Dalite High Power or Acousticlly Transparent? - Page 3

happy New year Cam Man. Talk about posting on an old thread. Man I miss Cold machine.

SMX was going to release a 2.0 gain AT screen but never did. I guess they couldn't get the yields high enough. I would have paid almost anything for that!!

Back at you, Mark.

Yep; goin' deep for this one.

Might be problematic weaving without damaging the coating.

Why not a perforated HP?

That could kill, or at least injure, two birds with one stone for some - the light lost to the perforations would effectively add a degree of grayness

My understanding is that the Stewart screens only lose 10% of the light output due to the perforations. I've often wondered why Dalite doesn't offer a perfed high power. It would be awesome and I'd get one in a heartbeat.

Perfing things right isn't easy, lots of hand labor and using an expensive machine with a very very expensive needlepoints die. .Stewart screens are expensive and the perfing adds considerably to the cost, perhaps about 30 to 40%. Perfing ala stewart to da-lite HP would probably by itself be multiple times the cost of a non perfed HP.

Not to mention the HP would look really bad..2.4 gain in one spot 0 in another.. I would think the holes no matter how small would stand worse than dead pixels.

I think you all make good points. There are discussions to be had on the the comparative pros and cons of microperf and weaves. I have favored weaves such as SMX, Seymour, and Dragonfly for their acoustic benefits, mild gain, and fine texture which is invisible beyond about 8'. Even their 2K versions have far more and smaller openings per square unit than microperf. Microperfs can be seen farther away than the mentioned weaves.

There is plenty of evidence around over the years that microperf has acoustic issues, and weaves have few. Would we all find those microperf issues overwhelming or even noticable? I just don't have a ton of experience with microperf.
The gain coating

I actually have a source for a microperf 2.2 to 2.4 gain screen material. It is even approved for RealD passive 3D. I have never gone that path due to the issues above, and my preference for very good uniformity arcross the viewing area...plus the price being over $7K for a 125" wide 2.35AR screen.

They must hand-drill every perf! Not sure I'd pay that even for a weave. So, I guess I wouldn't pay anything...

Perfs are punched using a die, I don't remember exact dimensions, 2 2 3x3 something like that. A zillion needels per sq inch and if one breaks, the die is useless and they cost around $40K to have made.

Holy crap!

You would think that the weave screen makers could come up with an electrostatic-based painting process that attracted droplets so tiny that they settle onto the weave such that they are too small to fill the gaps detrimentally. A 2.0 gain woven screen that would retain some decent uniformity (like SMX may have been) would sure be a useful product.

I didn't read the whole thread just this one...anyways in a living room setup with picture window etc....I have a Vutec 110" AT screen that drops down from the ceiling (electric) paired with a Sony VW90ES and was plenty bright enough for TV daytime viewing.