or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › D-cinema Equipment and Theaters › The ultimate RealD screen...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The ultimate RealD screen...

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 
It is known that the ideal screen for the RealD 3D system is yet to come. The sony reald torus screen is a worthy example, but a difficult one to make sound great specially at taller aspect ratios required for 3D.


There is no doubt in my mind that the zscreen provides the superior single projector 3D projection platform (better than the intra-glass glare affected Dolby system), the zscreen imperfections come with the perforated silver screens I am yet to see one that is ok. The solution is simple and one that will yield the most incredible RealD 3d on the planet:


Rear screen

Here is a 21 by 11 projection in a mall in dubai. IT IS RP.

In 1.85 sizes of up to 23 x 12 are possible.

There are many ways around the center channel, including absence of one.

It is time to respect the fact that the image is the superior component of the cinematic experience and stop being so cry baby about the center channel PERIOD. Image first everything else second. Unfortunately price is a secondary consideration for a screen like this...

Imagine last nights baseball game on this...

Here is a smaller version albeit at 270" too small for my palate.With the current crop of systems in our lab 90% of the DirecTV HD images look incredible in 9' x 17'. 12 x 23 would be ideal. Just for direcTV, Blu-ray would be insane.

I know this sounds crazy but is a fact. Time to sell your homes and move your family into new architectonics for larger rear projection cinema spaces. If you want the ultimate happiness that is.






It is time to organize a lobbying group to bring this technology to the better home theaters and public special venues.
LL
LL
LL
post #2 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

It is known that the ideal screen for the RealD 3D system is yet to come. The sony reald torus screen is a worthy example, but a difficult one to make sound great specially at taller aspect ratios required for 3D.


There is no doubt in my mind that the zscreen provides the superior single projector 3D projection platform (better than the intra-glass glare affected Dolby system), the zscreen imperfections come with the perforated silver screens I am yet to see one that is ok. The solution is simple and one that will yield the most incredible RealD 3d on the planet:




3D movies in cinemascope on that screen will look quite wonderful IMO. It has a good wrap-around effect. Studios should re-think the aspect ratio for 3D as 3D in cinemascope offers a more wider periphery to play around with for effects. It comes down to the director and how he films it.
post #3 of 40
Thread Starter 
Hi Haroon, While cinemascope is dramatic and perhaps more practical to fit in a typical family room or average 9 x 16 x 22' theater, I have come to appreciate the 1.85 aspect ratio or the 1.9 of the full DCI panel better on a loft situation with higher ceilings .Besides, CinemaScope rear screen in 11 or 12 feet high limits the possibility of having great sound by flanking the screen with loudspeaker columns.

It is time to start rethinking the way we build homes, we need bigger temple like structures for the giant rear screen and speaker columns on the side.
There was a 3D all star baseball game on two days ago that had incredible clarity imagine that on a 12 high by 23 wide rear screen.
post #4 of 40
Where can I get further info and details on such equipment? Just curious should I ever find a 40x30x20 foot room and a few million $ down the back of the sofa........
post #5 of 40
That 21 x11 looks amazing. Peter do you know if they are doing a blend with multiple projectors. I do not see an other way to map focus to the reverse curve one projector would see. Very nice.
post #6 of 40
Hmm, the 270" looks like natural size, it would be great on my room.
post #7 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

That 21 x11 looks amazing. Peter do you know if they are doing a blend with multiple projectors. I do not see an other way to map focus to the reverse curve one projector would see. Very nice.

Hi Alan, yes I have been having dreams about one of these.

That looks to me like a side by side blend.
post #8 of 40
Edge blending.
post #9 of 40
Quote:


Here is a smaller version albeit at 270" too small for my palate.With the current crop of systems in our lab 90% of the DirecTV HD images look incredible in 9' x 17'. 12 x 23 would be ideal.

huh? 270" is 11' x 19.6'.

Of the two theatres styles I'm considering, this is one size I'm thinking for my theatre (I was aiming for 250"). Seeing the picture there is giving me some scale...

I wonder what the throw distance is behind the screen? What size room would be needed back there? What do you find is the average seating distance (eye to screen) with a screen this size?

Cool, anyways...
post #10 of 40
Thread Starter 
With the superkontrast kayusha's best 4k lens .750 sw.
post #11 of 40
"It is time to respect the fact that the image is the superior component of the cinematic experience and stop being so cry baby about the center channel PERIOD. Image first everything else second. Unfortunately price is a secondary consideration for a screen like this... "

Tell me you are joking?
Sorry guys, but the "Center Channel" is an Integral part of the experience. You're missing the experience by compromising the sound.
post #12 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.sound View Post

"It is time to respect the fact that the image is the superior component of the cinematic experience and stop being so cry baby about the center channel PERIOD. Image first everything else second. Unfortunately price is a secondary consideration for a screen like this... "

Tell me you are joking?
Sorry guys, but the "Center Channel" is an Integral part of the experience. You're missing the experience by compromising the sound.

YES but NO.

With a name like Dr. Sound the comment is fitting. Look there are no rules as much as there is not one way to enjoy movies.


There are home theaters with acoustical perforated screens where what you say goes, but not everyone can blast sound in their viewing rooms...

There can be Viewing Rooms where the sound may come from just a pair of speakers, there are also half a dozen multichannel technologies that will accomodate a phantom center, or two centers off centre or a gazillion other possibilities. If it was me personally (please don't tell this to my clients) I would definetely jetisson the centre channel in favour of the biggest 3d rear screen possible, without sweating compromising "the experience".
post #13 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

YES but NO.

With a name like Dr. Sound the comment is fitting. Look there are no rules as much as there is not one way to enjoy movies.


There are home theaters with acoustical perforated screens where what you say goes, but not everyone can blast sound in their viewing rooms...

There can be Viewing Rooms where the sound may come from just a pair of speakers, there are also half a dozen multichannel technologies that will accomodate a phantom center, or two centers off centre or a gazillion other possibilities. If it was me personally (please don't tell this to my clients) I would definetely jetisson the centre channel in favour of the biggest 3d rear screen possible, without sweating compromising "the experience".

Sir,
With 30 years of working in Hollywood and seeing the best of both Sound and Vision, I wouldn't ever tell anyone to forget about any aspect of the "Whole Picture" and that includes Sound. Without this becoming a pissing match, you are doing a major disservice to all potential clients who would ask you for an unbiased professional opinion. Keep waiting for 4 K, but don't hold your breath. I have seen the future and it does include both Sound and Picture and it also includes a center speaker.
Signed a guy who actually makes and enjoys Feature Film making and not in just a guy who is in love with equipment!
post #14 of 40
Thread Starter 
I will earnestly take it under advisement, dr.
post #15 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.sound View Post

Sorry guys, but the "Center Channel" is an Integral part of the experience. You're missing the experience by compromising the sound.

With only one viewer in the room (which is my case), using a phantom center channel is much much better.

With an high end audio system, the imaging this way quite better than with a center channel.

The center channel is an evil needed when people are not located in the sweet spot. But either you compromise both sound and image by using a perf screen, or get a lousy imaging (and lousy sound) by using a small speaker below or above the screen.

If you use cinema like speakers which do not image well at all, then it's indeed less bad with a center channel.
post #16 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post

With only one viewer in the room (which is my case), using a phantom center channel is much much better.

With an high end audio system, the imaging this way quite better than with a center channel.

The center channel is an evil needed when people are not located in the sweet spot. But either you compromise both sound and image by using a perf screen, or get a lousy imaging (and lousy sound) by using a small speaker below or above the screen.

If you use cinema like speakers which do not image well at all, then it's indeed less bad with a center channel.

Robena,
Phantom center sounds wrong. No one mixing Movies mixes with a phantom center. Most so called "high end systems" have nearly zero relationship to how the soundtrack sounds when it was mixed. I have attended many a HI End show over the years and most of the speaker systems sound very poor.
Having a center speaker above or below the screen is not the way it should sound. The front speakers need to be on the same plane with equal height.
We'll leave it at that.
post #17 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.sound View Post

Having a center speaker above or below the screen is not the way it should sound. The front speakers need to be on the same plane with equal height.
We'll leave it at that.

And the only way to do that is to use a perf screen, which kills both the image and the sound.

There is just no way around that, that why all professional setups sound so bad.
post #18 of 40
Thread Starter 
The latest SMX screen shown at CEDIA (see testimonials under my sig) which ccool96 called the T-shirt, personally I think it is wedding dress grade gabardine , that screen given the correct light output does not compromise anything, it is just the .9 gain that needs to be contended with with a larger lamp.
post #19 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post

And the only way to do that is to use a perf screen, which kills both the image and the sound.

There is just no way around that, that why all professional setups sound so bad.

Robena,
Please name the "bad sounding professional set ups".
I know just about everyone in the Hollywood Sound Mixing community.
Your statement is not based on fact at all.
I understand your love for the visual aspect of Movies.
I don't understand your uneducated comments.
Also, all Hollywood Sound Mixes for Features are mixed through a perforated screen.
post #20 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.sound View Post

all Hollywood Sound Mixes for Features are mixed through a perforated screen.

Many of these big perf and micro perf setups have been replaced with woven or very fine woven materials... These have to sound better.
post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.sound View Post
Robena,
Please name the "bad sounding professional set ups".
Every theater, or home theater using a perf screen that I ever went to.

Quote:
I don't understand your uneducated comments.
These comments stem from comparing what I have at home (Goldmund full Epilogue system in phantom mode), and what I can hear with professional equipment (horns, perf screen and their comb filtering effect, in wall speakers behind the screen which completely destroys soundstaging).

There is nothing uneducated, on the contrary. I just have the right gear to make that assessment.

Quote:
Also, all Hollywood Sound Mixes for Features are mixed through a perforated screen.
I don't doubt it.

They need to replicate what is found in the theaters of course. But I don't, if I can do better.
post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post
Every theater, or home theater using a perf screen that I ever went to.



These comments stem from comparing what I have at home (Goldmund full Epilogue system in phantom mode), and what I can hear with professional equipment (horns, perf screen and their comb filtering effect, in wall speakers behind the screen which completely destroys soundstaging).

There is nothing uneducated, on the contrary. I just have the right gear to make that assessment.



I don't doubt it.

They need to replicate what is found in the theaters of course. But I don't, if I can do better.
You can do better, but the material (the mixes) were mixed through a perf screen......
How do you know how it is suppose to sound like?
How many hours have you sat on a "Dub Stage"?
What have you mixed?


As for some of the new screens while they may have the potential of being good, they aren't made in a large enough size for a typical Dub Stage.
They are only the size of a home theater which is considerably smaller.
Until they make them larger ......
post #23 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.sound View Post
You can do better, but the material (the mixes) were mixed through a perf screen......
So what?

That does not change the laws of acoustic.

If you have in-wall speakers behind the screen, you just don't have soundstaging.

And if you kill the bandwidth with comb filtering, you can't compensate for it by boosting the high as it is done with perf screens, because that mathematically works only with periodical signals, not with transients.

Quote:
How many hours have you sat on a "Dub Stage"?
You are just used to how bad it sounds.
post #24 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post
So what?

That does not change the laws of acoustic.

If you have in-wall speakers behind the screen, you just don't have soundstaging.

And if you kill the bandwidth with comb filtering, you can't compensate for it by boosting the high as it is done with perf screens, because that mathematically works only with periodical signals, not with transients.



You are just used to how bad it sounds.
And you are using a "Phantom Center" and you think you
know how it should sound.
List all the mix places that do Major Features that mix with a phantom center?
How many places that mix Movies mix with your Goldmund's?
I guess every one is wrong but you are right? Right!
post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr.sound View Post
I guess every one is wrong but you are right? Right!
Every one is certainly right, because a center channel is the only way to accommodate more than one listener in the room.

But it's a compromise, and being alone, I don't need to abide by it if I can do better.
post #26 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Many of these big perf and micro perf setups have been replaced with woven or very fine woven materials... These have to sound better.

Cool ive yet to hear a setup with a fine woven screen instead of perfs. When you say they sound better do you mean that the highs sound better then a conventional micro perf screen or does it allow better transparency for all frequencies?
post #27 of 40
post #28 of 40
Thread Starter 
The woven screens blow the micro perfs. out of the water, sorry (visually too).

The old woven screen material is just 1 db down across the entire mid and high frequency, the new appears more transparent since there is no fiberglass reinforcement it is like speaker cloth.
post #29 of 40
Unless Stewart has something new that I haven't seen, it isn't in the same league as SMX. The last time I measured I could see the perfs at something like 12 feet. You can see Peter's video for how close you need to be to see texture on a SMX screen.
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

Unless Stewart has something new that I haven't seen, it isn't in the same league as SMX. The last time I measured I could see the perfs at something like 12 feet. You can see Peter's video for how close you need to be to see texture on a SMX screen.

I have an SMX screen with the new 4k material. I can not see any pattern to the screen material at all from more than about 3 feet away. And it has to be the closest screen material to "true acoustically transparent" that I personally have heard! And I have used the Stewart microperf in the past. And there is NO comparison.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: D-cinema Equipment and Theaters
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › D-cinema Equipment and Theaters › The ultimate RealD screen...