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 43

post #1261 of 1462
i'll be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the data.

the only clarification i would say is... when we talk of improved black levels... we saying that black levels are better maintained as ambient light increases... and the drop off should not be as steep. in other words, contrast should be better preserved.
post #1262 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Taking the figures to breast, it seems that gain is reduced to a far less extent than the change in surface color would indicate as being more likely.

This to me equates to Black Levels being reduced (increased actually) more proportionately than there is an loss of White / Color vibrancy.
post #1263 of 1462
ok I just did the first duster coat. Not sure if this is right or not? I am using Graco HV2900 with a 1.0mm needle. I have it set to full out put. I sprayed from about 14 inches.

silverfire_zps12f35d25.jpg

Thank you
Edited by splatee - 10/28/13 at 8:35am
post #1264 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatee View Post

ok I just did the first duster coat. Not sure if this is right or not? I am using Graco HV2900 with a 1.0mm needle. I have it set to full out put. I sprayed from about 14 inches.

Thank you

Is that a photo taken after the paint has dried, or just after it was sprayed. It looks like your droplets are too large to me, and in my experience, this is caused by the paint being slightly too thick, and applied with the trigger fully open. I know that MississippiMan recommends this, but I could never get a good finish by having the trigger fully open.

I may not be the best person to comment on this however, since my experience painting SF is far far lower than PB_Maxxx and MississippiMan!
post #1265 of 1462
I promised I'd provide some more information and thoughts on the data gathered last night, so here it is. Since the table of data is on the previous page, I'm including it here again for easy reference:


And to give an idea of the test setup, here is a photo of the colourimeter in place. I tried to keep the colourimeter as horizontal as possible to avoid any influences that might be caused by any 'viewing cone' being present.


First off, I'm very impressed by what is shown here. SF mixes do seem to perform exactly as intended - as ambient light is increased, more of the black level is maintained, without sacrificing the white point. All of this is done with very little change to the light response; gamma is preserved, colour saturations preserved, the image looks great! This is a remarkable achievement; PB_Maxxx and Mississippi man should be very proud of their work.

Obviously there is a trade off, or the suggestion to simply use high value SF blends would always be given. I only have data from two levels of SF, so my conclusions here are more hypothesis than fact. It seems that as you increase the value of the SF blend, the peak brightness takes a very slight hit, while the black level is even better maintained. The trade off here is increased sparkles, and this really should come as no surprise. The darker grey improves black, and the increased reflective components compensates in order to retain peak brightness. The more reflective components, the greater the sparkles.

As a more subjective test, I also got my wife to view some different pieces of content in darkness, and with ambient light. She preferred the overall look of the SF 4.0 blend, and I have to admit that with ambient light present, this was clearly the better performing test panel, both subjectively and with measured data. The difference between 3.0 and 4.0 is very subtle, with only a slight improvement in dark areas. Our eyes are more sensitive to this however, so perceptually the difference is larger than the data would suggest. The BOC with ambient light was barely watchable, so both SF blends win out here of course.

Testing in a dark environment with white walls was much more challenging. It seems that the difference between the SF blends becomes more obvious as the ambient light level is increased, resulting in an almost identical response between the 3.0 and 4.0 blends in the dark. I personally found the sparkly nature of the 3.0 blend distracting, and the 4.0 blend objectionable in the dark (they were both great with ambient light), and this may be because of my relatively close viewing distance (~90" / 7' 6"). I'd be very interested to see if moving to a lower SF blend maintains the ANSI contrast ratio improvement, and reduces the sparkly appearance.

I've received a PM asking for more information on any colour shifts created as a result of moving to SF, and I'm happy to provide additional information here as well. I do first need to point out that when using a colourimeter rather than a spectrophotometer, the accuracy of the colour measurements is dependent on the spectral output of the projector, and a conversion matrix or spectral sample should be created with a spectrophotometer before truly depending on the data from the colourimeter. Luminance is less affected by this, so I focussed on that for the data shared so far. The data below does have value, but only as relative, rather than absolute. With that said:

BOC RGB Levels


SF v2.5.2 3.0 RGB Levels


SF v2.5.2 4.0 RGB Levels


As you can see, there is a very slight blue push, which in practice raises the white point by about 400oK. This could easily be corrected with the projector white balance controls, so I'm not very concerned about this.
post #1266 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezil View Post

Is that a photo taken after the paint has dried, or just after it was sprayed. It looks like your droplets are too large to me, and in my experience, this is caused by the paint being slightly too thick, and applied with the trigger fully open. I know that MississippiMan recommends this, but I could never get a good finish by having the trigger fully open.



That was taken just after the first duster. I have the trigger set to full open. I have about 30oz of water added to the mix. Here is what the final mix is

Delta Ceramacoat Pearl 26oz
Martha Stewart Silver 22oz
Liquitex Titanium White 12oz ( I raised it a bit after seeing other posts from pb_maxxx recommending to add 3oz of white due to the Martha Stewart Silver being darker and to help tone down sparkles)
liquitex gold 2oz
Silver Fire Colorant 2.5oz
So I have a Silver Fire V2.5 at 2.5

I have put another 2 dusters on and there are still a few splotches I guess is what you can call them. I think it may still be a slight bit to thick. I am thinking about adding another 1to 2oz of water and turning down the output of the gun slightly. Any other recommendations?

Thank you
post #1267 of 1462
Here are a few more after 3rd duster. No sanding done yet.




post #1268 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezil View Post

Is that a photo taken after the paint has dried, or just after it was sprayed. It looks like your droplets are too large to me, and in my experience, this is caused by the paint being slightly too thick, and applied with the trigger fully open. I know that MississippiMan recommends this, but I could never get a good finish by having the trigger fully open.

I may not be the best person to comment on this however, since my experience painting SF is far far lower than PB_Maxxx and MississippiMan!

Actually, when using the 1.0 mm needle I set the Air pressure dial on the back of the Guns handle back with a rotation from full on to the bottom of the slot.
post #1269 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatee View Post

Here are a few more after 3rd duster. No sanding done yet.

Time to sand, and reduce air pressure.
post #1270 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezil View Post

As you can see, there is a very slight blue push, which in practice raises the white point by about 400oK. This could easily be corrected with the projector white balance controls, so I'm not very concerned about this.

First, thank you for the objective and through effort your making. It is very much appreciated.

Secondly, the drive to produce "only" completely color neutral DIY screens limits the performance potential. If any such color shift deviation is small enough to be corrected very easily via the PJs own inherent adjustment, then to me...as well as just about every other person involved in calibrating screens, it means all is just fine.

And....since virtually any neutral gray would need effective calibration as well, in truth, there is no difference to dwell upon between advanced, mica-assisted mixes that maintain gain, and those other "Grays" that do not use such, or use components that effectively only keep a Gray from degenerating in to unacceptable levels of attenuation.

The above has always held true, and represents everything we have always stated to be the case. Nothing has changed except the presentation of unbiased and measurement supported data.

Once again, thank you nezil for all the effort so far, and anything that might still come ahead on. smile.gif
post #1271 of 1462
No problem MississippiMan,

I now find myself in somewhat of a quandary however... If I were doing the majority of my viewing with ambient light, I'd have absolutely no hesitation in spraying up a screen with SF v2.5.2 3.0 or 4.0 - the results are truly impressive.

The thing is... I do 80% of my viewing in a totally dark environment, and the majority of the benefits of SF are most apparent with ambient light. There are benefits with reflected light, and my data shows an ANSI contrast ratio improvement from nearly 60:1, up to nearly 90:1 - that's a 50% improvement for those mathematically challenged. The problem is that viewing in total darkness also increases the perception of the sparkles in the mix, and I find that distracting enough that I actually notice the screen itself, rather than it becoming effectively invisible.

As I suggested in my last post, I'm considering trying SF v2.5.2 1.0 and 2.0 to see if there are enough improvements here to find some middle ground, but I'm wondering if there are any other paint mixes that people know of that I could try. I'm specifically wondering if any of the RS-MaxxMudd v2 blends would be worth a shot. I'll need to start again with the test panels, or sand and re-prime the 2 areas that I messed up on my previous tests.

I'm also wondering how much of a change the Martha Stewart Silver is to the mix. Would it be worth me getting hold of some Liquitex Basics Silver to see if that cuts down on the sparkles any more than the added UPW?

This research has actually got me thinking about how I might go about having two screens, one for ambient (SF v2.5.2 4.0) and one for full darkness!
post #1272 of 1462
i think if you were to go with say 2.5 but with 4 ounces of UPW... you'd mostly eliminate the graininess caveats of your close up viewing in non ambient light, and still have enough ambient light viewing when so desired.

secondly, calibrate your projector for non ambient light viewing with the samples. you'd be surprised how much of the grain and/or sparklies you can eliminate through calibration.

3idly, also save a specific callibration saved/memorized just solely for ambient light.
post #1273 of 1462
Quick question and possible concern,

I took a look at the screen when I came home from work to see how the paint dried. I noticed that there seems to be a slight blue sheen almost to it. Is this the pearl I am seeing? The paint looks gray but has a slight blue look. Now it may just be maybe how the light is reflecting off it. I am going to do a light sanding and apply another duster with the spray gun output turned down.

Edit... Looking at the other pics of Silver Fire close ups they seem to look like mine. I guess I may just be over thinking it.

Thank you
Edited by splatee - 10/28/13 at 9:50pm
post #1274 of 1462
actually a lot of people look at how little blue is in the colorant and overshoot it a little in their measuring.
not to say that you did though.
however, in terms of calibrating it's probably the least offensive.
post #1275 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatee View Post


Edit... Looking at the other pics of Silver Fire close ups they seem to look like mine. I guess I may just be over thinking it.

Thank you

Yep.

Most shades of Gray...even those that are perfectly neutral, exhibit a blue-ish cast under normal lighting...especially florescent and muted ambient sunlight.

It is the nature of the Gray. It's what you see under projected light that matters.
post #1276 of 1462

Guys, tell me, all the ingredients are then mixed and applied one layer or each layer separately?
I can not deal with interpreter. Tell me please.

post #1277 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Everything is mixed together, then applied 5-6 successive "thin" coats (layers) that gradually create a even, uniform color.
post #1278 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Everything is mixed together, then applied 5-6 successive "thin" coats (layers) that gradually create a even, uniform color.
Thanks, I just doubted. Like some photo of one uniform mixture and on the other as if silver color applied separately. And another question, Behr 1850 UPW Flat is beige acrylic paint or not?
post #1279 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDREDD View Post

Thanks, I just doubted. Like some photo of one uniform mixture and on the other as if silver color applied separately.

There is is in fact a DIY Screen application that involves applying a "Silver" coating called "S-I-L-V-E-R ", but it not what we are referring to here.

Quote:
And another question, Behr 1850 UPW Flat is beige acrylic paint or not?

No...it is a Flat "White". The terminology "UPW" refers to "Ultra Pure White"
post #1280 of 1462

So with the color clear. Just in those descriptions that I found was a color beige, so I decided to ask :) Again, thanks for the help. It is difficult for me of course deal with the help of a translator, it is not always clear. I will try experimenting :)

P.S. Paint still acrylic or not?
post #1281 of 1462
Ok update time...

Yesterday I did a light sanding on the screen and then sprayed the 4th and 5th coats. Today I looked at it and I noticed a small section that looks like it may have been missed when applying the dusters. The screen feels smooth but I am thinking about doing another light sanding and then doing additional two or three dusters and calling it done. Here is a pic of 4th duster.

image_zps309697ee.jpg

Thank you
post #1282 of 1462
hmmm...
good idea.
post #1283 of 1462

The guys tell me Minwax Polycrylic - Satin Finish (it matte or glossy)
And in 1850 Behr UPW Flat (matte or glossy)
I can not find these characteristics.

post #1284 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDREDD View Post

The guys tell me Minwax Polycrylic - Satin Finish (it matte or glossy)

And in 1850 Behr UPW Flat (matte or glossy)

I can not find these characteristics.

Hello,

The Minwax = Satin finish
The Behr UPW = Flat finish
post #1285 of 1462

Thank you, but then I do different translators translate differently :D
And I'm trying to find analogues in Russia.

post #1286 of 1462
Ok update time...

I finished the screen the other week and hung it yesterday before I went to work. I have yet had a chance to recalibrate the projector. The picture is definitely brighter and the colors are popping and are richer. Now on real bright scenes I do see a few sparkelies. Now once again I have not recalibrated the projector yet and I still need to put the trim around the screen. Once I get everything else done I will post some pics.

Thank you
post #1287 of 1462
 
 
 
It would be great if all laid out comparative photos. One photo in the afternoon and another at night. And on the screen to hang a large white sheet that you can see the difference.
post #1288 of 1462

So I'm one of those guys that fell for the first DIY screen thread found which was the simple SW paint, but thankfully didn't open the can before finding out about SF. 

 

I'm known for always taking things to the next level, or as my wife likes to say, "the extreme", so naturally I had to change gears when I found out about SF.

 

I'm going to start my hunt for all of the components for the SF V2.5, but I have a couple of questions.

 

The instructions state:

"

(Reflective Base Components)*

Silver Fire v2.5 hue   (Colorant amount in ounces – oz)        1.0   2.0   3.0   4.0   5.0
Rustoleum Metallic Accents – White Pearl*  See link below ** 20   21   22   23   24
Liquitex Basics Silver ***    Micheals 20   21   22   23   24
Behr 1850 UPW Flat      Home Depot 10   10   10   10   10
Liquitex Basics Gold      Micheals 1.50   1.75   2.00   2.25   2.50

 

The "Non-Bold" figures in the Reflective Base Table above are also "Ounces". As the "darkness" of a SF mix rises, the amount of Reflective Base components also rise

"

 

But this line seems to either be out of date, or contradictory.

 

"The numerical equivalent of the shade of Gray (SF v2 1.0/1.5/2.0/2.5/3.0/4.0/5.0 on to ad nausea-um ) is equal to the amount "IN OUNCES" of Colorant added to what is a consistent and unchanging* Base combo of reflective and viscosity mixes."

 

The chart and directions seem to say the Rustoleum and ...basics Silver (or equiv) both rise by one Oz for every Oz of Colorant.  Is this the correct option, or are they "consistent and unchanging" like the update comment.

 

So to Validate, if I wanted to make SF v2.5 (2.0)  I think the answer is...

 

Silver Fire v2.5 hue   (Colorant amount in ounces – oz)            2.0 oz
Rustoleum Metallic Accents – White Pearl*  See link below **     21 oz
Liquitex Basics Silver ***    Micheals     21 oz
Behr 1850 UPW Flat      Home Depot     10 oz
Liquitex Basics Gold      Micheals     1.75 oz

 

Is this correct?

 

Thanks!  Not only for the help on this, but to everyone that added up the 1000's of hours of comments/testing/development to create this master recipe.

 

Glen

post #1289 of 1462
that is correct.
although what has changed is the recommendation to use Rustoleum's Ultimate Polyurethane Matte and the switch from Liquitex Silver to Martha Stewart's Polished Silver (available at home depot). The latter was used and been detailed my MM's thread... "another DIY 2:35 screen taking off"
post #1290 of 1462
We'll after a few days viewing the screen I think I am going to redo it. It just does not seem right. First I see random sparkles on bright scenes. I also notice what seems to be a dullness almost like a haze or something. I was going to wait but then my son mentioned that there was a fog look. I have recalibrated the projector. Also I have to turn the game brightness up a lot more when I play certain video games. It may also be that my bulb has over 3000 hrs on it. Is there a way I can brighten up my current mix of Silver Fire? Right now I have it tinted 2.5 but I used the Martha Stewart silver which is darker than the liquitex but I added additional 3 oz of white the the mix already when I first started spraying. At this point I'm a little bummed out, I may just go back to the RS-Muddd screen. I'm glad other people have a good screen and I am not knocking the mix, I guess I just have bad luck...LOL

Also on a side note I wonder what darkness my screen actually is now? From reading the Martha Stewart is a much darker silver I wonder if my mix of Silver Fire is actually like a 4.0 shade possibly?


Thank you
Edited by splatee - 11/9/13 at 3:33pm
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.