or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › DIY Screen Section › The Official Silver Fire V.2 Thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Silver Fire V.2 Thread. - Page 42

post #1231 of 1462
Ok the paint gun and needle I have been waiting for came yesterday. I am all set to mix some paint and get this screen done. I went with the Graco Hv2900 and a 1.0mm spray needle. I just want to make sure 3.0 is the right shade. Here are the specs again. Epson 705hd on econo mode puts out 1960 lumens and 2500 lumens on bright mode. Mounted at about 10.5 feet projecting on a 92 inch screen. My walls are a brown and tan with a white ceiling. The room has a few windows but I have blackout curtains on them and most of the day light is blocked. Now there is a saltwater tank that is on one side of the room and it has 300 watts of metal halide lighting for corals. As of now it does not really affect the screen. Also I will be either spraying the screen in the garage or outside in the back yard because of the fish tanks and also the wife said no to it being sprayed in the house. I am anxiouse and ready to get this done and I am hoping it will be tomorrow. Just want to make sure I have not missed anything.

Thank you
post #1232 of 1462

Hello,

I just finished building my man cave, and am trying to do this right the first time.

 

I just bought a Panny AE-8000U and have it mounted on the ceiling and is projecting a 120" 16:9 picture on the painted wall. My seating is about 15' from the wall

 

The room has a lot of ambient light (no direct sun) due to double french doors on the side going out to the pool which I would rather not curtain off (I want to watch my wife swim and sunbathe while I watch football).

 

It appears the Silver Fire 2.5 mix would be perfect for my situation.

 

I was thinking of using a Hue of 5 because of the brightness of the projector and the amount of ambient light. Any thoughts?

 

Thank you

post #1233 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Phil,

Your right on the money with your thoughts, but given the opportunity to intervene first before you mounted the projector, I would have suggested that you mount the Panny within 12" of the closest Throw Distance that allows you to get that 120"er

Use of the darker formula when combined with lumen conservation equals maximum performance. But unless you stuck the Panny way back into the next room (20'+), your probably going to be just fine.

Now all you have to do is tell me your Panny is mounted at 12' -9" and all will be right in the world. biggrin.gif
post #1234 of 1462

Thank you for your response. Its nice to hear confirmation from the expert.

 

About the projector location, I wondered if the throw distance played into the formula somehow, but the Panny manual didn't mention anything. Its not too late to move the projector, but would you mind explaining the physics (or posting a link) of projector throw distance and how it affects the image?

post #1235 of 1462
Thread Starter 
It is pretty simple. Longer throw distance means the light loses brightness which in turn reduces the reflective potential of the screen. Having a darker screen only adds to any potential reduction . A shorter Throw simply means that you will have more lumen output delivered to the screen surface, therein increasing Foot Lambert levels, a measurement of the amount of the screens reflectivity.

I already gave you what amounts to being the most optimal placement distance to maximize your lumen output.

Not much more I can add to that, except go get'ter dun!
post #1236 of 1462
I finished painting another patch on my test hardboard last night. I had originally intended to do v.2.5 1.0, then 2.0, then 3.0, then 4.0 but jumped straight on to 4.0 having finished the 1.0 patch over the weekend.

I was pretty surprised to see that the difference in the darkness of the grey paint when moving from 1.0 to 4.0 is quite subtle when you first look at it, and I was wondering how much difference there would be between the 1.0 and 4.0 with a projected image.

I had a bit of time spare this morning before heading to the office, so with the paint dried overnight, I was able to take a look at the performance in the day.

As I've said several times before, my room is predominantly white, and though there are several windows along one side, we have blinds that block out about 80% of the light, and the high fence and trees in the small yard mean that there is not any direct sunlight hitting the windows either. Having said that, it's certainly bright enough to not need any lights on to read in the day (I should make a measurement of the ambient light rather than just describing it!).

I'm rambling, when what I really want to say is WOW! SF v2.5 4.0 in the day is spectacular. The contrast improvement is truly impressive, and there doesn't appear to be any colour shift, nor any huge loss in peak brightness; I'm really very impressed.

As I said in my previous posts, I very rarely do any viewing with ambient light present, and I'm really trying to combat reflected projection light rather than true ambient. SF v2.5 4.0 does appear to have slightly more sparkles than 1.0, and I'm assuming that is just the way it is. I'll do some more test viewings tonight after dark to see if it's too distracting.

One last point to make... Spraying the SF blend really is very very easy; far easier than I was expecting. There is of course always the potential for runs if you spray too heavy, but following the suggestions on this thread (and others), I had no problems whatsoever.

Remaining Questions:

  • Is there anything I can do to reduce the 'sparkly' nature of the SF paint, particularly in brighter parts of the image?
  • Is reducing the effect of reflected projection light more difficult than reducing ambient light? (I'm assuming that reflected projection light is made up of the 3 primaries used in the projector, whereas ambient light is much more diverse in spectral spread)
  • Is there really no substitute for dark walls / floors / furniture?
  • Might I actually find that a better image (perceptually) is possible with some ambient light, combined with a darker SF mix (e.g. 4.0)?

Thanks, as always, for the help on this forum. I've really enjoyed the painting I've done so far, and seeing how much of a difference can be made by changes to projection surfaces.
post #1237 of 1462
could you tell me what silver and pearl you are using?

there are couple of things you can do reduce the appearance of graininess...
first of all....
  • try not to revert to back the delta metallic versions... the liquitex silver is fine.
  • if you are not using a manufactured smooth substrate... you must sand your primed or upw finish before starting SF.
  • use a 1.5mm tip or less... regardless of whether it's the no-name graco or the wagner hvlp's.
  • because mix is SO thinned for the smaller tips and because we doing dusters... and because screen mix is SO transparent, you MUST get enough coverage so that individual mica are NOT highlighted... therefore it is now recommended that you do at least 7-8 coats.
  • i personally recommend doing 4 to 5 coats... followed by a light sanding with a 3M fine/medium sanding sponge... followed by an addition 3 dusters to finish.
  • if you are using the MS silver metallic... it is very reflective... so i recommend toning it down slightly by increasing the UPW in the mix by 3oz.
  • recalibrating the white levels on your pj...ie. have 2 settings, one for ambient viewing and one for controlled viewing. for the controlled viewing you be surprised how much you'd can tone it down.

Edited by pb_maxxx - 10/24/13 at 6:32pm
post #1238 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

could you tell me what silver and pearl you are using?

Thanks very much for your prompt response pb_maxxx. I'm using Martha Stewart Silver, and Rustoleum Pearl.
Quote:
there are couple of things you can do reduce the appearance of graininess...
first of all....
  • try not to revert to back the delta metallic versions... the liquitex silver is fine.
  • if you are not using a manufactured smooth substrate... you must sand your primed or upw finish before starting SF.
  • use a 1.5mm tip or less... regardless of whether it's the no-name graco or the wagner hvlp's.
  • because mix is SO thinned for the smaller tips and because we doing dusters... and because screen mix is SO transparent, you MUST get enough coverage so that individual mica are NOT highlighted... therefore it is now recommended that you do at least 7-8 coats.
  • i personally recommend doing 4 to 5 coats... followed by a light sanding with a 3M fine/medium sanding sponge... followed by an addition 3 dusters to finish.
  • if you are using the MS silver metallic... it is very reflective... so i recommend toning it down slightly by increasing the UPW in the mix by 3oz.
  • recalibrating the white levels on your pj...ie. have 2 settings, one for ambient viewing and one for controlled viewing. for the controlled viewing you be surprised how much you'd can tone it down.

I hadn't realised that the recommendation was now 7-8 coats. On my test panels I'd actually been doing 3 - one duster and two quite heavy coats. I have to admit that I was trying to do things quickly, but I'm quite happy to try again with more, and lighter coats.

I was a bit surprised about the size of the paint spots that come out with the duster coats though, it's not as if they're big blobs that would cause a run, but they're about a full mm in diameter, and I'm more used to spraying polyurethane that comes out more as a mist. Is this correct, or should I be thinning the mixture some more; it seems quite thin already with the 24oz ratio of water.

It's interesting that you'd suggest increasing the UPW... I'll have to buy some more of this though, because I used up the remaining after using it as a primer for my test hardboard.

I just tried lightly sanding the SF v2.5 4.0 test patch, but it went very dull as a result, and will obviously need re-spraying now anyway :-)
post #1239 of 1462
practice spraying and/or adding water until you get same fine mist your accustomed to. it should not be 1mm droplets.
secondly, no more heavy coats... it should only be dusters. don't rush.
post #1240 of 1462
Can I use a paint roller for this SF project? Will it work?
Is it a must to paint it on a PVC foam board? Can I paint it on a wooden ply wood?
Edited by Skylinestar - 10/25/13 at 7:29am
post #1241 of 1462
no you can't use a roller for doing SF. you can use a roller for the UPW/primer undercoat...so long as your thoroughly sand it baby butt smooth before spraying SF.

no you can't use standard plywood. unless you want to go to the hassle of priming, painting, skimming the board with drywall mudd, and repeating the process until it is baby butt smooth and you can not tell for the life of you that it is plywood... then maybe.
post #1242 of 1462
pb_maxxx,

I'm going to start doing some more spray test patches today, but wanted to clarify a few things before I start mixing and picking up tools:

  • You're suggesting that I thin the mixture slightly so that I can achieve a fine mist of paint?
  • MM suggests spraying with the trigger fully open, and that's what I've been doing with my 1.5mm needle. Having said that, I think it's this that's causing the large droplets, and I've never gone fully open before when spraying other materials. What is your recommendation here?
  • You mention adding additional UPW, and I'm happy to try this. Will this lighten the mixture significantly? I'm just trying to understand the effect that this is likely to have, particularly on the 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 standards that Silver Fire is defined by. If I add 3 additional oz to the original mix, will SF 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 still be similar in their effect, or will 3.0 oz of colourant now end up similar to a 2.0 mix because of the additional white?
  • Right now I'm painting on UPW primed hardboard, but I'm eventually going to be painting onto my BOC screen. What are your recommendations for preparing that, or is it possible to spray SF directly onto the fabric? I had bought some Glidden Gripper to prime, but I'm wondering if I should return that, and use UPW instead for example.

Thanks for the help!
post #1243 of 1462
As a follow up to my post yesterday where I mentioned perceived gain of SF mixes, and how I had felt that SF v2.5 1.0 looked similar to a plain BOC screen...

Last night I got out my i1D3 and performed a quick calibration on my JVC RS46 using the BOC screen. Once I'd done this, I move my test patch of SF v2.5 1.0 in front of the sensor, and did a quick check of the measured performance....

To my surprise, there is some pretty significant gain! I can't remember the numbers now, but it was a littlle more than 1.3 times the BOC alone. I did notice a very slight colour shift, that would necessitate re-calibration of the white point, but otherwise everything else was pretty much spot on.

The moral of this story is... eyes can be very deceiving!
post #1244 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

It is pretty simple. Longer throw distance means the light loses brightness which in turn reduces the reflective potential of the screen. Having a darker screen only adds to any potential reduction . A shorter Throw simply means that you will have more lumen output delivered to the screen surface, therein increasing Foot Lambert levels, a measurement of the amount of the screens reflectivity.

I already gave you what amounts to being the most optimal placement distance to maximize your lumen output.

Not much more I can add to that, except go get'ter dun!

I looked up my panny on the brightness calculator and sure enough, the brightness increases 3x if I move it forward. So I'll be moving it tonight.

 

Boy am I glad you said something! Also, I wonder why this doesn't come up in the panny manual, unless its buried somewhere. I would think they would put this on the front page because its so important.

post #1245 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

no you can't use a roller for doing SF. you can use a roller for the UPW/primer undercoat...so long as your thoroughly sand it baby butt smooth before spraying SF.

no you can't use standard plywood. unless you want to go to the hassle of priming, painting, skimming the board with drywall mudd, and repeating the process until it is baby butt smooth and you can not tell for the life of you that it is plywood... then maybe.
How about roller on the Maxxmudd DIY screen?
post #1246 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezil View Post

As a follow up to my post yesterday where I mentioned perceived gain of SF mixes, and how I had felt that SF v2.5 1.0 looked similar to a plain BOC screen...

Last night I got out my i1D3 and performed a quick calibration on my JVC RS46 using the BOC screen. Once I'd done this, I move my test patch of SF v2.5 1.0 in front of the sensor, and did a quick check of the measured performance....

To my surprise, there is some pretty significant gain! I can't remember the numbers now, but it was a littlle more than 1.3 times the BOC alone. I did notice a very slight colour shift, that would necessitate re-calibration of the white point, but otherwise everything else was pretty much spot on.

The moral of this story is... eyes can be very deceiving!

Much of the entire point of a lighter SF is to make improvement in contrast and vibrancy via both gain and surface hue, without overtly pushing colors. Only whites get any measurable (...eye-wise...) effect, and that only if direct comparisons to a purely white surface is made. Such a comparison always favors a White, based on brightness of "whites" which is deceptive, however the overall gain AND deeper black levels favor the SF under similar scrutiny. The entire SF line exhibits that performance, comparative to and in exception of any similarly hued Gray.

I and others would greatly appreciate your publishing the results of any such measurements, up to and including any Gamma curves, brightness charts, etc. I don't own a i1, nor does PB_Maxxx. We've been taken to task greatly over time for not having such, but ya know, everything we have collaborated on since the first RS-MaxxMudd formula we have done by intuition, "eyeballin' " and subjective reasoning based on observation and correct choice of mix components and application...and PB_Maxxx's own unique ability to determine effective mix component changes almost "on the Fly".

That everyone else, including some very prolific detractors, have had to go the Color Theory Classes, and purchase loads of expensive equipment just to get out of the "Gate", as well as make the effort to "back up" their own idea of what is and is not a correctly made screen surface (...and then belittle our efforts because we do not publish tests...) only goes miles to prove that some ideas and creations can be both intuitive and superior without having technology to get you there, and / or justify the doing.

But I gotta admit, when the justification does comes along....it's sweeter than cold spring water on a Hot Summer day. Even a icy cold Sam Adams Octoberfest fall behind. wink.gif
That is why we depend upon the End User to relate performance and satisfaction...not a chart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philcragg View Post

I looked up my panny on the brightness calculator and sure enough, the brightness increases 3x if I move it forward. So I'll be moving it tonight.

Boy am I glad you said something! Also, I wonder why this doesn't come up in the panny manual, unless its buried somewhere. I would think they would put this on the front page because its so important.

I think it's just a case where there is a limit to what they want to try to explain / convey. Much like giving any real details on how to use Lens Memory. But ya know, that is what people like many of us on AVS are here for, to take up that slack...and burden.

.........and we spoil 'em, those recalcitrant PJ Mfg's badly and the AVS membership....yes we do. biggrin.gif
post #1247 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

How about roller on the Maxxmudd DIY screen?

RS-MaxxMudd LL can be rolled, due to it's balance toward having less Mica and more UPW proportionately.

But just as proportionately, ambient light performance drops as well.
post #1248 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

I and others would greatly appreciate your publishing the results of any such measurements, up to and including any Gamma curves, brightness charts, etc. I don't own a i1, nor does PB_Maxxx. We've been taken to task greatly over time for not having such, but ya know, everything we have collaborated on since the first RS-MaxxMudd formula we have done by intuition, "eyeballin' " and subjective reasoning based on observation and correct choice of mix components and application...and PB_Maxxx's own unique ability to determine effective mix component changes almost "on the Fly".

I'd be happy to post up some result for Gamma and Contrast, I just need to decide which methods make the most sense. I have to admit that I'd been afraid of posting data on this, because of the potential flame wars that might ensue. If you're OK with it, given that you and pb_maxxx are the biggest proponents of SF on here, I'll gladly do that.

I'm considering the following:

  • Initial luminance (and therefore gamma) data from BOC
  • The same from a SF test patch without any changes
  • ANSI contrast measurements from the same
  • Off axis measurements (if I can find a consistent way of testing at different angles - I have an idea, but need to test it)

ANSI contrast is very important, because JVC projectors produce such good black levels that it's essentially un-measurable in my environment and my sensor. I have white walls, but when there's no light to reflect off them, they don't have any impact! As a result, all contrast results from the luminance tests will be infinite, since the on-off black will be 0.

Obviously I'll need to provide full details of my test setup, since that would have a big impact on the results, but I'd be happy to do this as well.

I do need to make one thing clear here though... I don't have a bat cave, and that's precisely the reason I'm trying to build a SF screen. This will therefore not be as scientific a test as if it were done by CNET, Projector Central or others. I still think it has value (or I wouldn't bother doing it), but I don't want to be on the end of a flame war for my approach!
post #1249 of 1462
Thread Starter 
You shouldn't be...the worst offenders are in residence elsewhere. Those AVS'ers in residence and good standing with no more than a sideways inclination toward that sort of behavior really have to have a goad (ie: non-validated claims and exclamations of grandeur...) to get them started. Your probably only going to have to suffer through a myriad of questions...not rebukes.

As for on here, so much is harped on about "not" doing tests that is would be strange indeed if anyone complained or doubted the results.

PB & I surely won't, as since day one we have always stood by any response or comment that didn't reflect a pre-judmental attitude, or that had a agenda or personal grudge behind it.

End users are the best source for opinions, and if they are equipped to do effective testing, that's a big plus. So have at it, and let the chips fall where they may.

Lastly, doing your tests in a environment that Silver Fire apps are specifically intended / designed to do what other DIY apps cannot is exactly what is needed, and is wholly relevant. They don't like it? Let 'em eat Mud Pie. Mississippi Mud pie that is...... tongue.gif. biggrin.gifwink.gifcool.gif

Make it so.......
post #1250 of 1462
I've started painting another test patch panel, this time it's SF v2.5.2 (see below) 3.0. I've thinned it a little more than the original recipe, and it's spraying a lot better.

I know this is not official (yet), but I've started a 2.5.x numbering scheme as follows:

v2.5 = Original Liquitex Silver / Minwax Mix
v2.5.1 = Martha Stewart Silver / Rustoleum Polyurethane Mix
v2.5.2 = v2.5.1 + 3oz of additional UPW in the hopes of toning down the silver slightly

I should finish this patch today, and I'll be waiting for it to dry fully overnight before I take any more measurements. Sadly, that means no measurements until at least tomorrow evening.
post #1251 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Slacker.............mad.gif


Totally JKA.
post #1252 of 1462
@ MississippiMan
You've got PM
post #1253 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

[*] if you are not using a manufactured smooth substrate... you must sand your primed or upw finish before starting SF.
[*] use a 1.5mm tip or less... regardless of whether it's the no-name graco or the wagner hvlp's.
[*] because mix is SO thinned for the smaller tips and because we doing dusters... and because screen mix is SO transparent, you MUST get enough coverage so that individual mica are NOT highlighted... therefore it is now recommended that you do at least 7-8 coats.
[*] i personally recommend doing 4 to 5 coats... followed by a light sanding with a 3M fine/medium sanding sponge... followed by an addition 3 dusters to finish.
[*] if you are using the MS silver metallic... it is very reflective... so i recommend toning it down slightly by increasing the UPW in the mix by 3oz.
[*] recalibrating the white levels on your pj...ie. have 2 settings, one for ambient viewing and one for controlled viewing. for the controlled viewing you be surprised how much you'd can tone it down.
[/list]

As I previously posted, I sprayed a new test patch last night of SF v2.5.2 3.0 according to pb_maxxx' new instructions. This mix includes an additional amount of UPW (3 oz in the original ratios, equating to 6.5ml in my 200ml test mix)

I sanded the UPW base layer until (almost) totally smooth

I used a 1.5mm tip, just as I was before

I did a total of 8 very very light coats. In order to achieve this, added some additional dilution to the mix (an extra 10ml of water to a mix of ~240ml) for this test panel. This made the mix much thinner, and therefore easier to spray. When spraying, I started with the trigger control set totally closed, and then slowly opened it up, until I was getting a nice clean spray; I did not go with MM's suggestion of wide open, because this still laid the paint on too thick for my liking.

The results of this lighter, more coats spraying, is a much better final surface. It also drys much quicker, so you can achieve the same coverage in the same time with this approach. Another huge benefit is that it uses less than half the amount of paint than I was previously using!

I didn't have time to take any measurements last night, but I would say that the end result of this coat, is very similar to my heavily applied SF v2.5.1 1.0 test patch... I'm not sure if this is the added UPW making the grey lighter, or the fact that I'm spraying much lighter; any thoughts on this PB_Maxxx?

I've got one test patch of UPW left, and I'm going to try a SF v2.5.2 4.0 blend on that tonight.
post #1254 of 1462
I don't expect the SF with the additional UPW to be visually different to the naked eyes... and at least not until projected on.
what it should do though is to in effect diffuse the silver ever so slightly, and reduce graininess when projected on... and the sheen should also be reduced further then the new matte poly alone can do over the minwax satin.

do understand that the mix is very transparent and when painted on clear acrylic... can easily be used as a rear projection screen.
therefore, the thinner the mix is sprayed... the more the basecoat or substrate plays into the overall performance and visual appearance...both when not projected on... and especially when projected on.
post #1255 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

do understand that the mix is very transparent and when painted on clear acrylic... can easily be used as a rear projection screen.
therefore, the thinner the mix is sprayed... the more the basecoat or substrate plays into the overall performance and visual appearance...both when not projected on... and especially when projected on.

I had assumed that it was the thin coat that was making the big difference here.

Would I be correct in assuming that a thin coat is what's recommended? I have always read that a smooth white substrate is best for a SF application, is this the reason why?
post #1256 of 1462
with SF... there are a number of approaches.

1) a thinner coating approach... allowing the upw basecoat to have a greater effect on maintaining white levels.
2) multiple duster coats to achieve thick coating and alowing the metallics and gain to be the primary source of maintaining white levels.
3) and finally going with silver relective base (ie mirror, or mylar, or a dibond finish) and thinner coating where the basecoat is more responsible for maintaing white levels.

the difference in 1 vs 3 if you sprayed with the same mix and same thickness in coating is... 1 would have a lighter colored appearance than 3 would. therefore, if the white levels remained the same or nearly identical... then 3 would have lower black level and likely improved contrast vs 1.
post #1257 of 1462

Good day guys. I am from Russia and I do not know your language . You have to use a translator , so if something I do not understand that this is due to language problems .
In general , reviewed a lot of stuff on the composition of the paint for the gray screen, but did not find anything good . And now came across your forum , was very interested in the composition of which you color screens "SILVER FIRE V2.5"
We I do not find these colors and this is what I think they can be replaced .
As I understand it's just Basitss Liquitex acrylic paint ( that is, I can replace it with another one with the same color ) ?
Minwax Polycrylic - Satin Finish is simply white acrylic paint , or what is it?
BEHR Premium Plus Ultra is too white acrylic paint ?
Rustoleum Metallic Accents - White Pearl is how I understood nail with the addition of metal particles?
Please explain whether you can replace them with equivalents.
Thank you all .

post #1258 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Replacement is problematical at best...and not advised because distinct and varied differences can result in a final finish that is not ideal.

That is not to say you can't discover alternatives...only that it's not within our means to suggest alternatives we are not familiar with.

Замена проблематична в лучшем случае ... и не советуемая, потому что отдельные и различные разницы могут привести к заключительному концу, который не идеален.

Это не должно сказать, что Вы не можете обнаружить альтернативы ... только, что это не в пределах наших средств, чтобы предложить альтернативы, с которыми мы не знакомы.

Hows that, ?
post #1259 of 1462

Thanks for the quick reply. I just eochu understand the purpose of your components that would understand what to look at.

 

I certainly can order online but it is expensive and time, that I want to find an alternative.
Nemogli would you give me a brief description of each component and the links that I have not found anything intelligible.

post #1260 of 1462
OK, so the results requested by MississippiMan are in....

My test setup is as follows:

  • JVC DLA-RS46U Projector (~25 hours on the lamp)
  • HTPC running madVR with no calibration curves or 3DLUT
  • Latest ColorHCFR used for measurements
  • XRite i1 Display Pro (i1D3)
  • 45" CIH Screen size, set at 80" wide (16:9)
  • Projector in low lamp mode, Iris set at -7
  • Projection distance is ~ 13'9"
  • Viewing environment has white walls, cream coloured carpet and cream leather sofas. Ceiling is more than 12' high, so likely has only a small influence on reflected projection light
  • Previously calibrated (with BOC screen) to Gamma of 2.4 with zero ambient light using custom gamma and custom white point controls

Please ask if you'd like additional information on my test setup.

I performed two sets of tests - with and without ambient light. The ambient light used was a down firing 65w spot light in the rear of the room. This provided enough light be be able to eat snacks easily, and read remote control buttons when not illuminated; this is slightly less ambient light than in the afternoon in this viewing environment.

As I mentioned in previous posts in this thread, my first attempts to spray SF were too thick, and this, combined with the switch to Martha Stewart Silver may have caused a little more sparkles than is typical. I therefore only tested the two SF blends since moving to 8 / 9 duster coats and 3 oz (by ratio) of additional UPW in this round of testing - SF v2.5.2 3.0 and 4.0, as well as the BOC that I'm currently using as a screen (rubberised side).

Raw data for all the relevant tests is shown below; luminance figures are all in cd/m2:


The main claims made for SF are that it provides improved black levels, whilst maintaining peak brightness, and colour saturation. This could have resulted in unusual shaped luminance curves if not handled correctly, but my results don't show this to be the case. The charts below were created from the raw luminance data above (zero ambient on the left, low ambient on the right), and though it's difficult to see improvements in the black level in these charts, the shape of the curves for the SF results is still very smooth.


Many people have asked about the gain of SF, and I too was interested in this. The raw data above clearly shows an increased peak brightness, but I wondered what this would equate to in terms of 'gain'. The data below shows two calculations for gain, first the gain against my BOC screen, and then another calculation assuming the BOC has a gain of 0.85. As we don't know what the real gain of my BOC screen is, these figures should only be considered relative.


I'll post more on my thoughts and interpretations of the data a little later; it's getting late now and I wanted to get something up as quick as possible!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Screen Section
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › DIY Screen Section › The Official Silver Fire V.2 Thread.