one I will buy for my RS20.

I have an Hp screenanI do not notice the texture. The ambient light rejection is wonderful but it is not a screen for a large venue viewing.

Would you happen to know how much the 100" version will go for? if so could you PM me with the price? Thanks.

I would wait to see it before deciding, a projector like the RS20 would be able to really take advantage of the Affinity's supposed strengths.

Actually it's MSRP so you can post that if you know it.

Did anyone get both samples? All I got was the HD Progressive 0.9
I had asked about both several months ago.

I got a quote for a 119" 16X9. The MSRP was $2400 and change. I was not considering that size, but what happened was the Da-Lite person ran calculations based on the 900 lumens of the RS20 and figured 119" was as large as I could go and still be able to achieve their recommended 18 foot-lamberts. The RS20 is supposed to be brighter than expected, though, so I would probably do a 133" or a 144" if I went with an Affinity. My guess is a 100" would cost $2000 to $2200.

The 1.0 gain is still in development.

thats a LOT more than the supposed 25% more than the standard cinema contour! That's about 50% more, and thats MSRP! When you consider the typical discount on the regular cinema contour and compare that to the no-discount-allowed affinity, it is more than DOUBLE the price! I think Dalite is making a big mistake and shooting themselves in the foot.

The 119" Cinema Contour MSRPs range from $1612 to $2095, depending on the fabric.

http://www.dalite.com/products/pricing_pdfs/234.pdf

I told the Da-Lite rep they would not be selling many screens with their plan and how they were making the same mistake that put Infocus in financial trouble.

I won't be changing my high power for this screen anytime soon. I do not like the sample at all in at least a 30 degree viewing cone ... and that covers more than my seating positions.

What don't you like about it?

Low gain. I really like the HP from any of 6 seating positions. A quick poll of my guests yielded a consensus ... the 0.9 gain HD screen does not even come close to the HP for pop and resolution is no different what so ever even from 1 foot from the screen looking at the pixel edges.

Review up on projectorcentral. Similar too grayhawk, but they like it more, and wider viewing cone. Hopefully they'll do a darker gray higher gain version of these screens(something that JK wouldn't like, but most consumers would).

They really love the wide viewing angle. For some reason I don't see the huge appeal to this. I can seat 7-8 people within the cone of my HP screen. Even off axis is it around 1.0 gain unless at an extreme angle in which nobody would ever seriously watch from. So I get a bigger and brighter image with less light bleeding into the rest of the room. This sounds like a good thing. However I do know that everybody has their own setups.

If only it didn't have the texture... but it is pretty minor compared to most gain screens.

Isn't the Grayhawk known to underperform when it comes to visibility of screen texture?

Basing the Affinity's glowing praise on this comparison seems pretty lame.

Having been living with a Da Lite High Power screen myself I definitely see the appeal of having a wider viewing angle!


I'd say you must be defining the viewing "cone" of the HP quite generously if you can fit that many people (unless you are talking lined up rather than sitting side to side). It's pretty much impossible to provide essentially the same viewing experience for 3 people (side by side) let alone 7 to 8. (Note I said "essentially the same" for 3 people, which doesn't mean that all 3 people wouldn't see a great picture...one of them will see something slightly different).

The problem with the "it's still 1.0" gain off-axis thing is...it's less than that actually (unless you are talking about not being very off-axis). And the other is that as you move off-axis you don't just lose gain, the image changes in other appreciable ways: you lose shadow detail, apparent contrast, color detail sticks out less, you lose apparent image sharpness. All those good things you have in the "cone" are gone.

I was watching Toy Story the other day on my HP screen. There is the scene where Woody and Buzz are stuck under the cars/truck in the gas station at night. From the narrow viewing cone of the HP there was tons of visible detail in the shadows beneath the car. As I moved off axis to my side seats I watched the image dim considerably and observed much of the detail disappear, crushed into oblivion. Suddenly the image looked badly in need of new calibration. In fact, the stars in the night sky in that scene which were vivid and filled the sky on axis literally disappeared from the image when I moved to my side seats. Sure it was still "viewable"...but it was nothing like what anyone saw in the sweet spot.

So, being generous in calling the off-axis of the HP a 1.0 gain, if I had a 1.0 gain screen I would be calibrating the image differently than for a 3.0 gain screen. I'd be calibrating to ensure I got that shadow detail, better contrast etc.

The problem is with something like the HP you can't calibrate the image so that everyone sees the same quality image, especially if you have any off-axis seats.

Now if it were a uniform image - and I can compare my HP screen to my bare wall which I have found to be around neutral gain - then a single calibration results in an image where every seat gets to see the same brightness, sharpness, color detail, shadow detail etc. Once I calibrate the image on my wall it looks MUCH better than the off-axis HP image does. So the idea that the HP is a "win win" insofar as "off-axis it's the same gain as a neutral gain and on axis you get a spectacular image" misses some important issues. Frankly if I were at someone's house
watching and was stuck in the "cheap seats" with an HP screen I'd be pretty disappointed. Of course not everyone is that concerned with PQ...I'm sure lots of guests sitting off axis would be fine and may not even realise they aren't seeing the same image quality as the other folks are.

I find a screen that holds an even picture from wherever I sit to feel much more natural and convincing overall than one that looks spectacular only if I keep still in one spot. But...we all have our own criteria.

All that is to speak to the value of something like the new JK screen (or screens with similar axis/gain characteristics). I don't want to buy into the hype of the JK screen - I wasn't expecting it to really produce much in terms of sharpness gains - but the projector central review brings up some interesting points about it. I'd like to see one. But it's too bad the JK material is less gain than I'm looking for, as I want a fairly large screen.

Rich,

You can't validly make general statements like yours w/o quantifying everything, i.e you don't know how far his row of people are from what size screen, pj throw ratio, screen height, etc.

"And the other is that as you move off-axis you don't just lose gain, the image changes in other appreciable ways: you lose shadow detail, apparent contrast, color detail sticks out less, you lose apparent image sharpness."

A screen is a passive device; from an objective standpoint, truly the only thing lost is gain.

Absent ambient light, all the other losses you describe are subjective and a function of the dimmer image and the way our eyes respond to it.

For those as lazy as I usually am...

Projector Central Da-lite JKP Affinity review link.

Mike

Of course you are right Noah.

I wasn't being super specific. It was a sort of generalized response to others who have made generalizations about the HP, e.g. that on axis the HP will be
high gain, but off axis it will be neutral gain so if you were planning on a neutral gain screen it's a win-win situation. It's not because, as per meticulous measurement supplied by Don Stewart (and used by Tryg in his HP thread) the HP goes below neutral gain (.95) by 20 degrees off axis and continues down to .57 gain by 60 degrees off axis. This coincides pretty much perfectly with what I see with my HP screen, including when I tape various screen samples (e.g. Carada at 1.1 gain) against it and walk off axis.

When I said that 3 people side by side can not see the same image/gain on the HP that's pretty much an objective statement, as per the gains measured by Don Stewart for the HP, in which the HP drops from 3.08 gain to 2.47 at a mere 5 degrees off axis and to 2.05 at a mere 10 degrees off axis. Those are visible drops and I can see exactly that as I move from the center seat to the next seat beside when watching the screen. In fact, simply shifting in my seat from leaning on one arm to the other arm...I can see the image luminance shift.

So while all 3 people will see a nice bright image, they won't see the same gain.


Precisely. That is what I'm getting at.

The claims made on behalf of the HP by people who own it are largely correct: increasing the brightness with an HP screen, even if you aren't actually increasing the contrast ratio, does have an impact on the image to our eyes. I find, along with others, that in many scenes contrast does appear more intense, I perceive greater sharpness, more color detail and more shadow detail. It's all just easier to see in a brighter image. It's great stuff!

But when you move off axis and the gain lowers you start losing those perceptual gifts.

Some people have argued "well so what, all you are seeing off-axis is what you'd get with a lower gain screen anyway. So it's not like using a lower gain screen would be better in that regard."

But as I'm trying to point out, that isn't exactly the case. Because due to how our eyes perceive images re brightness a different screen gain is going to require a different projector calibration to maintain overall image quality. You are going to calibrate your projector differently with a lower gain screen.

For instance, using the HP material vs my wall (my wall being about neutral gain). On the HP screen I have the projector calibrated to look good from the sweet spot seats. In my case that has the projector in low bulb mode - high bulb is too much - with contrast/brightness/sharpness/color settings that make for an even looking image. Shadow detail is pretty much effortless to get on the HP.

When I move off axis to my side seats (anywhere between 25 degrees to 45 degrees or so off axis, as I remember), the gain goes down along with perception of image contrast, sharpness, and especially shadow detail. Like I pointed out in my Toy Story example: In the night time gas station scene, off axis seats lose almost all shadow detail (perceptually) and even all the stars in the night sky virtually disappear! The calibration just isn't right for those off-axis seats. But if I calibrated the projector to look right in the off-axis seats, it would require a different
calibration than I would want to use for the on-axis seats.

When I take the HP screen down and project on my wall, which seems to have an unlimited viewing angle, I bump the projector into high lamp mode to get closer to the HP vibe. Then I calibrate to get nice contrast/shadow detail etc for a nice, dimensional, even looking image.

Now the image looks exactly the same no matter where I sit. In the front seats of course it isn't as bright as with the HP, but it still looks excellent and from the side seats it looks far better than the HP does. It looks punchier, better contrast, depth, detail, shadow detail, the stars remain perfectly visible...you name it.

And that is the issue I'm high-lighting: that with the HP screen you can't do this as you can with a lower gain screen that has wide viewing angles. Because it drops gain appreciably off axis and because of how a dimmer image affects our perception of contrast/shadow detail/sharpness/color detail etc....you can't optimize the image calibration for all seats in most realistic seating arrangements. Because of this issue it's not the case, as some have asserted, that the HP will provide a similar image off-axis as if you'd simply gone with a lower gain screen.

That's all I was trying to get across.

I understand that lots of HP owners are fine with these issues. I think I may envy them in that regard. I'm just pointing them out and as it happens it's something I really notice and would prefer not to put up with.

Joe Kane has championed this issue of wide viewing angles for quite a while too. The more I experience with projection screens, the more I can see why.

While I don't doubt the Affinity is a great screen when I read a passage such as this:

"In comparison, we began to notice a very subtle grainy texture in the Grayhawk that we had never noticed before

I can't help but think that whomever penned this review really has no business reviewing screens. If he couldn't even see the very very plainly obvious I think it's reasonable that his described "elusive" qualities be taken with some skepticism.

Not that the screen does not exhibit these elusive qualities but I doubt that without a script this reviewer could even notice them let alone identify them.

My New Years resolution is to be more positive so I only have a couple weeks to get it all out.

How true. I personally use and like the HCCV screen, but at times I can see some screen texture. I can't see any texture at all on our Firehawk G3 2.35: screen. And I couldn't see any texture or sheen for the most part on the High Power screen I had, but every now and then I could see a blindly bright tiny sparklie! If I moved my head 2 inches it would disappear, but it bugged me none the less! More than the HCCV sheen does. But the High Power's gain is quite useful, so everything has it's tradeoffs!!

I'll be interested to see this new Joe Kane screen myself!!