DIY Mix Comparison & DiscussionThread

Neutral Gray Paint + Satin Polyurethane

Simple mixture of 3 parts "flat" or 4 parts "matte" paint (white or neutral gray tinted) mixed with 1 part satin waterborne polyurethane. Both ingredients are readily available at your local home improvement or hardware store. Very easy to apply with a roller and levels out to a very smooth finish. The resulting screen surface may have a gain anywhere from 1.3+ if a white paint is used to less than unity gain depending on the shade of neutral gray that is employed. Aside from being one of the easiest mixtures to apply successfully, the neutral gray paint + satin poly is known for producing a screen surface that is not visible in the image. This is known as creating that "looking out an open window effect". The only known criticism has been that occasionally there is a wet appearance to the image, similar to a glossy photograph.


Aluminum & Mica Flake Mixtures

Any of these reflective particle mixes that I have tried, had resulted in some degree of screen visibility in the image. This usually manifest itself as a graininess in bright solid colors. I believe this is due to the size of the flakes used. Black Widow was the least noticeable in this regard. Depending on the concentration of mica flakes employed, a shimmering effect was also observed for that type of mix. Any of the metallic mixes can pose a real challenge when applying with a roller. Again Black Widow seems to be superior in this regard but some have had streaking problems with it as well. When high quality mica powders are employed there is no intrusion into the image. Unfortunately most of the readily available pearl and metallic paint ingredients employed use larger flakes. I would assume that if an extra fine aluminum base was identified that Black Widow would also benefit from the smaller flake size.

I have to jump in and state for the record that I feel Mica-based DIY Mixes....of all varieties....are far more capable of adjustment than those containing the "Aluminum" element.

Back in 2003 at the beginning of my DIY Screen endeavors, Tryg's own expose' as well as the reported accounts of "most" users were basically negative in scope. There existed too many "issues" concerning Aluminum's tendency to Hot Spot, to create "Visible Granularity", difficulty in application even when mixed w/other paint, and the sourcing of an applicable "Aluminum Base".

The latter was resolved by use of "User opened Spray cans" of Rustoleum Aluminum Paint. However many attempts were made to mix the Rustoleum with UPW and roll it on, much like what is done today with an application like Black Widow. Results were so very "spotty", (...a statement both tongue-in-cheek and dead on serious...) the use of that application was almost nil.

Honestly, IMO...Benven's CG-Brand of DIY Paints were more successful at obtaining high gain results that also provided Aluminum's ability to enhance Colors and projected Blacks... and being so very high gain they actually could "compete against" not merely "joust" with Ambient Light.

But ONLY if you maintained a seating position almost directly "Dead Center". There were of course some advocates for that sort of performance because many had (...and still have...) limited space / seating area. These were the people left to choosing between a DaLite HP and a similarly performing DIY application (CGIII)

Screen "PoP & Sizzle" never becomes more pronounced than it does when Aluminum or Silver is in play. I pursued "Silver" because of it's controllable reflectivity, so much so that it could be increased proportionally as to the performance gains, but without introducing unwanted side effects.

Still, throughout the ensuing time frame, many approached even Silver-based mixes with a "More just has to be Better" outlook. Not workable. Essentially, without achieving the "balance" necessary between reflectivity and a "masking effect", Silver will exhibit much if not all of the bad habits of Aluminum. But it's a little more forgiving, and so it takes a bit more determination to "muck it up".

So Silver it was/is for me. But even then I was actually overly cautious. Prior experiences by many others with Aluminum and Silver made me utilize "less than more". But that served me well as far as getting a gradual knowledge and acceptance of it's proper usage. Since Behr's Silver Metallic Faux Paint had what was considered at the time as having the finest SM particles, it was the medium of choice. But it also was a very dark Gray hued Silver Metallic, so only 1 oz maximum per quart was ever considered being in the acceptable range of use. Otherwise, granularity and sparklies could & would become present, chiefly because when such a dark gray surface was infused with shiny particles, they stood out more than they helped. However, that caveat was restricted to the darker but reflective Silver Metallic. Think tens of Thousands of little mirrors turning on-off axis continually while being interspersed within a white base medium. When the mirror goes "off', it leaves a "Black Spot"" that actually shines in much the same manner as a particle whose reflective surface is facing "on axis' to the viewer. Only differently.

But that is why Silver (...and aluminum...) make such apparent improvements in rendered contrast. How much and how well does one or the other do such magic in comparison to the other though....that is what needs to be ascertained here.

to be continued.....

...........and it is.

I applaud the creativity and effort that went into refining a Tinted base to help compensate for the dark "Graying" tendency of Aluminum when it's mixed into a White...or near white paint. It's having advocates that were also formally proponents of neutral Grays (...but who at that time disdained the use of metallics.....) who used known tint blending methods to create a beige-tinted base that in turn when combined with the "Gray' base containing the Aluminum resulted in a nearly neutral finished Mix.

PB-Maxx and I did it the hard way.....by using separate primary colors, both flat and metallic-infused Red-Blue-Green-yellow, to create a variety of Gray Hues, Grays that we obtained by adjusting the amount of a pre-determined Color Mix that was added into a reflective White base. In doing it so, a quantum leap in the percentage per volume of Silver AND Pearlecent Mica in any such mix could be achieved.

50 Oz of Mica-infused paint (Color Components and Reflective Base) per 42 Oz of Viscosity Base (Behr Interior UPW Flat #1050 (or Exterior.#4050) -Water- Poly Acrylic.)

That's over 50% Metallic based content. One can surmise from that, that the Base's masking effect on the metallic content is balanced to the point where overt reflectivity is controlled, but the density of reflective surface is still far more evenly and COMPLETELY disbursed throuout the Mix...and thereby the surface coating that is applied.

The very nature of the use of varied components within a mix like Silver Fire allows for almost infinite adjust-ability, but certainly far more within the desired range than that of a Mix whose aluminum is limited to far less concentrations, and that even then it will darken any mix far in excess to that concentration's ability to "optimally" utilize the reflectivity quotient inherent in Aluminum.

In that sense, the much hurrah'ed aspect of perfect neutrality becomes a side issue. Any "Gray" can become neutral with the efforts employed by those who pursue such. But not any "Gray" can support the addition of too much of a particular Reflective element....or too little.

A study again of the complete Silver Fire mixture is needed to show the differences between it and other DIY mixes that are designed with the same intentions in mind. Look at the concentrations of metallics in the various component mixes, and the overall Mix itself. Do the math. Make comparisons with "other' DIY paint apps. See the light.

Materials available at Michaels Arts & Crafts or most any Artist Supply or Hobby Store.

"SILVER FIRE"
* use 3 oz. of the 'color components' and add/mix it to the 'base & viscosity components'


(base components)
24 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Pearl #02601 @Michaels
16 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Silver Metallic #02603 @Michaels
8 oz. Behr Interior UPW Flat #1050 (or Exterior.#4050) @ Home Depot
6 oz. Delta Pale Metallic Gold #02624 @Michaels

(viscosity components)
24 oz. Minwax Polycrylic - Satin Finish @Michaels & Home Depot
10 oz. Distilled / Tap Water "NO" Filtered OK.

(color components)
60 ml (2 oz) Distilled / Tap Water
60 ml (2 oz) Delta Pale Metallic Gold #02624 @Michaels
30 ml Delta Cardinal Red #02077 @Michaels
16 ml**** Windsor & Newtwon "Galleria" - Pthalo Green (PG7) @Michaels
12 ml**** Delta Ultra Blue #02038 @Michaels

****Changed to offset occasional over-mixing errors resulting in green / blue push. Although a very small drop of the amount of the "Grey's color depth results, more neutrality is achieved. These components are critical, and also have the smallest measurable portions. Unless one grossly undershoots the prescribed amounts, a small degree of overage to the stated amounts will only bring the mix back to it's original level, not "push' it into an adverse hue.

The "Found @ Michaels" ingredients might be, and probably are available at Hobby Lobby.

* use 3 oz. of the 'color components' and add/mix it to the 'base & viscosity components'

-------------------------

Silver Fire - L (Lite)**

** use 2 oz. of the 'color components' and add/mix it to the 'base & viscosity components'

-------------------------

Silver Fire - SL (SuperLite)***

*** use 1 oz. of the 'color components' and add/mix it to the 'base & viscosity components'

-------------------------

"SILVER FIRE HG" (High Gain)****

(base components)
36 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Pearl #02601
12 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Silver Metallic #02603
8 oz. Delta Pale Metallic Gold #02624
7 oz. Behr Interior UPW Flat #1050 (or Exterior #4050)

(viscosity components)
same as above

(color components)
same as above

**** use only .75oz of color components.


Folk Art -Champaign Gold Metallic- is the replacement for the Delta Pale Metallic Gold
PG7 (P)Thalo green is a "Primary Color" and does not have to be a "W&N" product. It virtually always comes in a "Tube" not a bottle, and is located in the Artists Acrylic "Tube Paint" Dept. in Artists Craft stores.


Many times, the chief weapon employed against the use of Silver Fire is it's supposed complexity, and the difficulty of obtaining and mixing the various components. But it all boils down to actual results....based upon it's flexibility of design and usage...and if one wants the best possible results.

certainly those who lay upon the fringes of the need for ambient light performance can consider a lighter screen. But why does one have to give up the redeeming qualities of a Silver & Pearlecent metallic medium simply because ambient issues are non existant? Its well known that most all "Dark Room" Theater owners are loath to consider a Gray Screen. yet many still want the advantages that a Gray brings to any equation. Enhanced Colors. Deeper Blacks. More perceived Contrast. (...the latter is what make the former two possible...)

But ya know, for some years now, a great many such people have had no adverse compunction in considering any of the several variations on the theme of MMud-MaxxMudd-Silver Fire, and complimenting Light Fusion DIY applications. For certain the lack of gain, perceived or otherwise, was never a overriding issue, nor was Color reproduction or Black rendering, screen texture-granularity, or ambient light performance. Everyone a criteria by which to judge a DIY screen app's usefulness. How much more so is an app's usefulness if such a application can do all of those things...do them all well...and be adjustable from being as dark as required without adversely affecting the image quality (under correct conditions) to as light as needed while still delivering the performance qualities of a "Gray Screen"?

Next up: Is Mica as poor a reflective medium in comparison to aluminum as it's been made out to be?

i think it has to do with more than even the base the aluminum resides in.

the thought process for many of these paint companies is that an aluminum paint doesn't need to be as fine/refined as a silver metallic. because of that, i don't think the aluminum is as finely extracted/filtered from the dark iron oxide as well as i should be.

but i've also seen some terrible silver paint bases too.

if you ever want to see how much lamp black actually resides in a silver or aluminum paint... mix it with a 25% water and let it sit for a week. you'll be able to siphon the lamp black off the top.

Just an FYI... that may apply to craft or artist paints using aluminum, I can't say for sure though because that's not what I use.

What I used has this as the list of ingrediants:

• Resin
• Mineral Spirits (but in a very low concentration, it is still a water based paint and cleans up with warm soap and water)
• Aluminum
• Water

It is not gray in appearance, it is a very bright and reflective silver color. When dry it looks like brushed aluminum (because it is pure aluminum, makes sense) and it can even be buffed out with a polishing cloth to a high shine. I recently made a custom painted Nerf Vulcan gun for my grandson for Christmas- I painted the entire gun aluminum, then buffed it. It shined up nicely I then painted it satin black and took a cloth and rubbed away the black in areas to show the aluminum (metal look) underneith the black for a weathered look. Main point being is that I sprayed this (as well as some screens) and never had any clogs from flakes that were too big, and it can be buffed up to a shine.

I can definitely say it was not gray looking at this stage at all, the base coat on a screen (or the toy mentioned) looked like a big piece of brushed aluminum.

Again, maybe there are other things out there or art paints or craft paints that have a colored meduim added which would alter the applied look, but BJ 5160 and Createx are primarily aluminum, water, and a binder. I have looked at some of the craft and art paints and didn't like them because they weren't a true metalic leafing paint and as you mentioned, looked like there were other ingrediants also added. I wanted something as pure as I could find.

Flake size is small enough that it spays through every sprayer I've tried without clogging, including the Preval sprayer ($5).

The reason why we had to color correct was because aluminum itself (at least everything I've seen and we've tested) is very reflective and bright but it's not totally neutral on its own, which is why it was color corrected when used in a mix for a screen.

Under the scope there was no refraction detected, and that makes sense because aluminum is opaque. When all the mica samples were looked at under the scope, we saw a rainbow effect, which also makes sense because it is not opaque and allows light to pass through as well as reflecting some. The light passing through is bent, or better stated, refracted, which produces a prism effect. That produced an undesired color shifting because of the prism (rainbow effect) over the more reflective and opaque non-interference material. This is simply a characteristic of mica, period. That's why it's used in crafts, why artists use it, and why custom hotrods use it... It looks cool and changes color under different lighting and when seen at different angles. That's the iridescence (refraction) effect.

After color correcting for any push or lean, what was seen was a neutral surface with the non-interference that was also very reflective (meaning no need to add sheen to boost gain) as compared to still having the prism effect present with the translucent mica.

Now... if mica is coated with something like TI02 (which is common) it is no longer translucent, but now an opaque flake, i.e. it doesn't refract and is now a non interference material, but it is also no longer mica as we know it. The mica is covered. Why do this though? Simple, Mica is cheaper.

The question being posed (from what I interpret) is does the prism effect or color shift caused by mica (again, this is a characteristic of mica, not anything I made up) be compensated for. Well lots of things can be compensated for. If the mica is still translucent though there will still be refraction taking place, it is simply what mica does. Yes it is reflective, but it is also by its very nature an iridescent material. If coated to make it something else, well then it's not really mica anymore is it? My question is, why not just use a non-interference method? They aren't that hard to find.

Does this matter? Obviously some say yes and some say no. My question is though if they are both just as easy to obtain and use, why deal with iridescence and refracted light at all?

As far as mixes tested, it really wasn't the mica that was the biggest issue, it was the 'color correction', meaning the base wasn't anywhere near D65 neutral. This is purely my personal opinion, but if a mix was balanced to a true D65 neutral, I think I might be able to deal with the mica effect as long as it was minor. Again I'll say why though when non-interference methods are just as easy to get and use? And... yes they can be adjusted. The problem and reason for any length of time between any lighter options is simple, it's solely a matter of getting it right the first time so there are no changes made monthly to fix any issues.

Interference materials and non-interference materials are both able to be adjusted. It's just a matter of making sure before putting it out there is all.

Again, my opinion... can mica be used? Anyone can use anything they want. But there just might be better things that are just as easy to get and use out there is all I have always been saying.

That is true, but not doesn't apply to the amount used in water based paints. I've seen this information myself and I have no worry about anyone's screen blowing up on them!

I'd be more concerned with using paints that have fungicides and other materials that can be toxic in an inclosed area, but that's just my personal opinion.

If it was an explosive hazzard then it wouldn't be able to be sent through the mail system.

It is not in any manner relevant to consider what aluminum or mica particals appear to represent when viewed "in the raw".

The fixation on the belief that Mica HAS to create a prismatic effect when combined within a given paint mix is so totally wrong it can only be considered a "Guess" by those wanting to find a valid reason for claims that aluminum is a superior element to use.

And trying to use such a comparison that shows the use of a "pure" coating is even more irrelevant. The same can be said of showing a Pure Silver metallic.


Also, and it seems to be in vogue to ignore important facts when advocating aluminum, such as that the masking that occurs in a Mica-based mix is not total...it does not create a opaque covering. Both the dilution via water and Clear poly maintains a translucence that "controls" reflectance.

Aluminum exerts a grievous influence in any paint it's mixed into.

I toss it back atcha.

If you have to compensate a mix's base to control the imparted COLOR SHIFTING that Aluminum imparts, it's certain that it's no longer "pure' nor is it really even "aluminum" anymore. And you cannot increase the ratio without worsening the adverse effects. It gets "coated" as well, with a great many particles COMPLETELY coated. It's what does not get coated that either makes good or bad things happen in respect to the ratio employed.

And if you cannot get the effects desire from aluminum without compensating for it own lack of neutrality ( just as with Silver) nor utilize it in it's purest state ( just as with Silver) without suppressing to a degree it's reflectivity ( just as with Silver), then why bother using Aluminum at all? ( just as with Silver)

Interesting, recently I thought you said it was 30 years experience, but that's beside the point, this is after all a 'discussion'.

I too have seen the archives. Back then there were many issues with a wide variety of things, including what constitutes a true neutral gray.

Aluminum it self will hot spot. There is no denying that. It may be a very very good option for the guys at LumenLab though because they aren't dealing with the extremely bright projectors that are readily available to everyone today. As far as 'Visible Granularity', you'll get that with any particle that's has too large of a flake size, yes even mica if it's too large.

Difficult to apply? Not really. No more so than any other more advanced DIY method, in fact it's easier than some out there that require a very specific amount of coats, sprayed at the exact precise distance... and also the mix must be precise as well or there could be a color imbalance. It's neither harder or easier than most, but is easier than some.

While it may be true that some may have to source the Createx, I've also seen some that had to special order some of the mica ingredients out there. It is widely available at either Michaels or custom auto paint shops in most areas. If the goal is something that works exceptionally well, then ordering online is the last concern I'd have since it only takes a couple of days extra if it can't be sourced locally.

Going back to 2003 though. Most were trying to use aerosol spray paints, or those that were using metallics were not using actual aluminum, rather mica metallics. For the few that I saw that did find and try actual aluminum, they were using much lower percentages than I tried and they also threw in other ingredients such as other mica's and polyurethane and many other components. That is a totally different approach. So yes aluminum was tried by some, but not in the exact same way.

It can also be said that back when you advocated clay based ceiling paints rolled with an 18" wide roller and completely admonished spraying in anyway that others were using micas and spraying screens at that time too. It doesn't mean you didn't come up with something unique and have a different twist to the application, but you certainly were not the first... same as I wasn't the first to ever use aluminum. The difference as I mentioned is how it was used and applied as a screen.


Again, great example of history. I too saw those early threads and it wasn't the best way to go about things. That I will agree with you on. Also and again my opinion... part of the problem was trying to mix a water based latex with an aerosol based spray paint. It was a good thought and if taken to the next level who knows where we'd be right now? Thing is they dropped it even though it showed promise.

The problem was trying to figure out how to harness it, which, to some people's dismay and dislike is where science comes in handy.


The CG methods certainly were interesting, but also some of the most complex mixes I've seen. Again the amount of aluminum used as a fraction of what I used, as well as having numerous other components added. The question really is what component was adding what to the total mix? Since it was mostly mica and poly, that is what attributed to the sheen, i.e. gain. I do have to give benven credit because he departed from using standard craft paint quality micas and was using very good quality artist paints and micas. They were extremely small particle sizes, and did not refract light nearly as much as all the other methods I've seen back then (and now too). Too bad he felt brow beated back then to have continued with those. BTW, I wasn't the one doing the brow beating, I wasn't even a member at that time. Anyone interested, just search the archives, it's all in there for prosperity.

There were some interesting ideas, but perhaps a lack of focus or even confidence for the developer to continue.


That's simply gain. Any screen (including yours) are subjected to the properties of gain. I did see some claims though of a 1.8 screen that had a 180 degree viewing cone and you maintained that was an absolute truth. I'd still like to see the explanation and science behind that one! (You can't create more light than what was originally produced by the projector. You can only 'borrow' light from off angle and focus it back towards the viewer... i.e. increased gain and reduced viewing cone. That's simply the physics of light is all and again nothing I just made up)


Honest question... When you say 'Silver', are you actually talking about silver itself or a silver metallic mica? Depending on your answer will mean a lot. Silver and Aluminum are very similar and aluminum is even used as a true silver substitute. They are both controllable if the proper methods are used, and both being non-interference methods there really is no unwanted side effects introduced aside from hot spotting if it's used as the only ingredient.


Again, what exactly are we talking about here, can you be precise and more specific?

As far as being more forgiving, I guess we really need to nail down what you are talking about. If you are talking about a silver powder, or pure silver based paint... then that would seem to be very expensive and I've seen even you say the sourcing for Createx Aluminum was too expensive for people to consider as an option.

I'm just trying to fully understand what it is you are talking about when you say 'Silver'. Again though, if it really is silver, then it isn't any more forgiving than aluminum, just more expensive.


Maurice forgive me, I am being sincere when I say I am also a historian of screens and have spent months in the archives as well. I may not have joined AVS back when you first did, but I do my research.

Forgive me but I don't ever recall you playing around with aluminum. Back in the day you went from rolling ceiling paint, to hooking up with pb and then being a convert to spraying and micas. I never really recall you playing around with aluminum or other non-interference methods. Perhaps you did in the background and then abandoned them, I honestly don't know. But I really don't recall all this extensive use of aluminum and non-interference methods.

Again, if you abandoned them, it was probably because back then there was no science or specs known about them. I know you hate data and a scientific approach, but I feel this is both an art as well as a science. I also personally use both, but never totally push one over the other. I am just curious because you are talking about history and all your involvement and everything you've tried but I just don't recall you ever talking about aluminum. It's an honest request to see those archives.

Also, why did you abandon them? aluminum reflects more than mica, that's again simple physics. If a medium allows any light to pass through it, energy is lost. When energy is lost, the reflected light isn't as bright. I will be open minded and say that may not be perceivable by the naked eye, but then again it just might be. It would have to actually be measured. I'll leave that up to you though because in another thread you stated you will be conclusively be proving all of this. We've already done some of this testing, I'm just interested in seeing how you are testing and coming up with the conclusive proof. No harm no foul... just curious to see one colleague's results and proof is all. Nothing more intended there than I am very interested in your insights.


Again, can we get some clarification of exactly what this 'Silver' is you keep mentioning? If it is Behr Silver Metallic, you're really talking apples to bananas because the are totally different things.

This is a very interesting lesson in AVS DIY screen history. History though doesn't always mean something is factual or proven, just that it's 'history'.

I am very interested in seeing your old tests between silver and aluminum. I can't stress this enough... that is a very sincere request and I honestly am interested. Again, think if we knew then what we know now! Oh... sorry, this is a 'debate/discussion' and one were aluminum/non-interference methods and science are going to be proven as insignificant. Still, I mean it when I ask, I am interested and if everyone can learn and we can improve things... even better!




I also applaud the efforts of others in their applications. Everything builds on other endeavors and experiences.

Actually the 'known' tint blending methods aren't so known. I haven't fully disclosed the key to balancing anything out to a true D65 neutral. That may sound bad or even arrogant, but seeing that so many other things came under fire and the people taking the shots always seem to 'know better', I was just curious to see if they could explain the same method, and even more important to me... why they use it.

As far as being 'nearly neutral', well it's a dead on bullseye. Without actual readings and all those charts and graphs that you dislike though, it would just be one person making a claim and 'saying so'. That's why I use data to back things up, but make no mistake, I also use the exact same real world testing and empirical testing that you also do. I am just not sure how including the actual data, readings, and specs are a bad thing since that's not the only thing being shown. If it was, then I would be on your side and say just because something may have the numbers doesn't mean it actually works, but again... both are shown. Is that really a bad thing to show people?

Before anything is said that there is a demand that everyone has to do all this and show the numbers... nope, never said that at all. Just when someone else makes some very hard line claims and states their method is the best of the best and nothing else is close... well, then yes I'd like to see all of the information and not just subjective screen shots as the only proof. In those instances I don't ask anyone to do anything I haven't provided myself.


In private I have said how impressive it is what you and pb have done solely by eye. I however don't fully agree with the methods and claims because they don't agree with known color science. They may be an artists eye view, but to say that's ideal isn't looking at the full 'picture' (pun intended). The problem with doing things by eye is everyone sees things differently. What you may like may not be what someone else likes. This is exactly why I am an advocate of D65 neutral when it comes to gray. If it is not neutral, then it is a color, and if it is a color then as a screen it will have a push. If the user happens to like the same color push (cool or warm) as the developer that did things by eye, then everything is fine. If they like something different, well then they may or may not be able to compensate and calibrate to the temperature they prefer. If the screen is D65 neutral though, then the user has the option of leaving it at D65 to see exactly what the director wanted people to see... or they can make the image warm or cool- but to their liking and not dependent on the screen itself.

Where I think people are missing the mark is that there is such a wide variance between how two people see things, and the human eye, as incredible as it is, also depends on our brain and what we were 'taught' colors should look like to be able to say a human being can look at a color and tell if it is neutral or a color they think is neutral. That's where all those readings you dislike come into play. By using a spectrophotometer (and I know Prof55 is familiar with them) a person can actually see the values and then plot them on a known chart with very specific reference points. Depending on where they plot will indicate whether it is neutral, or has a color push. Anyone that can do this by eye... well, that's pretty amazing and they might want to contact Ripley's!

The rest is the history and explanation of your mixes, and I will not interject on those comments. I just felt the comments about aluminum vs. mica (and yes some of the history lesson) needed a point/counter-point perspective. I fully explained why and how Black Widow was developed as well as why I used aluminum. You're questioning that application and all the bandwidth the supporting data has taken up, but I'm not going to claim to know why you did things the way you did. Only you know that and that's what we'd love to see... why and how was things determined. Right now, the only thing I've seen anywhere is that it's been done by an 'artists' eye, and that's fine. It's just when the claims come into play that one is more neutral than the other, or more reflective, or better balanced and more 'adjustable', or has a higher gain, or flat out said it's better than everything (but why does it always change if it's better?)... well people generally do want to see the supporting data to back things up.


Again, I honestly do not recall your extensive use and testing of non-interference methods as you are implying you have. If I missed something, then I truly regret not seeing that work because it would have been very interesting. But to say Silver Fire is almost infinitely adjustable and a non-interference method isn't, well that I don't agree with or understand your logic. I really would like to see the comparison where you've tried it and came to the determination it didn't, or couldn't work... which is how I read your comments.

D65 neutral gray is not something to be passed off as something bad.

"Any "Gray" can become neutral with the efforts employed by those who pursue such."

I would be very interested in seeing how you balance things out and know for certain they actually are neutral. Actually I think many would be interested in that. You show and explain how you're doing it as well as show the supporting readings to prove it is indeed neutral when you tell everyone it is, and I'll fully disclose my method I mentioned earlier in this post. Sounds more than fair to me! I know our method works, so before I talk, I'd love to see your explanation and proof. (Again, you were pretty firm and confident in another thread that you were going to conclusively prove everything once and for all... which will be very informative once that happens I am sure )

"But not any "Gray" can support the addition of too much of a particular Reflective element....or too little."

Actually, that's something I will agree with you on.


You said it brother! The archives are jam packed with a bazillion requests of just that! I'm really glad you finally decided to explain everything once and for all!


Mica is a very good reflective medium, it just refacts light is all because it is an iridescence. I however will be very interested in your insight and knowledge to explain this and why everyone else is wrong about iridescence and why they are used. Does it reflect light? you bet. Can it be sparklie? Another you bet. Is it perfect and has no energy loss and no prism effect? Well... mica is mica and does what mica does. Unless you know something the experts don't. I just can't see how it can be the characteristics of mica can be argued about as if it is something that was made up. Can it be used? Sure... but like I said, lots of things can be used.

Maurice, one thing I really would like to ask though is to actually back up what you say. I can,will, and have on my part... please do the same since you said this was going to end the debate once and for all.

I'm not talking about "in the raw" but looking at actual screen applications it is very easily seen.

I think what you are saying is 'as seen from the seated area'. That would be an interesting comparison but I have yet to see a true neutral mica based screen. Perhaps it can be balanced out, perhaps it can't. All samples so far show some pretty bad color pushes to them. It's either the mica itself or the color correcting method. Either way, a prism effect is still clearly seen, so if the discussion is the ideal screen, why would someone want that at all even how minor it is? If it can be easily avoided, all I am saying is why not?

It's not like I'm talking about a controlled substance that requires a permit and a million bucks to get... it's just as easy to get as other ingrediants. Now to the question of which performs better? You say mica (interference methods) and I say non-interference methods.

That really is what the thread is about and where the proof is supposed to be shown isn't it?

Mica is an iridescence and it refracts light, that's a main characteristic of mica.

I believe you're going to explain how it doesn't or that it doesn't matter. If your point is it doesn't matter, then does it matter if someone uses a non-interference? From what you keep saying it does because you say micas are more flexible and perform better. The part everyone needs to start getting into and explaining is exactly how does it perform better and why? I've already done that on my part (the explaination that is, maybe not in this thread but it was explained in other threads many times)

Maurice you threw the gauntlet out, and I've already explained my side of things. Please explain your side and with something more than just 'your years of experience'. Your experience is admirable, but you are saying you're going to end this once and for all... and I'm sorry but to do that you're going to have to show proof and not just screen shots- I also have some very impressive screenies out there too. Now it's down to actually backing things up... like I said, you're the one that said you were going to show all of this and soon.

If we can debate and discuss things on a factual basis and leave out the subjective 'I said so part' then I'm game and will be civil... maybe we all can even learn something in the process too. Right now though the ball is squarely in your court. The history lesson is over- as Dark Wing Duck would say, "Let's get dangerous!" Start explaining with something more than screen shots... like I said, I have those too.

Garry I will agree with that. Same as if a person has to use keystone correction, or digital image shifting... that all has an impact on the image as compared to if they didn't have to use it.

The big thing is the trade off. If it decreases the gain by say .1 or even less than I would personally say that is an acceptable trade off to get a screen that is color accurate at D65.

The reason I am such an advocate of D65 is because it leaves the adjustments up to the user and what the projector can do and not dependent on whether the screen is pushing the overall color in one direction or not.

All things being equal, if you show me two screen that are around the same shade, same gain and the projected image is comparable between the two screens, I will still go with the D65 neutral screen over a color push.

I've worked closely with the head of RIT at determining neutral specs, but also we worked out a range of what is also usable and will produce an exceptional screen but isn't necessarily neutral. We called that the 'acceptable' ring. Anything that plots outside that ring starts to show a noticeable color push on the screen and yes at the viewing area. Yes it can be brought in some, but never fully in for a good color calibration.

Will it bother people? Yeah it actually does bother some people. We know there are people on here that are pure audio/videophiles and to them anything that alters the image just isn't acceptable. Still there are others that won't mind at all.

Just because someone doesn't mind or realize something though but loves their screen doesn't automatically make it the 'best of the best', and unless I am mistaken from some of the other threads, this is what we are trying to get to the meat and potatoes in this thread isn't it? Why one thing works better than something else...

I agree, history is over. You know the saying about the person that constantly brags about their ancestor's don't you? They are admitting they are better off dead than alive! Sorry, bad joke.

Seriously though, there was a lot said that needed a point/counter-point type reply. Since that's out of the way... Like I quoted Dark Wing Duck... "Let's get dangerous!"

This is a very viable topic and one that people have actually been trying to get some straight answers on for years. As much as this started tuning into a 'best of the best' competition thread, I think the biggest thing is what works, why does it work (or not) and how was that determined. That is a very interesting topic in my opinion.

Agreed. Since the identifcation of so many D65 OTS neutral grays, to me that's a done topic. Next is how to make it better.

One thing that comes up now and then is "Well commercial screens use mica" which is true, but they also coat them and are not just using raw flakes. In addition to that they also use electrostatic charges to get a uniform coverage. These are some items that never seem to make it into those conversations.

Mica is very reflective though, but it is sound science that there is an energy loss as well as refraction going on with untreated mica flakes.

You also brought up a point which is not all binder mediums are created equal either. This has more to do with any color push than the actual flakes, but the prism effect is still in play. From what I've seen it usually isn't noticed unless there is a lot of white up on the screen, then it can be noticeable. I know a couple people that originally passed this off as the DLP Rainbow Effect (RBE from here on out) but once they changed screens, it went away and they were very happy about that.

Aluminum... Yes I did note when I was testing that if the concentration goes too high when mixed with paint, even if it's a fine grain aluminum, the image starts to get grainy. We're taking about an enormous amount though, as in approaching 50/50. Right now it's at 20%, which is a lot of aluminum.

When it comes to empirical, some of my friends hate movie time when I start putting test panels up and asking them to pick which they like best. I usually get very consistant results and they are never told which is which. Sometimes I even put the same two up but change what side they are on just to see if they pick the same panel.

The reason I personally like non-interference methods is because they are still extremely reflective, but without some of the side effects. Like I said, it would be very interesting to put a D65 mica screen up on one side and a D65 non-interference method screen up on the other side that are both the same shade and gain and see what happens. If anyone can send me a D65 neutral mica based screen to test out I'll be a happy camper!

Well then, do you contend that Silver Metallic paints such as Delta's contain untreated Mica? I hope your not that uninformed....or mistaken in your commentary for the sole reason to perpetrate that belief on the uninformed.


That's completely 180 degrees opposite of everything that's been ventured by all of you of the Spider persuasion. It's ALWAYS been about the Mica....never about the mix, neutral or otherwise. When statements were made regarding the ineffectiveness of Mica-based formulas as per Aluminum ones, it was the "Refraction" issue that was claimed to be the culprit behind any supposed color shifting. Stick to one side of the equation or the other but don't switch when it's convenient to do so, please.


Gotcha on that one! If you want to make a direct correlation to how your statements are not all inclusive, consider Harpmaker's Cream & Sugar. It too uses a "Mica-based" Silver Metallic, and it's been stated right under your own watchful eyes that the Mica within does not produce an iridescent effect, nor shift colors. No, and it doesn't even work contrary to the creation of a near neutral Gray. What it DOES do is produce a Screen that is better at what it does than BW within it's given scope, because it is a lighter shade of Gray that maintains a higher degree of reflectivity due to the simple, unavoidable and non-refutable truth that the Mica contained within it works better than the same amount of Aluminum would under the same formula.

If it didn't, or if you had any real issues with it that go beyond your statements of acceptance of that application, I'm sure you'd have presented them by now, instead of steering others toward that application when BW just would not nor could not be deemed appropriate to use. But there it sits on HTS, waiting for you to do that "direct Comparison. Oh...that's right....BW cannot match that hue of Gray because.....it can't. Darn it. It seems that any such comparison must out of necessity be limited to a narrow range of shades of Gray to be considered an effective comparison. Because the Spider is naturally designated to "Darker " places. When that changes...if ever (...and I don't wish that it never does...really.) such might be possible. But any such comparisons must also show what a non-neutral screen can accomplish in direct comparison, because neutrality is not the God-given gift and answer to all the various wors that face the Front projection advocate.


Well first, a "couple of People" cannot make up a consensus, so your statement is really only a weak attempt to justify your point. Also, it WAS the Color Wheel's involvement that created that manifestation. I...and I'm sure everyone else has never observed such occurring with a LCD PJ, nor with DLPs that have 6+ segment Color Wheels turning at the increased speed today's improved DLPs do. Without an in-depth explanation as to the screen's true make-up, and the PJ used, it's all just creative speculation that serves to illustrate a mistaken point.


...and if you reduce that amount, any real reflective benefit is lost. Increase that amount and you develop issues well known and associated with the use of Aluminum.



You know that something even more telling was done last year....and the truth of it was that Black Widow did very poorly when compared to Silver Screen....at least when one takes into consideration the purported performance gains Black Widow claimed to represent. The SS should have been dismally worse, but actually was at the least, completely comparative.

Also, at the time BW's gain was not known, but since then the revelation that it is "under" .9 (.87) validates why a simple neutral Gray could stand up against the Spider. Mabey not put it's foot down on top of it, but in the least it didn't have to run and hide in fear.

The same cannot, nor ever has been said about Silver Fire. If you can find otherwise in any posting....THAT would be a revelation.

Just the same, please post where I ever stated I had 30 years experience with Screens? You know where that "30 years" came from, and mentioning it here is simply a bait to get a response that you know will NOT be forthcoming.

In the same light, you also at least should know that testing has been done of specific aspects of Silver Fire's performance, under another guise. Extensive testing and trials. Also be informed that the efforts of PB-Maxx and myself were NOT done by "eye" nearly as much as they were done by "Knowledge" and application of the same. That those efforts gleaned together to create something that others had not been able to muster up is what really matters. Not your attempt to persuade others that we just cobbled together a "good guess'.

Your long post conjures up so many half truths and outright misconceptions as to what we have accomplished, by what methods, the end results, and even what your application is capable of that it cannot be rebutted effectively without dissecting the entire thing almost word by word.

I've seen all of that happen before in replies by you, and all throughout there runs a vein of supporting such by stating "we have done testing so we must be the only correct course to take." backed by statements alluding to the detrimental properties of Mica that are based on observations made under conditions and situations that in no way represent the actual properties of the materials being used, and finished efforts.

Could I rebutt your entire post? God knows I could...but "I" know if I do so such will be a trial on others to read, and this Thread's purpose isn't supposed to be a Forum for rebuttal, but a discovery of truths. '

But let's readdress one important fact. One of the reasons Silver Fire exceeds the performance of Black Widow as a truly effective Ambient Light performer because it is not "neutral" to a slight degree across the blue spectrum. That slight "blue push" is what allows the apparent retention of whites when a Gray hue is employed. That push is also easily calibrated out, and any attenuation then corrected by judicious use of "Gamma" adjustment, so when done so, the enhancement of white content is not lost, because only the "blue" aspect within the color spectrum is corrected. It's a simple case of starting with "more' and then being able to "reduce" to achieve an effective level. One cannot conjure up something to assist a particular aspect of performance, it must be present to be effective.

In my reasoning, the singular most important aspect of this Thread's existence is the relating that Mica as used in DIY applications where specific products and concentrations are observed is not detrimental to the end result in any manner, but is rather superior in many ways, and over a wider range, than Aluminum. It's best viewed as an attempt to correct misconceptions and misleading statements, be they intentional or simply misguided....no matter who the source.

Has nobody tried to make a retro-reflective screen with micro beads?

maybe with this product?
http://www.amesresearch.com/reflect.htm

If you are referring to the comparisons you did between BW and Silverscreen and others, then IIRC, you made up the BW using Valspar "Flat" paint. That was shown to produce a very substandard, all be it neutral, version of Black Widow. To then conclude that Silverscreen matched or beet BW is not really correct.

On the other hand what is Silverscreen? Is it Behr UPW Flat #1050 tinted Behr "Silver Screen"? Or is it one of the other Behr bases tinted "Silver Screen". There is quite a wide variation in performance between them even though they may all be tinted Behr "Silver Screen".

It is true that the identification of near enough neutral tints for wall paints has been pretty much nailed down. There is more to it than that though. Selecting the correct base will make a big difference in the resulting screen surface. Some of the greatest improvements I have seen were the result of going from a flat paint to a flat enamel, scrubbable matte, whatever you want to call it. These improvements were also had without the degradation in image that many have observed.

As I have pointed out before, there is a trend one will observe, if you hang around these DIY Screen forums long enough. People try various concoctions with a variety of different visible reflective particles in them. Eventually they get back around to trying, . . . no not trying, that implies a deliberate effort. They accidentally project an image on a simple neutral gray paint, maybe one with a low luster sheen, or maybe one they simply enhanced with some reasonable amount of satin polyurethane and it strikes them how clean and natural the image looks and "hey where's the screen!" Next they try to tell people about it, then they fall silent. For example:


It ain't sexy but the truth is, what lays Beyond Neutral Gray is control of gloss and possibly translucency. Now I will go back to being one of the silent ones that has come full circle.

Bill, I'm curious; if it were possible to keep all else equal, but raise the color temp of a BW screen, (I'm using yours as an example since I'm addressing you) by say 200-400°, if most would lean towards your preference or if they would like the higher temp screen? Just a thought.


What is that range? 50°? 500°? I know I'm using color temp numbers, but you get the point. One can easily be at 6500K but not be anywhere near the D65 white point. Another point being, we know that MANY of these UHP/UHM lamps have an inherent red push that CANNOT be adjusted out without the right equip. So without going into a long drawn out speech, like others can, those people will see a slight bit of red in their screen. You will understand that because I know you have some equipment.


Most of those types have AT screens, high dollar processors and will PAY someone to correct their image for them. That's why they own the high dollar screens

Most of us don't have that luxury, right?

Just some random thoughts...
Rob

I'm not ISF certified not do I study the CIE chart, but I do own consumer grade calibration equipment and have used it for nearly 3 years now...One cannot just judiciously adjust a blue push with Gamma correction. To say so would be asinine at best and is one of the easiest and fastest way to F**K UP an image.

It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Gamma has more to do with light intensity than color correction.

Just stating the facts.

Can someone enlighten me on how adding highly reflective materials to a mix that ends up with a gain of one or less, has done anything at all for picture quality?

Lets say I have two screen samples that I'm not going to tell you what's in them. (I think that it doesn't matter what's in them!)

Screen "A" is a .90 gain.
Screen "B" is a .99 gain.
Both are very neutral.
Both have acceptable viewing cones out past 60 degrees.
The room is close to being a cave, and the projector has enough lumens for the desired 110" image on either screen using low lamp mode. All room lights are off.

Now I'm assuming that gain, viewing cone (if you are sitting outside of it), and neutrality are the only screen properties that could affect the picture. Please correct me if this is not the case.

Screen "A" will not be as bright as screen "B" with the same projector settings. This might actually be a good thing, and subject to personal preference. The brightness of screen "B" can be reduced to match that of "A" by turning down the contrast a little. Looks like screen "A" should have slightly better blacks, but if the projectors CR is really outstanding, it would probably be a negligible difference.

Now lets say I'm experimenting with my own fictitious screen, and throwing in some exotic stuff to create screen "C".

It's neutral.
Gain is .92 or so.
Viewing cone is good at 45 degees, but not as good at 60 degrees as "A" and "B".

Now I admit that I'd be like a proud papa, and posting screenshots, and convinced that this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but.... what did I actually gain over the performance of screen "A" or "B", and why???

Here would be a great place for you to condense you own approximations as to the use of Silver and Aluminum. You have the prior knowledge, as seen in your Grey-Silver-White Review. (...although they were of mfg. Screens...) But your observations of each Screen parallel the questions that are arrising on this Thread. Your insight, if nothing else, would certainly be helpful if it's offered in the spirit of the Thread's intentions.

As an example, when I presented a "White" MMudd Light Fusion at the '04 Shoot-Out, under direct visual comparison...side by side...it equaled every aspect of the mfg. Silver Star, and smoked it as far as dark shadow detail.But there was a underlying reason for the latter that wasn't as nice a development as it should have represented. I came to realize that the gain the MMud-LF was achieving though the re-reflection of the projected light re-fusing with the surface Top Coat was effectively muting the depth of the projected black levels, the opposite of the "Silver based" Silver Star. A gain supported by a loss. Unacceptable.

So it's no wonder I started combining 2 oz of Silver Metallic to MMud, creating MMud-SE, and thereby maintaining both the snap of color and brilliance of whites while keeping all the benefits of any degree of Black levels the PJ was putting out.

BTW...wbassett, although you may dispute or disagree with the use of direct comparison as a effective source of test results, it has been widely accepted for a long time and used by the most reputable of screen Reviewers. It must strike some nascent cord in your Heart though or you wouldn't have said;

Tiddler; It was not until well after that test, (...made with a base I was specifically instructed to use by wbassett...) that it was determined that there was something a bit better that could/should be used. Because "a bit" is all that it amounts to really. However in the eyes of the Developer of any DIY application, anything better is always a major improvement. To myself included, so I'll not take further issue of it in that regard.

The SS used exactly the same UPW as specified in BCortez's thread. Else wise it would not be truly Silverscreen as we all know of it. I was very conscious of the need to be certain I gave everything shown a fair shake, and all examples were done with as much skill as is my ability to apply to them. The fact that I chose to let BW be represented as the actual 135" Screen surely showed my lack of bias toward it and my hopes that it actually was a application of merit. Every sample was shot upon with the same program content, from the same distance, using the same PJ. BW didn't do poorly as a whole, just significantly underperformed compared to applications that had no Mica or Aluminum present. No way you can blame that on the Base used.

And lastly, your commentary about screen transparency, supported by BigLyle's example is old news, widely known, and should only be expected of a mix that uses the same principles of mixing Poly into paint, and then which is applied correctly. Gray or otherwise. What seems to really be the main point your trying to make is that with your own sole experience and that of someone who admittedly did not make his metallic mix to anyone's specification than his own, you both had "Speckles on the Screen" issues.

I've yet to see posted about how far back...or rather how close to the Screen you have to be to see them? Nit picking about a situation that isn't an issue with 99.9% of Screen owners seems like....well, nitpicking for the sake of being contrary.

The exact opposite of what you experienced is true with any SF mix that is lighter than the absolute darkest I've ever attempted (4 oz Colorant mixed to base) and in that singular case, only when you stuck your nose up to the screen. But no one could because it was a 180" diagonal mounted 10' above the floor. Comments? It looks like a Window to another world! Granted it was being hit with almost 2800 lumens (1/2 illumination = 1 bulb of a Panasonic 5500 lumen 1080p Monster ) but one would consider that to be a case where if such a manifestation was to happen when a Dark Gray Metallic was being empolyed, there it would be of a certain.

S-I-L-V-E-R is another case altogether. If your 5 feet away you'll see the screen as being a slight 'speckling" of the clear blue in Sky shots. 2' away and you can see the same effect in bright colors. But at 10'+ it's a Window as well. A 16' x 9' Screen showing bright colors and deep blacks w/only 700 lumens coming from 27' away? You MUST admit that something special is happening, speckles or no. Show me another similar result, DIY or otherwise on AVS anywhere.

SF applications properly mixed and applied represent NO visability of Metallic Components at a distance of 12"... and at 2"....well yes...oops, there they are, if they are under intense and concentrated scrutiny.

From 2' from the screen you are in danger of feeling vertigo because the screen just isn't there. It's a cool effect, and I don't blame you a bit for heralding it as a very desirable trait for any screen to possess. Once experienced, it sets the standard for all else to measure up to.

In this one aspect the discussion about "Transparency" becomes relevant. Which "Metallic Reflective" DIY Screens have it and which don't. The answer is obvious in that regard.

It's all about the accentuation of colors and blacks that the additional reflection of Silver and Aluminum provides. They both contain Bright & Dark elements as used in the paints that we consider appropriate, that enhance the vibrancy of those aspects of a projected image....and even under 1.0 gain that would be and is an improvement over anything you'd see be presented by a simple Neutral Gray of the same shade. On that point I don't think any of us contentious Cusses would ever disagree. It's how much better one application's ingredients do it than the that is at issue here.


You simply gained a infinitesimal amount of gain over A. but lost considerable gain against B. In the world of "gain" a little more or less can make a big difference. But too little is going to be pretty much meaningless.

Now if you had asked specifically what you'd gain or lose between using applications that did or did not employ the use of metallic, then your answer would be directed back to my first paragraph.

Perhaps with my limited knowledge, I don't understand light the same way you do. Are you saying that colors are affected differently by the screen than grays and white? I think of the light coming off the screen as simply having a magnitude, or brightness, and being some color, or wavelength. What physical property exactly makes for increased vibrancy? What is vibrancy? How does any additive increase it?

You said "....and even under 1.0 gain that would be and is an improvement over anything you'd see be presented by a simple Neutral Gray of the same shade. On that point I don't think any of us contentious Cusses would ever disagree."

I suspect at least a few will disagree with that statement.

.

But your missing or overlooking the real meaning of what I said. I did not say Gamma was used to correct the Blue push....but to help restore the small degree of white brilliance (...that's attenuation to you....or a loss of intensity as you might prefer...) lost when such a push was adjusted out via calibration. And you must also consider that the push being adjusted is due to the screen...not the PJs own color output.

I do understand about why you used the word asinine, and in the hope you were simply mistaken in your observation and interpretation, I'm not offended by it's implications. But I think you should be a bit more observant and study the content of a sentence and the paragraph it resides in a bit more before augmenting your reply with such comments if suddenly you find yourself tempted to respond as such. You just might be wrong, and then......

Did I just "moderate" again?

No. I also mentioned Blacks, the opposite of which is White, so in between lies all your Grays


Yes. But the differences between those variables in Color and Gray Scale will result in a variance as to how those Colors or levels of Gray scale react.

I don't suppose it's too hard to fathom that a projected bright Gloss Red will reflect more light from a surface than a projected Russet Brown? The GR will thereby suffer a less serious hit in returned intensity when it reflects off a Gray, metallic supplemented or not, as far the Eye can ascertain...., than the RB, whose dull color was already brevet of no where near the visual brightness of the GR. Hello? That is why Gray Screens seem to increase Contrast. Through attenuation. But when Metallics are employed the RB can in the least retain it's original reflective quotient at or near 1.0 gain, while off any screen well under 1.0 gain it will still reap a benefit over a Gray surface with no added reflective properties.

Now why do you suppose people suggested and tried Poly Top Coats over Neutral Grays? Why, to try to restore lost brilliance and vibrancy that even Neutral Grays must suffer from, the level lost of which is dependent upon the shade of Gray. . (...vibrancy...there it is...again.)


Answered. More reflection of light. Reflection.


Certainly, but I was referring to those who have experienced the difference in one form or another and with one or the other (...or both...) the applications as are being discussed on this Thread. Everyone else is a Lurker until they can post why they disagree, and how they came to that conclusion. Cussedness is strictly optional.

The Thread will get old fast if more time is spent posturing and/or attacking personal aspects in the hope of thereby discounting any person's contributions. Likewise if questions are asked in a contentious vein. Let's enjoy discovering any truths or correcting any misconceptions

You know MM, I had just written a lengthy reply to your post above, but decided to not post it because I was getting "politely nasty" But I will say this; You over explain things quite often and your sentences get strung together. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks this either.

My stance hold about Gamma too.

Let the flaming begin.....