Can someone comment on the viewing angle of SF v2. I thought that an increase in gain usually results in narrower viewing angle. But, I'm also a newbie
post #61 of 1324
2/5/11 at 11:36am
While this answer might not be structured exactly along the lines you requested, try to surmise some conclusions.
In the only really thorough comparison made between SF, BW, and basic Grays and White, BW did only "as good as" Silverscreen (...both being the same gain .85 ) as far as light rejection and contrast, while best SS on Color dynamics and actually had better Whites. However SF handily did it all better. That wasn't something a few people liked to see in Print/Images.
As you already know, to attempt to glean more gain, the various developers of the related applications had to change up everything that made BW.....well, BW. The whole truth is BW was simply an attempt to compete with SF by using something different (...they simply could not / would not embrace anything MM/PB-Maxxx...) and to qualify it by inundating the Threads with supposed scientific proofs that really just served to show how limited the approach taken was. Decrying the reflective ingredient make-up of SF became the primary Battle Cry, yet here we are still using the dreaded and much maligned Silver Metallic to create even more advanced DIY Screen apps.
This is no rant, just a common sense observation.
In truth, the applications such as C&S and the newer Scorpion hold far better promise as far as being muilt-purpose apps, while BW is actually very confined as to what it can accomplish. That those other Paint solution's development sprung from the need to offset the "less than exemplary" characteristics of BW pretty much says enough on that subject.
Now for your answer...kinda. While the images below do not offer any direct comparison, the results shown do illustrate just how well the attributes your wanting to see are shown to exist. The project below was done by a rank beginner, with no prior experience, and basically speaking...he nailed it.
Now consider how few 120" BW screens are actually out there, as well as the fact that SF 3.0 is decidedly a darker shade of Gray than BW, and you can surmise that something special is happening to allow a dark Gray to perform better than a Matte White in the Dark, yet outperform virtually any other Gray Screen...Mfg or DIY... in ambient light conditions. Everything to want is exactly what SF delivers, even the "I'm not interested in Color Accuracy" issue (...just look at the Skin Tones in the last image...)
However, without the much requested direct comparisons, much of what I'm saying can...and will be greeted with the same shrugs and it always has. But if you read the commentary offered by the latest end users, and view the consistency of the results, you'd actually have to be determined to NOT draw any conclusions. They are readily there...but one has to want to see 'em for what they represent, not for how much they show up other applications. Comparing SF to BW and absolutely any lighter shade of Gray with less gain is an exercise in redundancy...it's been done so often in the past, revisiting it continually is getting a bit worn at the edges.
Simply put, SF has gravitated well beyond the necessity of such mundane matters. However....we just might have a surprise in store for you soon.....because we are nothing if not obliging to requests such as yours when they are made with courtesy and a true sense of curiosity.
ok, thanks... however, I'd like to see a similar test as the copmarisons I cited, with a 'correct' application of SF.... in other words... I don't care about color accuracy that much... but I do care about black levels, contrast, light rejection, and viewing cone / contrast dropoff towards the edges... any other test images out there??