Originally Posted by Pessimus
I recently decided to change my living room setup to a projector (Epson 8350). I'm quite pleased. After lurking on these forums for at least a couple weeks many times a day, here I am.
I'm currently in the process of deciding on a screen, and all of the Silver Fire, S-I-L-V-E-R, and Black Widow talking I'm seeing has got me intrigued in the past few days. I'm posting here because I'm leaning towards SF, mostly due to this person named Mississippi Man, whose knowledge has been extremely helpful while lurking.
The problem I'm having is deciding between SF and BW. Here
, I find that BW has pretty much NO gain loss at almost any angle. SF shows that there is about .5 gain loss after only about a 30 degree half angle. However, pictures that I saw on another thread that MM posted seemed to not show that. So I'm pretty confused: Does SF have no gain loss at angles or no? Is it dependent on how dark I make it?
Hello and welcome to active posting!
Here's the Skinny.
SF mixes that are within the lower numerical designations ( 1.0 - 2.0 - 3.0
) range within 1.3 to 1.1 gain respectfully. Most screens with gain exhibit a degree of loss of viewing cone because the gain they posses directs light back toward the source...something common when the reflective surface is of positive gain due solely because it has a varying degree of sheen. SF mixes, when applied correct;y, suspend and distribute the reflective elements within a semi-translucent base, arraying the particles in a random disbursement. Far more light is reflected at angles that are less "retro", and that simply allows for a much lessor degree of loss of viewing cone. Many refer to this as the "Plasma-like" glow that SF applications produce
That is also why in both actual user commentary / reviews as well as in Screen Shots that virtually no noticeable loss of viewing cone seems to exist. Is the any actual loss? Certainly. Is it determinable to the "eye" or "Camera" from normal viewing locations, or even at extreme off-axis angles of viewing. No....obviously not. Do spectral tests using very small surfaces focus on showing otherwise? Just as obviously, yes. but as stated repeatedly, such tests can be and are misleading as to the actual performance under full sized representations. Were that not the case, especially to any remote degree as claimed elsewhere, then there could be no disguising such.
I cannot and will not be drawn deep into any argument about why purported testing elsewhere by those who claim non-bias and purported "non-motive" integrity, and who also preface and post script such tests with personal attacks and degrading commentary want to continually point out such things. Such actions, both past and present, pretty much speak for themselves. Let's just say it is a "personal" thing, and as being such, has no bearing or justification beyond those with personal reasons for doing so.
I've been showing applications that have gain factors above 1.0 with no determinable loss viewing cone....to the observing viewer...since day one (2003)...and many of those applications contained almost no "reflective particles" in in sort of the abundance the current generation of DIY mixes do.
Getting back to sorts, darker mixes can become less reflective (lower gain) or maintain gain with the addition of a more higher percentage of reflective particles within. What does not work is trying to increase the gross reflectivity of the Base that contains such reflective particles. Instead, what needs to be achieved is to obtain a balance between effective masking of overt reflectivity coming off the reflective particles, and working to disperse that reflectivity are angles not directly in line with the source. SF mixes do that by having a 'deeper' coating, one that requires sprayed on application to prevent the flattening / alignment of such particles. The inherent advantage of all SF formulations is that they are infinitely adjustable to meet the needs of the many varied uses by a the widest selection of End Users. That is why we / I interact with so many, to attempt to refine their specific needs and offer directed opinions as to what might serve them best.
And it's not always SF....to be sure.
BW is a application that is sub-1.0 in gain. (0.85) Were it not for the employment of the Aluminum within, it's gain would be "substantially" lower still, making is a very non- reflective coating. Any surface with a gain lower than 1.0 will tend to show no loss of viewing cone. It will also show a much less dynamic image as well, with the only saving grace being the propensity of the Gray shade helping to retain and enhance certain colors and perceived contrast...if the projector's output is up to the test. Even with that being so, many refer to the viewable granularity the aluminum in BW adds to that equation. If enough altering of a BW mix is done to mitigate such, simply put, it neither remains "BW" nor retains whatever purpose BW was created for (...primarily to offset ambient light issues...) This has pretty much been recognized as being the case for some time on now, and is what led to the need / demand for more reflective mixes...even the embracing of the use of mica-based mixes, formally stated by them as being wholly undesirable.
Everything about SF applications, and those that preceded them have been about optimizing light reflection without sacrificing contrast and viewing flexibility. For some years, the use of Silver and Pearl additives were acknowledged as being of some advantage in doing so, but just the same, it was also recognized that the use of such usually carried disadvantages as well. I made it a goal to mitigate those disadvantages, allowing only the advantages to be consistently employed. The results of such efforts have been posted for all to see, by me and many others. And for quite a while.
It's left up to others to view those postings, the resulting screen shots, and read the User reviews to determine as to if SF or RS-MM LL applications can be of specific and determined use. To maintain a true "DIY-ism" and to avoid trying overly hard to justify and promote those applications by waging scientific "Tit for Tat", it's been long decided that the End User himself should be the determining "Last word" as to how valid and effective performance is, as therein lies the only real difference between "Claims" and actual real life usage and performance.
I'm sorry that your posted questions had to lead into this somewhat rambling response. I hope that out of it all you can glean to answer you seek. Look to others to validate my words in any case, and their own motive cannot be questioned or skewered into being anything but actual comments that tell things as they really are. Simply put, the validity of everything that is represented by me and others on this Forum is put to the test with every new member's own personal effort. The resulting postings should suffice in determining the truths in everything that is stated as being so.
In closing, you situation does not seen to begin to suffer from concerns about having to deal with adverse viewing angles. You have a bright PJ with very decent contrast specs, but one that can certainly use some help boosting perceived Contrast. SF ca d that, while preserving foot lamberts, and allowing you to coast on Low Lamp, something that also allows for the Pj at hand to deliver it's best calibrated performance.