"DIY screen paint" article at Projectorcentral.com - Page 2

you can't take away the main outlet of enthusiasum a DIY'er has to show off his sucess.

Well your are the thread starter and you could irrevocably state "no Sreen shots" and I'm sure the Traffic will reflect that dictate.

If your intent was to simply notify AVS DIY Screen advocates of the article, then that was a success. I'm at a loss as to why, if your thread attracts passionate DIY'ers and all that entails, why that is to be considered "bad"? People with stories and results to share are 1/2 of what DIY is all about.

The other 1/2 is all about the "doing".

If you simply harbor ill will to those who delight in posting examples of what they state they see in person, then all that can be said for you is.....

"You knew the Job was Dangerous when you took it."

But in that case the poster was describing why the ambient light performance results he saw had help drive his decision making. Such shots are not about "Eye Candy" but rather to show how well defined an image can be under torturous conditions.

When all else is said and done, I don't think you'd venture to say the posted screen shot did not illustrate a screen performing far in excess to a White screen, or even a simple neutral gray one.

Would you?

There have been hundreds of thousands of Screen shots posted on AVS in the last 10 years, but a very tiny percentage have been decent looking examples of screens looking good under extremely high levels of ambient light. That is what such screens are all about, and ambient light screen shots show what is happening to a far greater extent than Dark Room Eye Candy shots.

Under that premise, it's perfectly acceptable for someone to look at such screen shots and say " I got'sta git me one a-dose!"

I'd have to say the tone of Evans last email has become far more conciliatory and promotive of a wider ranging review that will include applications a far greater majority of People might choose.

Rick, I for one appreciate you level headed overtures to Evan and I want you to realize I personally thank you for that effort.

In truth, I cannot interact too much less it appear I'm trying to manipulate the situation, so this is a time were having many who have experience and valid observations to offer can be a big help.

I would just like to see the exact numbers of just ONE of the DIY solutions up against the several thousand dollar options. This way it wouldnt disparage anything, just simply prove a point.


Im doing just this now with the jvc x3/rs40. I started looking into the epson 8700 i know, but then decided to jump into the 3d and a slightly better PJ with the dough saved from not having to buy a screen!! I cant wait to document my results.


It's only as messy as you want, I could personally guarantee you that if I took you into the room where I sprayed my screen two days after I was finished, you wouldnt know anything had even been done.

If your woman doesnt appreciate your DIY nature, go find you a better woman that will consider the nicer screen a treat just kidding.

Many of us are employed, Ive worked many late nights to get my HT almost up and running. but the joy of having home projects is one that I will always have. DIY is not for everyone. I wouldnt suggest to someone that is dreading the process to not even think about doing it. If after every coat you are cursing that you ever started, you obviously chose wrong.

Yea, if you read what I edited out good for you, didnt want to leave it there for long

My pleasure, I think this is valuable knowledge for anyone who's thinking of building a home theater to have. I thought letting Evan know that there are some other options out there would be a good thing. I hope he is able to test out some of the mixes that you guys have put so much time and effort into developing and I hope he puts the word out there to an even wider audience.

Keep up the good work!

Long enough. As the old song goes;

"Where can I find a Woman like that!?"

There is only certain kinds of Latex smells my Wife can handle. And unfortunately, they all seem to be present only in the Kitchen.

Knew that wouldnt slip past you...

In all honesty, i would like to see a hard comparison between the ST130 and say, SF3.0 since that is the standard starting point. Just to see the scientific side of things. PURELY for that.

That would be like comparing apples to oranges. The st130 is a reference white, the SF 3.0 a reflective Gray.

A more apt comparison would be a RS-MaxxMudd LL or better yet, a MMudd 3:1 mix.

But be advised that a great many White vs Gray comparisons have been posted...with the obvious results. One of which are responses that comparing White to a Gray is a mismatch and non- conclusive except in the area of improved Blacks, because otherwise, with most stock Grays, Whites suffer crushing and/or "graying".

White screens because a non issue some time ago when MMudd SE (Silver Edition) disposed the original MMudd. Even though MMudd had proven itself in one-on-one comparisons against the ST130 back as far as 2003, just as soon as that happened a few individuals started complaining how...like the ST130...MMudd did nothing to improve Blacks, and in fact...also like the ST130, could actually reduce Black Levels due to it's higher gain and 180 degree light scattering.

I did not want to "Gray it up" using the known methods at the time (Lamp Black) so I reasoned that just enough Silver Metallic to impart a slight silvery gray tint would have to be "Mo Bedder". And it was...by a great leap and bound. MMudd-SE was born. About 1 year later I met up with PB-Maxxx, and we combined ideasa that turned MMudd-SE into RS-MaxxMudd*
*Radiant Silver Maximum Mudd"

Ever since, some degree of Gray has ruled the day. Those who had CRT PJs of course were still happy with ST130s, because their Blacks were the best in the Genre, and light reflections were seldom an issue in the dedicated Home Theaters that $25K PJs resided in.

In truth, the better paints we have available 10 years later make 1-Can White solutions like the Sherwin Williams featured in the article possible. There was no such critter around back in 2002-3 or believe me, the industrious, ever diligent and penny-pinching explorers in the DIY community would have hit upon it.

If I would have had to pay for a screen, I probably would not have gone the projector route. I almost went with GOO until I came upon this forum. In reading the positive comments below the article in question, I just wonder if any of those that will go with the solutions recommended there have a clue that there are "Mo Bedder" solutions. If yer gonna paint, you might as well get the best results possible.

true. i doubt most of them have a clue.

ask many of the recent diy'ers with the lastest epson & 1080p projectors and they will tell you that their PJ's looked great of a white wall.

then ask them after they've done a mo' better screen whether they'd go back to a white screen and the answer for the vast majority would be 'absolutely not'.

ABSOLUTELY NOT is an understatement.

I was literally blown away with the Epson on my white kilz wall but now 2 weeks after I painted my SF v1 3.0 screen. There is no comparison. I would never want to go back.

If you include the primer you paint on, you can literally have a painted screen in less than 3 hours total work time.

I'm not a painter but do fashion myself a budget minded DIY-er and would suggest this solution to just about anyone. I'm pushing 2 other people down this path as we speak.

My projector was "watchable" on a brown wall. Incredible on the SF2 screen. I know there are better projectors at higher prices, but cost/benefit at this level would be hard to add to the enjoyment.

Thanks for all who contributed prior to my coming here.

And I want to thank those who have chosen to chime in and get the tone of this thread under control and directed toward perhaps something closer to being advantageous to our getting DIY Screen Making "as a whole" some well deserved recognition.

If anyone cares to make their choices known elsewhere where they might help influence other budding DIY enthusiasts, go post your choice on the Poll contained in the
Beginner's Delight" Thread . http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1169535

A question for Mississippi Man or anyone else who thinks they know? I've been reading a lot of the stuff here, but am just not sure of the answer.

So I used the Sherwin Williams paint the Projector Central article recommends and got a pretty good result. It was quick, cheap, and easy. I have a new RS40 and a really large screen and long throw in a light controlled basement. I was just shooting on to white Valspar primer before, this put some gain into it and does look better.

I'm trying to get some more gain for 3D which is of course darker with the glasses. I was wondering if I put an additional coat of say the Minwax polyacrylic satin over the Sherwin Williams, would that add even a bit more gain?

I'm liking my 2D picture pretty well now, and don't want hot spotting or color shifts (obviously), but would still like to get some more punch to the 3D image.

Also, there's a fellow selling a formula on eBay that is inexpensive, but I don't think his regular formula will give me much more gain. He calls it "Video Screen Solution" - anyone here tried this or know about it?

Thanks all!

S A M 33

Got a headache reading these posts... just a newbie novice here with a Epson 8350 shooting onto a plain primed wall until a come up with what I will do for a screen. Like the simple paint it ideas as just the picture on the primed wall looks great... anyone have a basic paint recipe or pre-mix paint to recommend? thanks..

Evan asked a good question. A claim was made that you had paints that were better than a Stewart Studiotek 100, or 130. The most important part of his inquiry and he was quick to get there. Nothing snippy about that inquiry to my thinking but it was not answered. In light of the fact that it did not get answered I am surprised first off that that the comparison was stated without being able to state why a product is better.

I hear some rantings about that science and real testing is some nasty business that has no business in diy. Well no wonder people that believe in testing did an exodus as described. All you are left with is a person making unsubstantiated claims.

If the claim being made is its better then one would expect that there is a thread here amongst the piles of boasting and chest pumping to be one post where the testing was conducted. How the test was conducted, what instruments were used, what aspects of the screen were tested, and how each test was conducted.

Credibility... If you been doing this for how many years and have been making the claim that you beat the Stewart 100 and 130 shouldn't this information be available?

Further on the credibility front, I am a bit confused. A statement was made that at a trade show where a screen was shown to compare with all other screens and 95 percent of the people chose your screen. Now I am really confused. I read verbiage that states that the presence here is to develop diy yet you aren't saying you went to a trade show to not sell your screens?

95 percent of a population of how many said what?

Seriously you might want to consider that Evan was being extremely polite in light of the fact you could not answer the science.

If you alienated the people with instruments to test what you were doing with science then that is unfortunate. Most everything in a screen can be measured.

Reference screens are designed for a reference room. Other Non reference screens are designed to overcome or minimize effects of a non reference room.

Designing the directionality of the reflected light is a method used to resolve issues with the room. How do you do this with a paint brush? With a paint gun?

Uniformity.. How do you control uniformity with no control over directionality?

Silver screens.. Why would someone want a silver screen? That's an easy one to answer on the opposite viewpoint and again the politeness shown in response was commendable by Evan. Overall I gained a lot of respect for Evan in his response.

It's 2012, shouldn't you have been able to show the measured results to support your claim of being better? Each attribute is measurable? In the absence of this what do you have other than a guy saying mine is better. In fact aren't you breaking the rules of this forum by making an unsubstantiated claim? I will admit that if you have people that simply believe it just cuz its solo much easier.

There is a defined list of attributes that make a screen. The list of attributes that is measured by most manufacturers is shown.

Suggesting that people left that wanted the science doesn't sound right.

I have a screen here in fact that has had a claim to be brighter than a silverstar and high power to abs members, it was caimed further that it had no directionality. When asked how the light therefore was being amplified there was no answer. Turned out the screen had a negative gain. It was stated that the screen coating was as neutral as a stewart studiotek 130. It turned out to be far from color neutral. It was reported to be uniform..and it was far from it from any seating angle. Now I still have that screen and all the claims made about it. I also posted pics showing the brightness claims to be patently false.

Now manufacturers make screens to cover many varieties of deficiencies in someone's room. Would most people choose a reference screen in a reference room?

When I did my shootout as many people that loved the silverstar hated it.

Should you believe some story about something being better for you with no documented substantiated tests. I don't think so. Should you believe all the tests from every manufacturer? I actually know some manufacturers that measure gain improperly for instance.

Might be the easiest to make unsubstantiated claims and to just believe those just cuz but the simple fact is when they are being made by someone who sells them and promotes the sale of them at trade shows who can't be bothered with the science then it sure gets me scratching the side of my head. To suggest that life is far better on a forum with the guys that wanted the science gone?? Does that sound right? Did these guys go to trade shows?

Bottom line why can't you give Evan the science and would the guys that left the forum been able to do a better job. This is AVScience not AVScreenpoop.

Stick with the science.

Science is interesting, but in subjective matters like screen choice I'd rather go with experience and what I like. Its like that old saying, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. I could analyze a plate of food and say organic is better given the "science" but usually (not always) it really isn't, just cost a heck of lot more.

I rolled a BW screen as it was Winter here. I like it a lot, but get an occasional sparkle. I have a piece of Sintra I am waiting to spray. Still not sure what I am going to mix up and spray. I do know that I prefer Gray even though I have a totally light controlled HT room. I've read all the stuff and it just gives me a brain cramp.

My bottom line is that screens are very subjective so science is interesting but a second consideration. Film buffs would hate my current settings/screen, but the NCAA games over cable were really brilliant last night, many compliments on the new set-up.

Science is great. Used carefully, it gives us an objective starting point to rule out that which won't please us. But beyond that, almost everyone makes their final choice based on preference, not specs. Here's a great example:


A screen can meet all the measured "requirements" and still be rejected by many. The ultimate test is personal preference, a factor that will never have a scientific test. Is it possible for a screen with no published specs to thrill intelligent people? Obviously it is, or we wouldn't see so many glowing reports of such screens.

"Stick with science" is one possible approach, but to me it seems a rather narrow mantra. Personally, I use both objective AND subjective testing when making any equipment decision, and not just for home theater. If science were the end-all, all the "smart" people would drive the exact same car...

Science, when used as a club to convince with, or justification to dissuade, is counterproductive. In all the past instances by the concerned parties, the general intent was to do such. In fact, it was just that, the turning toward a different, supposedly "impressive" method to disclaim others efforts, rather than just simply being abusive, which wasn't getting them anywhere except in trouble. That, and the hope that by focusing on such methods, the use of "science" itself would tend to belittle the more simplistic efforts of those determined to try to keep DIY Screen making simple enough for anyone.

That's actually very funny because in truth, someone who can ace out a decent DIY Screen app without having to go to school to delve into the intricacies of color theory, and/or rely on expensive test equipment to justify their ideas and work, would seem to be the real "genius". (...yours truly not withstanding... ) Add to that the willingness to selflessly share that knowledge and ability with any / all comers and that speaks of true DIY'ism and selfless efforts. (...now that I'll lay some claim to... )

Despite comments to the contrary, involvement in DIY is solely intended to help DIY'ers do it right...the first time around. It matters not one whit how many screens or sound systems are placed with off-Forum Customers...what matters is that anyone who asks for help within the DIY Community receive such help from those qualified to give it. If it comes from someone "in the business", that should speak all the more loudly that people are getting some good feedback and purposeful direction. Only those with some grudge or hidden motive would seek to deny others such an opportunity.

Myself, being someone who designs Home Theaters and makes Screens for a living...while that might irk some individuals, for whatever reasons or motives they have to deny others help, it's not something I or others like me can be overly concerned about.
....unless they post with the sole intent to disrupt the flow of help and/or deny such to others.

If/when that happens, it will be stopped. The truth being that is a primary reason such postings by such individuals occur...to create issues, and worries when none should exist.

JohnGraz, you can easily and readily receive all the information and help you need without getting Brain-lock syndrome. We've helped thousands over the last 10 years. You need but ask, and wisely choose to ignore those whose sole intent is to post diatribes to incite, bait, mislead and insult. Their postings are not relevant, and will not long stand against the light of day. Leastwise on DIY Screens where helping, not hindering is the rule of thumb we live by.

Science is a good communication device when it comes to a screen. If a perfect room and projector for the size of the area we want to light up it becomes a pretty easy solution. When a professional goes into a room that isnt perfect then compromises start to take place based on the budget, and the process begins based on science and numbers. The person wants a screen xxx" wide. .. They have a desire to keep white ceilings, or bright walls or have a multi use room with lighting and also want do 3D or not. All are a list of variables. It isnt a crap shoot. You have to have a screen that reflects light or absorbs it. You have to provide a screen which has the directionality in the design that is going to fit the shortcomings of the room and projector. You can get a uniform image even with a high power screen if the parameters and the placements and measurements are done properly. Knowing how to calculate these factors is not subjective.

If someone is trying to assist in the DIY forums I kind of remember years ago guys talking sensibly about what pigments were used and what affects these had. It doesnt take a scientist to look at he pigments of what is being recommended and know what the resultant affect will be. If someone claims neutral and you look at the behr pigments in a paint recommended you can be assured if you know what you are doing that it is not going to be neutral.

If the products and selections are with properly provided numbers then one can predictably know what the results are. Now if lets say we have a group of DIY guys that are making a host of different products and we know the science and instead of call it silver dorado, or white mustang, but rather talked in terms of what they are to a standard or then I would suggest that the communication becomes much better. Failing that you have a person saying that this screen is great and beats the Studiotek 100 and 130 and we beat that back in 2004 without still be able to say HOW specifically and its 2012. All the experimentation of just hyperbole and breast pounding isnt going to convince anyone but if its true one properly held experiment will prove someone right or wrong. Here you can't even get to what defines a screen.

Whats the standard for a screen here. When does a painted surface become a screen. Is it easy to demonstrate how critical a screen is?? Is the screen a critical part of the projection system? Basic starting points.
If the part of the forum is that screens are an optional part of the equation then ok.. I get it. Its like how roads are optional for cars.

I've seen in here recommendations where I know with science that the combination of two types of paints or substances will age to a yellow or have further drastic effects not really desirable to be in a home environment. How do you suspect that this type of information was met?

So in the interest of brevity, how is it that people can come on here and say they make screens better than Stewart and Goo and Vutec and the WORLD and have not one shred of science to back it up. Its funny that you mention that Silverstar reference because I had a DIY screen that was claimed to be brighter then the Silverstar and the high power DaLite. Guess what ?it measured a negative gain. It was claimed to have zero directionality and still be brighter and when asked how was this possible and what is therefore amplifying the light as it hits the sceen there was silence... not science. It was also suppose to be the most color neutral. It was in fact not neutral at all. It was claimed to be uniform. In the absence of fact you get fiction.

If you make claims about something being better then its simple.. how is it better? How did you arrive at that conclusion?? So basic.

How many experiments to prove the conclusion .. ONE that uses real measurements.

So lets define something I want. I want a screen that reflects back as closely as possible what is being projected out of my projector. I don't want it brighter, I don't want the screen to push the color balance in any direction, I don't want a granular surface. I want a uniform image from all seating locations. I don't want or need extra brightness, and I do not require the screen to provide me any additional contrast. Now this isnt really science... So please do tell all the screens that have surpassed the Studiotek 100 and 130 for providing me the aforementioned attributes, and how was this conclusion made since some y'all have "been there, done that".

All I gotta do is take it and make a sample and bammm off to the races. While I am at it I may test Evans formula.

[quote=MississippiMan;21787177]Science, when used as a club to convince with, or justification to dissuade, is counterproductive.

I had a screen and you made the claims that it was brighter than a Silverstar and a 2.8 glass beaded HiPower, Turned out to have a negative gain.

It was suppose to be a first surface mirror. It was an acrylic NON first surface mirror.

It was suppose to be color neutral and it was pink, and blue, which I guess if you like PINK polar bears and snow it was great.

It was stated that it had the brightness of the Silverstar and yet it had no hotspotting or in fact zero directionality to the screen whatsoever. When asked how is the light then getting amplified there was silence>.. Really lost a lot of people on that one. Didnt turn out to even have a positive gain so there was point beating it to death.

It was suppose to be more uniform than the Stewart 130. Well you get the picture of why the skepticism creeps in.

By my own measure you are successful because you keep having failure after failure and have not lost enthusiasm.

A screen is not that complicated but you have to be able to direct the light to resolve inadequacies in the projection system if present. Theres gotta be a reason you reflect, reject, absorb and direct the light including the ambient light. There really is very few variables.. You have to be able to adjust contrast if necessary.. Take Joe Kane. he defined his issues and went and designed three screens to cover most every situation for his projector until there is a 12k or greater resolution projector and it took him 2 months for a production product. One of the biggest flaws in screens being a granular surface.

I gave that same review of that silverscreen behr formula how many years ago? I reported it and moved on. So yeah I did dissuade people from making that screen for sure. I also took some shots for people of that first surface non first surface mirror. They also got to see that the "brightness"claims were completely a draw on the imagination.


Reality Check.. In this thread you stated you surpassed the Goo, and the Studiotek 100, and 130 back in 2004. I just missed it and am trying to find out how? why? and with what. As stated its a public forum.

Anyone know how to answer that fairly obvious question that Evan also asked and I don't see a response to.

You just described a plain white screen with unity or nominal gain. If that's what you want - and you feel it will work best in your environment - then by all means use one of those screens. Or, to save a buck, you may want to just carefully paint a properly prepared wall with any good quality latex white paint ...

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed to make a better white than white. The issue is real-world home theater environments, where improvements in image satisfaction can be made many ways, both commercial and DIY. In this real world, specs become less meaningful...

As you said, many don't like the Silverstar. Yet its specs are the same as other screens that they may find satisfying. Some things can be measured, others can't. Gain, viewing cone, and color neutrality are measurable, and many manufacturers provide these specs. But viewers often comment on things like "grain", "sparklies", and "perceived contrast"... Where are the specs on these qualities? There are none, because they are subjective, and can't be measured.

And even if a definition and measurement system were developed for such qualities, they would remain subjective. The simple fact is that individuals vary widely in their tastes. This is why one praises what the other rejects.

When you state "I want a screen that reflects back as closely as possible what is being projected out of my projector.", you may very well have placed yourself in the minority. Absolute accuracy in brightness, chroma, and contrast have seldom been provided (or required!) for the average viewer. You can tell someone all day long that his choice is bad based on your specifications, but when he sees what he likes, he knows it, and specs be damned.

It is in this realm - not the laboratory - that DIY offers real-world solutions and satisfaction.

I can easily measure sparklies,and contrast, I am not sure what you mean by grain. Perceived contrast over real contrast. I think I can make a case for real ansi contrast and that it will be a superior measure than someone's perception. This would allow people that do not even know what contrast is to say they perceive something that does not exist. Is real measurable contrast going to look like or perceived to be less? Only by someone who doesn't know any better.

You make a statement that I would be in the minority by wanting an accurate image. I disagree. The entire industry is based upon attaining this. When I first started out many years ago I made screen coatings. I worked with a lab and came up with a product. The problem back then was that you couldn't change and correct projectors with the cms systems on the projector so I was going to make a coating to correct the projector.

I happened to run into Ken from Goo when I was going to show the product and it was going to be commercial. The vagaries in this was that it was very expensive to make. You say just go to store and buy some paint. I knew that store bought paint did not have the quality of pigment or the amount of pigment I needed for success. The original goo product has exponentially more pigment in it and is a good quality than a house paint you are going to find at home Depot. Despite what I seen here earlier regarding some false statement that quality pigments were not available in the past. This is total nonsense. In fact as the pigment cost go up the amount of talc in hour store bought paints go up. The wild card is how do you make it where a common joe shmo can apply it properly. A factory can nc control their spraying process and can control humidity, drying and curing process, and can charge the process for the directionality they want to achieve. In any event I thought before ordering drums of the mix I would take a look at what guys would do with the Goo. It was and remains a great product. If you look at the amount of pigment you get. vs a store bought paint its still a bargain.

So to cut to the chase I discovered that my solution was too expensive for the common guy. When I looked at the results of what some guys were doing as far as the application of coats the were for the most part butchering the results. I offered my gravity feed gun and compressor for free.

It was my experience at the time that people that were interested in making a screen were over 90 percent looking for something cheap vs a venture of fidelity. I also worked with an individual for a while to see if it was possible to to convert the energy in light outside our human spectrum.

I can't reproduce a resin screen, resin does not react to light as pigment. Pigmented screens are more granular.

I will still spray a screen if I need something specific.

What you seem to be saying tho is that you do not really want people in the forum that know what they are doing great and can measure results. It's better for people to communicate their perceptions then have a reality based communication.

See I always think it's preferred to start at fidelity and make adjustments from that point. I would never assume people want to see pink polar bears and snow. In fact I go go as far as saying the person who would make the assumption would not know what they were doing. The other possibility is that the color they see.. NOT perceive is vastly off. The screens presented by Mississippi man were so far off color neutral we had pink polar bears on one screen and blue on the other. Would someone who knew what they were doing been able to easily predict this by looking at the pigment in the paint used?Absolutely!! It's science but it sure isn't rocket science.

We all have a unique color signature. Isn't that a good argument for testing and providing results and most importantly sharing the information.

If someone is making pink screen and telling people they are color neutral is it helping those people. If they state a screen is brighter then xyz and other attributes that are false is it helping others? Preying on people's ignorance may be a apt description.

People have a budget to spend. If they were building a screen with fidelity they would spend it on other products or services that would elevate their room. Follow the logic... You are in the business and you get your business through references. You want your rooms to look and sound their best because afterall they are your showrooms. If a customer wanted make their own screen and it was going to look great and they had money for other aspects of the room is that going to be a good or bad for my business?

First you allowed the creation of the planet of the apes then you built a bubble around it.

You see I candidly told you what I wanted iin a screen. Your response was quite so far off attaining my goal that makes it difficult to impossible to communicate. You didn't ask why wouldn't the solution you presented achieve my goal. Further you don't understand why I would want to have a screen that is capable of producing an image that my projector is capable of. You suggest that the majority of people want an alternative to what the projector is capable of and want something entirely different without being able to say what that is except that they know it when they see it.

Sounds like the blind following the blind to me and all speaking a different languages.

If someone wants a bad screen that's their choice but do allow for the possibility that it may also be chosen out of ignorance, lack of information, and having nothing to compare.

You are saying the majority of people want to see an image reflecting off the screen that is differently than producers, directors,and cinematographer would want to view it.

I can tell you this, no genius would assume people want to see pink polar bears, lose detail on their image, and have a host of aberrations on their reflected images.

You don't have a diy forum as much as you have a people getting pushed out of the forum by someone who hopes to sell a screen that may actually believe that they can produce a better screen. Even though they can't say why, or how it's better.

To stay in hour happy ward I wouldn't go advertising people in the business to do a real review. Look what happened with the behr solution by Evan. Chances are people might be handing out jackets that tie in the back for something so horrid lasting so long as a solution on anything that has science associated with it.

very interesting debate (from both sides).

i hope this thread doesn't get locked up or any one being banned.

you may continue please.....

Sorry not really following you here mandarax but it seems you are cautioning against some of the DIY paints recommended on this forum because they are not as color neutral as a whiter solution?

I understand your concerns about wanting some kind of measureable scientific evaluation completed so there is a baseline, but just to speak for a moment on the color neutrality aspect....

I believe most applications anyone seeks on these forums almost always involves some degree of ambient lighting. I have witnessed firsthand after painting 3 screens the "color shift" that occurs once the color goes from white to grey, and while it is there its nothing to get up in arms about. To most people seeking advice here, the contrast you gain by having darker blacks far outweighs any color shift the grey paint might incur.

Anyone who is driven to have the most accurate picture possible will most likely be buying calibration equipment at some point as well. Calibrating the image yourself is totally DIY and I would think most people who build their own home theater, paint their own screen, etc would be right down that alley as well.

I am glad you brought up calibration. It 's a big factor in overall image quality.

You mean people actually calibrate to the Grayness of the screen, to compensate and correct?

Why...who knew???

In the all in all, even comparing a dead on neutral -1.0 gain Gray to a +1.0 gain pristine White is a pointless endeavor, unless the entire comparison revolves around ambient light performance. And as stated in the review, if such were the case, either a perfect Neutral Gray or the SS would win by a extremely wide margin.

One must wonder why they chose SS over an easily obtained mix that would have been Neutral. They could have double dipped even, and done one screen as a neutral Gray using the exact same SW paint only adding the Gray. Two optimally made screens...each of them under $100 wonders...and a direct comparison made between both...pros and cons. A pretty easy do if only the "dead on neutral" had been mixed instead of SS

Makes one stop and pause to think how the entire gest of the article might have been re-directed. Pretty much all good it would seem to me.

the objective RGB data from behr labs, and several other sources suggests SS as being near nuetral.

now as far as the article is concerned...actually, no blue is used within SS.
but if you know a little about pigments/colorants used by the big box stores...
then you know that the purity of the lamp black is the culprit and why SS uses an additional color (that color being burnt amber).
the burnt amber is there to correct for the lamp black not being pure.
problem is, it's not enough.
poor flesh tones, dingy light yellows, black levels and dark colors push too dark for the fairly light level of grey that SS is, and white levels are too muted.

the second part of the equation has to do with the medium itself... resulting in a fuzzy/de-focused image...
and that has to do with the paint medium.

the beauty of today's higher lumen pj's is that they gloss over and push past some of these caveats by basically overpowering the grey screen, white screen, brown wall, or anything being used as a screen... and therefore, without anything to compare to... a newbie to projection screens thinks they are getting a really good picture.

truth is, regardless of the contrast, the deepest blacks will always be a result of your screen color, gain, and theater conditions...
which adds for the relevancy of grey screens.
the higher up reps from nearly all the high end pj makers at CES... were are ALL recommending grey screens to highlight the increased contrast ratios and enhance the potential of their lastest pj offerings.[/