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 49

post #1441 of 1462
MississippiMan, what about my post up top on proper way of applying the silver fire over my White gloss paint. Should i put down a light coat of flat white over the gloss white before spraying the silver fire on or just spray the silver fire straight on the White gloss paint?? Is the procedure correct about applying the silver fire just until i see no reflection of the projector light coming off the white gloss underneath then sand down till i can barely see a hot spot then spray one last coat of duster coat??
post #1442 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Do a thorough but light sanding, to remove any slight bumps and such, then apply at least 2 fast dusters (...or 3...), each with 70% overlap. Go fast enough that you are virtually sweeping the surface. You want to lay down a fine mist.

BTW, the droplet pattern looks OK

 

Will do.  Thanks again.  I'll post pictures of the final product eventually.

post #1443 of 1462
what color is the colorant suppose to be after it's mixed up?? Mine is leaning toward a make chocolate color.
post #1444 of 1462
dark chocolate.
post #1445 of 1462
After a year of being happy with a 98 inch screen on melamine mdf, 2.0 mix sprayed on, I may be looking to upgrade.

To the question, can silver fire be sprayed on an acoustically transparent material and yield similarly pleasing results?
post #1446 of 1462
To my knowledge no one has tried it. It has been discussed a couple of times but the thought seemed to be that the paint would plug the pores and degrade the acoustic transparency or if the pores were preserved , the texture of the weave coated with high gain paint would degrade the picture. If you are up for the experiment I imagine many might be interested in the result.
post #1447 of 1462
Well, i'm pretty much sold on the idea of making up a sample to test out.

My set up.
12' x 17' area of a basement with another 13' behind viewing area, windows are darkened, and most viewing is in the evening/night
Epson 8350
98" screen

I'm coming off of a Melamine coated mdf substrate dusted with SF v2 2.0. I guess, as to the acoustically transparent screen, i'm curious as to opinions on whether to try spraying spandex, or something else like a ponte fabric. Also, i'm assuming that i would want to spray on a white fabric? Additionally, i'm looking to jump up to around 120" screen with around a 16' throw.

Given that there is a new mix, i'm curious as to whether to keep with the 2.0 mix or something else since i'm on a new substrate.

Any advice would be welcomed, as Mississippi Man set me on the straight and narrow nearly a year ago.
post #1448 of 1462
also, since i'm going onto a "mesh" would a thinner mix, in an effort to not plug the holes, be a benefit?
post #1449 of 1462
How do you know when a duster coating of paint, rather it be a coating of silver fire or, in my case, a coating of gloss white, is dry enough to safely add another coat over it?? Don't want to put coats down to soon.
post #1450 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Actually I have painted on to manufactured acoustic transparent screen material before. It was SMX, about 8 years ago, and I used RS-MaxxMudd.

The object was to get more gain via Ultra light Dusters. I never considered using silver fire, but if a gray spandex was used as a additional backing it should work quite well.

However I have my doubts that spraying paint onto spandex would ever be effective. Manufactured acoustically transparent material has a solid surface that is either perforated or weaved and the solid surface area can accept a coating of paint much easier then a finely weaved cloth could.

Absolutely, a thin mixture applied perfectly is going to be essential. Ultra light Dusters dry very quickly, so if you allowed at least 45 minutes between each code you would be very safe. But as I mentioned before, spring on to a fabric will be all the more difficult, even problematical at best. And if anything could be considered a test, the fabric of Shin would definitely qualify.
Edited by MississippiMan - 3/21/14 at 3:22am
post #1451 of 1462
So, I have heard that the SF screens are not shooting at the Black Diamond screens, but trying to be as good as the DNP screens. If that is the case, then which DNP screens? I've heard of the Supernova, 08-85, and 23-23. Just wondering...

Thanks,

Dave
post #1452 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thezaks View Post

So, I have heard that the SF screens are not shooting at the Black Diamond screens, but trying to be as good as the DNP screens. If that is the case, then which DNP screens? I've heard of the Supernova, 08-85, and 23-23. Just wondering...

Thanks,

Dave

Actually, the entire line-up.

The 08-85....that's already been done nicely.

The 23-23, now that is the real challenge, and a worthwhile goal to set eyes upon.

PB & I carted some large SF samples to InfoComm and were permitted to place then against the DNP displays. We received very notable plaudits from both the DNP folks and the show goers as well. Then we scooted, as much out of courtesy as anything else because DNP isn't a Mfg that boasts without due cause to do so.

The BD folks...? They were using 4K Lumen PJs on sub 100" screens. Kinds stacking the odds that...and still they looked rather...well, grainy, glare-y, and not color correct at all.
post #1453 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Actually, the entire line-up.

The 08-85....that's already been done nicely.

The 23-23, now that is the real challenge, and a worthwhile goal to set eyes upon.

PB & I carted some large SF samples to InfoComm and were permitted to place then against the DNP displays. We received very notable plaudits from both the DNP folks and the show goers as well. Then we scooted, as much out of courtesy as anything else because DNP isn't a Mfg that boasts without due cause to do so.

The BD folks...? They were using 4K Lumen PJs on sub 100" screens. Kinds stacking the odds that...and still they looked rather...well, grainy, glare-y, and not color correct at all.

That's all good stuff! I've seen the BD in person - not the screen for me. For me, it was the grainy that bugged me. Can't wait to try the SF!

Dave
post #1454 of 1462
Here's some thoughts on 16:9 vs 2.35:1, as well as ways to do 2.35:1, so I'm looking for comments from MississippiMan or anyone else who would like to comment. I am still using a TV right now, but I'm very tempted to do a projector/screen to replace my TV. Below is my screen considerations:

I had always thought that I would want to do 16:9, since the majority of what me and my family watch at home is TV (Dish Network hopper), sports, and games. But, I've noticed that MississippiMan tends to do a lot of the 2.35:1 screens, and it got me thinking a little bit. To do a 2.35:1 screen in my family room, the largest I could go is 115" diagonal, which is about 45" height for a CIH screen. That means my 16:9 picture would be around 92". I like the idea of 92" 16:9, because for one, it is much larger than my existing 64" rear projection TV. Also, since it's a smaller 16:9, the picture will have a bit more brightness and will be a little sharper - both of which are benefits to using a projector in an ambient light situation. Masking of the 16:9 won't be an issue for me - I'll come up with something creative. The only time I would want to use the 2.35:1 would be a movie situation, and I'm going to want to cut out most of the ambient light in that situation anyway. Perhaps a 2.35:1 screen would be ideal for me.

Having said all of that, the question becomes - what's the best way to do 2.35:1? A. Use a projector (like the Panasonic AE8000U) and its zoom feature? B. get a projector, anamorphic lens, and possibly a video processor (lumagen, most likely)?

I know MississippiMan is hip on the Panasonic these days, so let's look at Pros/Cons for option A.:

Pros: less expensive setup, best 16:9 picture with regards to pixels and brightness
Cons: zooming for 2.35:1 does not have as many pixels and a degree of brightness is lost. Also, is there a problem on zooming with black bars showing up on wall or cabinet or equipment, etc?
Q's: Can 16:9 material be zoomed out to fit 2.35:1? Seems like I remember SF screen pictures with Avatar filling a 2.35:1 screen, but Avatar is a 16:9 movie (I think).


For option B., I was thinking of a Sony HW55ES projector, with a Panamorph CineVista (lowest priced) anamorphic lens. The Panasonic will not work with this lens, since it does not have ECC like the Sony.

Pros: best 2.35:1 picture with regards to pixels and brightness
Cons: more expensive option,3% brightness loss on 16:9 vs no lens (possibly hard to notice that little of a loss), less horizontal pixels on 16:9
Comments: if using a Lumagen, I understand it does a really good job of stretching 16:9 -> 2.35:1. Also, I've been told that less horizontal pixels is much less noticeable than having less vertical pixels.

Any thoughts/input/experiences from anyone, with regards to these considerations and pros/cons?


Dave
Edited by thezaks - 3/26/14 at 3:41pm
post #1455 of 1462
Thread Starter 
Dave,

2.39:1 would be best.

The amount of light loss and Pixel reduction is insignificant at your size screen. I do 'em at 140"+ using the Panny and it makes no difference.

What does make a BIG difference is the amount of money you'd save.

Also of note:

When adjusting the Panny for 16:9 CIH, a very small amount of vertical image is lost due to zooming / vertical height adjustment. If that small amount is confined to the top edge of the projected image, virtually no real observable content is lost....however the image does widen disproportionately to the amount of image lost to vertical adjustment. This is why the width of the remaining Side pillars while in 16:9 mode looks much less than it would otherwise.

Yes, a A-Lens set-up is something that addresses content / pixel loss, but it also adds caveats such as considerable extra expense, installation logistics, and the very real need to have at least a slightly curved screen to accommodate the very real issue of Barrel Distortion(...Flaring at the ends...) that ALL A-Lens set-ups exhibit to some degree...dependent upon Lens quality (ie: expense mostly)
post #1456 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Dave,

2.39:1 would be best.

The amount of light loss and Pixel reduction is insignificant at your size screen. I do 'em at 140"+ using the Panny and it makes no difference.

What does make a BIG difference is the amount of money you'd save.

Also of note:

When adjusting the Panny for 16:9 CIH, a very small amount of vertical image is lost due to zooming / vertical height adjustment. If that small amount is confined to the top edge of the projected image, virtually no real observable content is lost....however the image does widen disproportionately to the amount of image lost to vertical adjustment. This is why the width of the remaining Side pillars while in 16:9 mode looks much less than it would otherwise.

Yes, a A-Lens set-up is something that addresses content / pixel loss, but it also adds caveats such as considerable extra expense, installation logistics, and the very real need to have at least a slightly curved screen to accommodate the very real issue of Barrel Distortion(...Flaring at the ends...) that ALL A-Lens set-ups exhibit to some degree...dependent upon Lens quality (ie: expense mostly)

Sounds to me like the expense, setup ease/hassle, and image benefits/sacrifices might be leaning towards using the Panasonic projector in a 2.39:1 setup. Here's my concerns for the Panasonic, based upon user's feedback in forums. Any comments on these issues MississippiMan?

1) uniformity issues?

2) warranty issues - takes a long time to get fixed. How often are there issues, by the way?

3) fan noise, when fan is on high (normal mode)? I would think that I would probably use this mode during the day, when shutters are open. It would probably also be used as the bulb gets older.

4) No panel alignment feature.

5) I've heard that the brighter modes make grass look lime green. Any truth to that?

6) I'm not sure if I'm quite understanding your comment on adjusting the Panny for 16:9 CIH? Are you saying that the image is setup primarily for the 2.39:1 image, and that when you zoom back in for the 16:9 image, there's an issue with the vertical height? If so, then it sounds like you have to zoom back out a little to get that vertical image to fill the screen, which makes the 16:9 image just a bit wider than normal. Does that sound correct? If so, it sounds like the image is geometrically incorrect for 16:9. Will we notice people and things will look wider than normal?

Thanks,
Dave
Edited by thezaks - 3/28/14 at 5:12pm
post #1457 of 1462
Well, I'm noticing that nobody wants to say much more about the Panasonic projector. I'm back/forth on this 16:9 vs 2.39:1 screen ratio. Based upon the lack of someone stepping up to defend the Panasonic projector, I think I might be leaning back to a 16:9 screen and the Sony HW55ES projector. At least 75% of what our family watches at home is 16:9. Plus, when watching anything 2.39:1, it's usually with a dark room, so the black bars on the top/bottom of the screen would be minimized. I would think that a Silver Fire screen would show the top/bottom bars less than the typical white screen.

Overall, I'm going nowhere, since it seems that the expertise for the Silver Fire (MississippiMan) is very busy and fairly unavailable these days. I've been waiting since December to get an answer to a question I had in a PM, so I think that folks have caught on to the expertise that Mississippi man offers; hence, he is a very busy man.


Dave
post #1458 of 1462
Thread Starter 
There is no distortion, only a very slight amount of content excised at the top edge of the image.

..............and that happens "ONLY" if one chooses to optimize the width of 16:9 over the height.

You are totally wrong about SF showing "more" of any barely projected light within "Bars" than a white screen...the White would show almost 50% or more.
Silver fire make Black be deeper, and the Bar's are actually attenuated light.

It remains your decision to make / live with, but the 8000 is the better all around choice.

...an additional noteworthy point. The 8000 does have a Anamorphic Stretch Mode after all. So it can mate with a A-Lens after all.











What...me busy? You have no idea...... redface.gif I'm so crazed I can't find the time to post up all the collected info and images / Movies I've garnered over the last 3-4 weeks.
post #1459 of 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

There is no distortion, only a very slight amount of content excised at the top edge of the image.

..............and that happens "ONLY" if one chooses to optimize the width of 16:9 over the height.

You are totally wrong about SF showing "more" of any barely projected light within "Bars" than a white screen...the White would show almost 50% or more.
Silver fire make Black be deeper, and the Bar's are actually attenuated light.

It remains your decision to make / live with, but the 8000 is the better all around choice.

...an additional noteworthy point. The 8000 does have a Anamorphic Stretch Mode after all. So it can mate with a A-Lens after all.











What...me busy? You have no idea...... redface.gif I'm so crazed I can't find the time to post up all the collected info and images / Movies I've garnered over the last 3-4 weeks.


Hi MississippiMan,

Thanks for your post! I think we agree about the top/bottom black bars, if you read my post again - you may have just misread it. I knew the 8000 had an Anamorphic Stretch mode, but it does not have ECC, so it will not work with the Panamorph Cinevista lens - a more expensive lens would be required. I'm confused as to why the 8000 is the all around better choice?? Here's why (based upon my reading of forums from users) - maybe someone can help me out:

1) Lumens - the 8000 has more lumens in its brightest mode than the Sony HW55ES; however, the Sony has more lumens in the Cinema modes.

2) Color - the Sony is said to be more color correct out of the box.

3) Black Level - the Sony is said to have better black level than the 8000.

4) Uniformity - the Sony is supposed to be very good, but the Panasonic is said to have issues.

5) Panel Alignment - the Sony has it, but the 8000 does not. This is deemed by many to be a very necessary item for LCD projectors.

6) Fan noise - both are quiet in economy mode, but the 8000 is louder in normal/high lamp mode

7) Problems/Warranties - I'm seeing that there are folks experiencing issues with the 8000 (panel aligment and uniformity, for example) and are having to send the 8000 back, only to have to wait up to a month for a turnaround on the fix. Not seeing hardly any Sony issues. Regarding Warranty, Panasonic is limited to 2000 hours. If using the projector as a TV, I'll use up that 2000 hours in 6 months to a year. The Sony has a longer Warranty.

8) Cost - I believe the Panasonic is less expensive

9) Zoom/Focus - the Panasonic has the advantage here, IF doing a 2.39:1 screen.


Seems like the Sony is the better choice for a 16X9 screen. Somebody will need to show me the reasons to get the Panasonic...


Thanks,

Dave
Edited by thezaks - 4/1/14 at 11:07am
post #1460 of 1462
I have decided on a 16:9 screen and the Sony HW55ES projector. When I can get some of MississippiMan's time, I'm hoping to get some paint or a screen sample.


Dave
post #1461 of 1462
Hi MississipiMan,

I am one of those crazy danes, and what you describe there sounds about right.

I live in Barbados though, with some similar zealousness on Customs part when it comes to applying duties.

I've been lurking here at AVS for years, and am strongly considering having a go at a painted screen in the new house I moved into 2 years ago, after being quite happy with a Screen Goo 8' x 4' at the old place.

Thinking that perhaps it is time to drop in on this thread and ask for opinions / suggestions on how best to make the new home theater space work


Unlike the old house, the home theater in the new place will be part of the living room and kitchen, and there are serious issues with ambient light, so it represents some engineering (And color coordination) challenges with the wife :-)

The challenges here are the light coming in from the windows and french doors on both sides of the room, and that the walls are very white. The projection wall is quite prominent, so have been pondering painting the entire wall instead of having the grey square sitting there, which I understand will bring contrast issues because of the adjoining walls being white (But they could be painted too in some fancy way).

A photo of the room can be seen here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fla802nvbgfmz9/iabaeaaa.jpg

I will get rid of the oaken AV cabinet and build something lower spanning the entire width of the wall (Like a low credenza), to contain AV equipment.

I have an Epson 5020UB projector


Sunny regards,



Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

I STRONGLY suggest that your friend go to the trouble of mixing everything up for you according to the posted directions, including the addition of the specified water content, then Filtering it and transferring it into 3 or 4 -1 Quart metal paint cans, each sealed with an auspicious amount of packing tape. Label each can as being "Water Based Artist Screen Paint". List the Value of the shipment at under $30.00 USD

4 Cans will fit into a Large Flat Rate Box (USPS) and ship International Priority Flat Rate to Germany for under $72.00....and sail right through Customs over there with little or no Duties or VAT.

Ship all the components separately in the same Box and you'll get walloped. eek.gif

Trust me in this....I've shipped paint to all corners of the Globe, to some of the most austere and restrictive Countries there are, and never have had anything refused or levied with crazy charges. Well, except for Denmark.......they stand alone as the most restrictive of all as far as accepting "anything" from the US without socking it with as much Duty as they can justify. And if they cannot justify it...they just seem to hold it in Customs for 2-3 weeks before releasing it for delivery.

Crazy Danes. rolleyes.gif
post #1462 of 1462
I'm still thinking about projectors. I'm still thinking the Sony HW55ES would be the best all around projector for me and an ambient light situation - with a SF, of course! Does anyone have one of these projectors with an SF screen? If so, how do you like it?

Ultimately, I would love to have the JVC DLA-RS4910 projector. It's actually brighter than the Panny and Sony in its Cinema-like modes. But, in brightest mode, the Panny and Sony are still brighter. Anyone have a JVC with an SF screen?

Or, are SF screens limited to the bright BenQ's, the Epson 5030/6030, and the Panny???


Dave
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.