AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › DIY Screen Section › Projector Screen for Under $100
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Projector Screen for Under $100

post #1 of 35
11/24/11 at 9:15pm
Thread Starter 
I am building a family room and putting in a projector. Here are the options i was thinking of for the screen, my budget is under $100:

1. Build a projector screen out of blackout cloth /wood frame.
2. Paint the wall with screen paint.

Questions:

-Which one has a better picture?
-if i go with option 1, could/should i paint the blackout cloth?
-is the screen paint found on ebay ok? How does it compair to $200 screen goo?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 35
11/25/11 at 5:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfnirvana292 View Post

I am building a family room and putting in a projector. Here are the options i was thinking of for the screen, my budget is under $100:

1. Build a projector screen out of blackout cloth /wood frame.
2. Paint the wall with screen paint.

Questions:

-Which one has a better picture?

To keep under $100.00, and avoid much more work, painting the Wall ....if it's smooth and flat, is your only real option.

Quote:


-is the screen paint found on ebay ok? How does it compair to $200 screen goo?

Most of the "inexpensive" Ebay paint are just common paints re-badged and sold as something special. People do tend to jump at the chance to sell things that others have no clue as to what it really is...or should be.

Of the actual Mfg Screen paints, GOO is over-priced and overstated. DIY Home Theater is a direct GOO Clone from AU priced identically to GOO. (...used to be much higher than...)

On this Forum we have several DIY Paint applications that can be tailored for your own personal circumstances. The almost infinite combinations can get you optimal results. But the method of application is just as critical as the paint choice. Rolling will limit your choices to a great degree....but that still leaves you with some excellent choices that just ain't a'gonna cost you even 100.00, let alone $200

But you'd need to give is more info:

Projector type and Position (throw-mounting)
Room size and use
Lighting / Windows ...how much of either type light will be present?
Anything else specific to your circumstances
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 35
11/25/11 at 9:31am
Thread Starter 
The projector is an Acer H5630. Its going into a family room in the basement (has one medium size window, lights will be off). The distance is approx. 12 ft. Its primarily for watching movies.

Its new construction so i have a lot of options. Im handy and have lots of leftover wood to use to build a screen. Also, i can cover up that part of the wall so it doesnt get textured if i go with the painting route.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 35
11/27/11 at 8:00pm
Thread Starter 
Anyone?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 35
11/28/11 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfnirvana292 View Post

I am building a family room and putting in a projector. Here are the options i was thinking of for the screen, my budget is under $100:

1. Build a projector screen out of blackout cloth /wood frame.
2. Paint the wall with screen paint.

Questions:

-Which one has a better picture?
-if i go with option 1, could/should i paint the blackout cloth?
-is the screen paint found on ebay ok? How does it compair to $200 screen goo?

The "better picture" question is a tough one. Lots of variables. But... a framed screen as advantages over a painted wall in terms of flexibility of placement., especially if you PJ does not have a lens shift.

I built a 110" screen using artist canvas since I could find BO cloth locally at that time (~2004). But light passed thru it - a lot of light. So I treated it with gesso, then applied 2 coats of Behr Pure White (I think that's what I used). Image looked better to me after I painted the screen.

I'll be installing a new PJ this weekend, and the new PJ does not have lens shift. As long as I get the image "close enough" onto the screen, I can slide my frame left/right, and even raise it by using shims.

If it were me, I'd build a screen with BO, but do not paint it. Try out the new screen for a few weeks. Paint it only if you think you need to.

Just my opinion.

-T
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 35
11/29/11 at 8:30pm
Thread Starter 
I think ill go this route. Can anyone tell me what size to make my screen? Acer H5360 @ 12ft?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 35
11/29/11 at 9:02pm
which way is that exactly?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 35
11/30/11 at 6:04am
I went the canvas stretched route and have been happy with my around $100 screen for 5 years now. The method I used is documented in a link in my signature if you want to take a look at how I did it. Both methods require some skill. Getting a skim coated drywall screen perfectly flat is a different skill set than building and stretching a canvas artist panel of very large size. Drywall can crack or develop screw pops not likely but does happen. One of my favorite ways to see a drywall screen used is in a stealth setting where there isn’t a clue it’s a screen wall till the projector fires up. It allows for using the zoom for different AR and moving the image anyplace you need it. This is better suited to a family room than a formal home theater. It also sometimes has better wife acceptance factor than a big framed out screen. Just a large gray accent wall.

Something seldom talked about here is screen texture. The common goal is to get a perfectly flat surface. Paint alone rolled or sprayed will take on a texture. And fabric like canvas come with a slight texture and the texture is minimized thru painting. Texture I have always thought could be a positive thing in picture quality if planned correctly, many here have disagreed. My thoughts have been a higher sheen level can be painted over a textured surface than a flat surface and the dispersion will be in part caused by the base texture not just the paint surface texture. What is true is any texture imparted to the screen has to be consistent across the surface in order to have the screen portray an open window effect. The slightest change in texture with a moving image will cause the brain to focus on that change and draw you back into a 2D image. I found canvas the easiest of surfaces to paint and end up with a constant texture when done, even with paints that were improved thru adding poly to have a pretty high sheen level. So easy in fact I brush painted my screen I now use. There are some techniques to rolling, spraying and brushing that help with the end quality and they are documented around here.

Whatever method you go with good luck, and post some pictures when done along with your thoughts.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 35
11/30/11 at 8:01am
Just to reiterate, if you determine to try to build a screen whose surface will be dependent upon how well you get such done, (ie: Frame, stretching, painting, trimming... etc.) then you must accept that you cannot do such and stay under the $100.00 price point, nor be in anyway assured that what you do spend will result in something you'll be happy with.

Most probably the former.....but the latter's potential becomes all the more likely with every additional step you must take.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post


Something seldom talked about here is screen texture. The common goal is to get a perfectly flat surface. Paint alone rolled or sprayed will take on a texture. And fabric like canvas come with a slight texture and the texture is minimized through painting. Texture I have always thought could be a positive thing in picture quality if planned correctly, many here have disagreed. My thoughts have been a higher sheen level can be painted over a textured surface than a flat surface and the dispersion will be in part caused by the base texture not just the paint surface texture. What is true is any texture imparted to the screen has to be consistent across the surface in order to have the screen portray an open window effect. The slightest change in texture with a moving image will cause the brain to focus on that change and draw you back into a 2D image.

There is a lot of conflicting info in the above.

1. Proper painting technique and the right selection of paint will reduce texture...not assure one of it's presence.
2. Texture can NEVER provide a "better" surface. While in the past it could mask Screen Door Effect, or serve to refract light and thereby reduce hot spotting, the texture itself will always be apparent.
3. The use of a higher sheen on texture will "Always" result in highlighting the high & low points.
4. Any screen that has any degree of texture present after construction / painting will never offer a "open window" effect. This might me less when using a Flat white...or more if a Gray, high contrast coating is applied. Add sheen to either equation and the situation will worsen.

Painting the existing wall using a simple Paint formula is most assuredly the least expensive route to take. While I'm not a great Fan of Rolling, if you have experience at such, with care, very good results can be had...and they will certainly come in far under that $100.00 point.

Want something better? Purchase this $50.00 HVLP spray gun:
http://www.gleempaint.com/noname.html

....and select a Quart of good Paint: Sherwin Williams "Interior" Pro Classic Smooth Enamel Satin Finish.

Either tinted a neutral Gray or left "white", that combination will get you the best possible results at the least expensive price.

Where do you live? Your location might also offer a few other "No Paint" alternatives.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 35
11/30/11 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Just to reiterate, if you determine to try to build a screen whose surface will be dependent upon how well you get such done, (ie: Frame, stretching, painting, trimming... etc.) then you must accept that you cannot do such and stay under the $100.00 price point, nor be in anyway assured that what you do spend will result in something you'll be happy with.

Most probably the former.....but the latter's potential becomes all the more likely with every additional step you must take.



There is a lot of conflicting info in the above.

1. Proper painting technique and the right selection of paint will reduce texture...not assure one of it's presence.
2. Texture can NEVER provide a "better" surface. While in the past it could mask Screen Door Effect, or serve to refract light and thereby reduce hot spotting, the texture itself will always be apparent.
3. The use of a higher sheen on texture will "Always" result in highlighting the high & low points.
4. Any screen that has any degree of texture present after construction / painting will never offer a "open window" effect. This might me less when using a Flat white...or more if a Gray, high contrast coating is applied. Add sheen to either equation and the situation will worsen.

Painting the existing wall using a simple Paint formula is most assuredly the least expensive route to take. While I'm not a great Fan of Rolling, if you have experience at such, with care, very good results can be had...and they will certainly come in far under that $100.00 point.

Want something better? Purchase this $50.00 HVLP spray gun:
http://www.gleempaint.com/noname.html

....and select a Quart of good Paint: Sherwin Williams "Interior" Pro Classic Smooth Enamel Satin Finish.

Either tinted a neutral Gray or left "white", that combination will get you the best possible results at the least expensive price.

Where do you live? Your location might also offer a few other "No Paint" alternatives.

I did say many might disagree.

The fact is all paint has texture as do all smooth and polished surfaces even drywall compound. The fact that you can't see the texture doesn't mean it's not there. Light reflects and refracts off all screen surfaces and the fact we don't see our face in them like we would a mirror is they are scattering light in all directions due to the texture of the surface. Of course this is micro texture and the screen texture I'm talking about is macro. All our projectors are digital and we don't see the pixels because they are sub what our vision can discern at the distance we sit away. Likewise the type of texture a weave or the orange peel of a spray job to work should be in the sub pixel size by at least 4 to 1 and better 8 to 1.

What is not true in the above post is that it is imposable to see the open window affect with a cloth screen with texture and a paint of sheen. I know this because I have been watching it for 5 years.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 35
11/30/11 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

I did say many might disagree.

The fact is all paint has texture as do all smooth and polished surfaces even drywall compound. The fact that you can’t see the texture doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Really...is that the best retort you can come up with? I must say it's the expected kind, though. Your comment says that you'd like to infer that I said that for any given screen to be good at what it does, or present an open window effect, it must have absolutely no texture...period, even down to the microscopic level... and/or that I in turn must believe such was possible.
I did not.

But bluntly stated, when dealing with a visual example, and accounting for those with normal visual acuity, if you cannot see texture from 6" away for a lit or unlit screen surface...then it's not there...for all intents and purposes. If it does not manifest itself to the eye, then it's a non-issue.

Your comment / response is like alluding that I said because a totally Bald head shines like a billiard ball, that means it has no hair on it...at all.
Well I and most every other sensible person would say that if you have to use a magnifying glass to see any hair, for all intents and purposes the head is totally bald...it has no hair on it. And yes...using a Microscope, even the surface of a Billiard Ball can look like the skin on a Football.

Visible texture is what is being referred to.

Quote:


Light reflects and refracts off all screen surfaces and the fact we don’t see our face in them like we would a mirror is they are scattering light in all directions due to the texture of the surface. Of course this is micro texture and the screen texture I’m talking about is macro.

What you call Macro others call Mountainous. You know full well I'm referring to plainly visible or tactile types of texture. But you post a response that follows up with an inane and inappropriate example.

And your completely wrong about a Mirror,as it does scatter light...it simply reflects "almost" all light directly back at the source. Well...., let's be careful now not to draw another nonsensical rebuke....a good 2nd Surface Mirror reflects 89-92% of the light it receives...a 1st Surface Mirror almost +97.9 %. Some Aluminum Mylars or Mercury Coated surfaces can achieve almost 99%. So it can be said that a Mirror does not scatter light...enough to make a difference. But anyone who wants to be contrary for argument's sake can say that those remaining small percentages serve to prove that a Mirror does indeed scatter light.

And if you put any of those "Glassy smooth" surfaces under a high powered microscope....and OMG!
You can see bumps!

But the effect those microscopic bumps have is virtually nil as far as being measurable, and even then only by the most sensitive of test equipment. But...it's there...so in that sense you are 1 to 3% correct

Of course anyone with reasoning power would see that such an effort made to disprove a Mirrors stated performance characteristics by stating that the "texture" on such surfaces affect such performance to any noticeable degree was / is in fact a feckless one. That certainly is not my intent to do so, so please don't use my own silly example against me.

Quote:


All our projectors are digital and we don’t see the pixels because they are sub what our vision can discern at the distance we sit away. Likewise the type of texture a weave or the orange peel of a spray job to work should be in the sub pixel size by at least 4 to 1 and better 8 to 1.

Now that's total nonsense. Your canvas's weaved surface has texture measurable at a factor 10x what you state, and ONLY the heavier application of paint by Brush served to mitigate that weave. Without paint, the weave on the canvass would have been quite apparent under close scrutiny...even back in 2006. Never mind today with brighter PJs with vastly better Contrast...the latter being something that will always serve to highlight texture...not hide it.

Proper spraying has always been, and will always be superior to an Brushed or Rolled application. Both the latter can achieve something close to parity if done perfectly, using the most optimal tools, paint, and technique. However the size of the "IF" in those equations can be far larger a hurdle than many can attempt to jump. Spraying correctly is just a small "bump" to either step over or stub a toe on...seldom does one trip and fall completely on his face.

Quote:


What is not true in the above post is that it is imposable to see the open window affect with a cloth screen with texture and a paint of sheen. I know this because I have been watching it for 5 years.

Once more...can you point to where I used the word "imposable" or even "Impossible" in relation to your own effort? Nope...what I said was "Any screen that has any degree of texture present after construction / painting will never offer a "open window" effect." The use of the word "present" means texture you can see The thickness of your brushed on coating (...I know you applied more than one coat...) is many times that of 3-4 sprayed on coats, and most probably 2-3x thicker than 2 coats rolled on by a low nap roller. And you used a Flat Gray w/ Poly in your paint, so there is some fudging going on as to just how much "sheen" there really is.

Basically, your screen looks like a "Flat Gray" and reacts like it's Flat...not like it has any real degree of sheen. If it had enough sheen to really matter...(ie: offer any real increase in gain) it would be hot spotting. If I recall correctly, the use of the Poly in your case was every bit as much or more purposed to allow the paint to "settle out" and apply better, as it was to improve the tendency of the Gray toward any attenuation of light. You yourself stated that the PJ's light output was the real determining factor....not any degree of "sheen". That's why you could use a darker Gray.

You must of forgotten about that.....that's the answer.

Still, it's obvious you did an exemplary job with that brush. But that still doesn't mean very many others would ever be able achieve similar results...and that's why people don't use Brushes to paint smooth Projection screen surfaces. I haven't seen a single post to that effect for the last 5 1/2 years since your original Thread's posting. Point me to one and I'll never bring that up again...I promise.

Now that self-tensioned Frame? That was indeed a work of wonder.
As evidenced that it was the one aspect of your project that a few people actually duplicated.

jfnirvana292 might indeed accomplish making himself a decent screen for under $100.00, but not one like yours with such a splendid Frame, nor virtually any BOC Screen that uses a well constructed Frame trimmed with a good, black surround. Nor will he be able to "likely" achieve a painted surface with "no noticeable texture" using a Roller. (...or Brush...)

But what he does get done painting his existing wall might suit his expectations well enough to satisfy him...and his budget. And leave him ready to easily upgrade his screen to something even "Mo Bedder' in the future. That is what his request is all about.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 35
11/30/11 at 7:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Really...is that the best retort you can come up with? I must say it's the expected kind, though. Your comment says that you'd like to infer that I said that for any given screen to be good at what it does, or present an open window effect, it must have absolutely no texture...period, even down to the microscopic level... and/or that I in turn must believe such was possible.
I did not.

But bluntly stated, when dealing with a visual example, and accounting for those with normal visual acuity, if you cannot see texture from 6" away for a lit or unlit screen surface...then it's not there...for all intents and purposes. If it does not manifest itself to the eye, then it's a non-issue.

Your comment / response is like alluding that I said because a totally Bald head shines like a billiard ball, that means it has no hair on it...at all.
Well I and most every other sensible person would say that if you have to use a magnifying glass to see any hair, for all intents and purposes the head is totally bald...it has no hair on it. And yes...using a Microscope, even the surface of a Billiard Ball can look like the skin on a Football.

Visible texture is what is being referred to.



What you call Macro others call Mountainous. You know full well I'm referring to plainly visible or tactile types of texture. But you post a response that follows up with an inane and inappropriate example.

And your completely wrong about a Mirror,as it does scatter light...it simply reflects "almost" all light directly back at the source. Well...., let's be careful now not to draw another nonsensical rebuke....a good 2nd Surface Mirror reflects 89-92% of the light it receives...a 1st Surface Mirror almost +97.9 %. Some Aluminum Mylars or Mercury Coated surfaces can achieve almost 99%. So it can be said that a Mirror does not scatter light...enough to make a difference. But anyone who wants to be contrary for argument's sake can say that those remaining small percentages serve to prove that a Mirror does indeed scatter light.

And if you put any of those "Glassy smooth" surfaces under a high powered microscope....and OMG!
You can see bumps!

But the effect those microscopic bumps have is virtually nil as far as being measurable, and even then only by the most sensitive of test equipment. But...it's there...so in that sense you are 1 to 3% correct

Of course anyone with reasoning power would see that such an effort made to disprove a Mirrors stated performance characteristics by stating that the "texture" on such surfaces affect such performance to any noticeable degree was / is in fact a feckless one. That certainly is not my intent to do so, so please don't use my own silly example against me.



Now that's total nonsense. Your canvas's weaved surface has texture measurable at a factor 10x what you state, and ONLY the heavier application of paint by Brush served to mitigate that weave. Without paint, the weave on the canvass would have been quite apparent under close scrutiny...even back in 2006. Never mind today with brighter PJs with vastly better Contrast...the latter being something that will always serve to highlight texture...not hide it.

Proper spraying has always been, and will always be superior to an Brushed or Rolled application. Both the latter can achieve something close to parity if done perfectly, using the most optimal tools, paint, and technique. However the size of the "IF" in those equations can be far larger a hurdle than many can attempt to jump. Spraying correctly is just a small "bump" to either step over or stub a toe on...seldom does one trip and fall completely on his face.



Once more...can you point to where I used the word "imposable" or even "Impossible" in relation to your own effort? Nope...what I said was "Any screen that has any degree of texture present after construction / painting will never offer a "open window" effect." The use of the word "present" means texture you can see The thickness of your brushed on coating (...I know you applied more than one coat...) is many times that of 3-4 sprayed on coats, and most probably 2-3x thicker than 2 coats rolled on by a low nap roller. And you used a Flat Gray w/ Poly in your paint, so there is some fudging going on as to just how much "sheen" there really is.

Basically, your screen looks like a "Flat Gray" and reacts like it's Flat...not like it has any real degree of sheen. If it had enough sheen to really matter...(ie: offer any real increase in gain) it would be hot spotting. If I recall correctly, the use of the Poly in your case was every bit as much or more purposed to allow the paint to "settle out" and apply better, as it was to improve the tendency of the Gray toward any attenuation of light. You yourself stated that the PJ's light output was the real determining factor....not any degree of "sheen". That's why you could use a darker Gray.

You must of forgotten about that.....that's the answer.

Still, it's obvious you did an exemplary job with that brush. But that still doesn't mean very many others would ever be able achieve similar results...and that's why people don't use Brushes to paint smooth Projection screen surfaces. I haven't seen a single post to that effect for the last 5 1/2 years since your original Thread's posting. Point me to one and I'll never bring that up again...I promise.

Now that self-tensioned Frame? That was indeed a work of wonder.
As evidenced that it was the one aspect of your project that a few people actually duplicated.

jfnirvana292 might indeed accomplish making himself a decent screen for under $100.00, but not one like yours with such a splendid Frame, nor virtually any BOC Screen that uses a well constructed Frame trimmed with a good, black surround. Nor will he be able to "likely" achieve a painted surface with "no noticeable texture" using a Roller. (...or Brush...)

But what he does get done painting his existing wall might suit his expectations well enough to satisfy him...and his budget. And leave him ready to easily upgrade his screen to something even "Mo Bedder' in the future. That is what his request is all about.

Sorry the quote didnt stick, i use my phone to post.

Anyways, i was trying to say i was probably go the boc cloth route since i did one a while back, with my x1, but it seemed to get dirty after 5 years...my current plan is to not texture the wall where the screen is going. Paint the wall white for a thhe time being and if unhappy use boc to build the screen or buy/make special paint.

Im in central wisc...
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 35
11/30/11 at 9:01pm
Well for certain, the Rubbery side of BOC will have less texture than any un coated cloth.

And if you did build a self -tensioned Frame, that would serve to keep the Cloth "drum head" tight.

But in the all in all, by starting your adventure by using the Drywall surface, a surface that you, at this conjecture, have total control over as far as texture...or the lack thereof, is a wise decision that leave open many different possibilities.

If you use the paint I suggested above, you'll be using something with a known value and performance. That paint has been reviewed as being a virtual "Dead Ringer" for a Stewart ST130 surface, a screen that sells for a couple $grand$.

Do a good job by spraying on the Primer and the paint, and you'll not be looking for a reason to change because of a lack of image quality. Nope, if anything it will center around your knowing that if such a simple application can look so good, you just have to know there are applications lying in wait for your discovery that will look even better.

It's all good.
(I made that up..... )
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 35
12/1/11 at 4:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Really...is that the best retort you can come up with? I must say it's the expected kind, though. Your comment says that you'd like to infer that I said that for any given screen to be good at what it does, or present an open window effect, it must have absolutely no texture...period, even down to the microscopic level... and/or that I in turn must believe such was possible.
I did not.

But bluntly stated, when dealing with a visual example, and accounting for those with normal visual acuity, if you cannot see texture from 6" away for a lit or unlit screen surface...then it's not there...for all intents and purposes. If it does not manifest itself to the eye, then it's a non-issue.

Your comment / response is like alluding that I said because a totally Bald head shines like a billiard ball, that means it has no hair on it...at all.
Well I and most every other sensible person would say that if you have to use a magnifying glass to see any hair, for all intents and purposes the head is totally bald...it has no hair on it. And yes...using a Microscope, even the surface of a Billiard Ball can look like the skin on a Football.

Visible texture is what is being referred to.



What you call Macro others call Mountainous. You know full well I'm referring to plainly visible or tactile types of texture. But you post a response that follows up with an inane and inappropriate example.

And your completely wrong about a Mirror,as it does scatter light...it simply reflects "almost" all light directly back at the source. Well...., let's be careful now not to draw another nonsensical rebuke....a good 2nd Surface Mirror reflects 89-92% of the light it receives...a 1st Surface Mirror almost +97.9 %. Some Aluminum Mylars or Mercury Coated surfaces can achieve almost 99%. So it can be said that a Mirror does not scatter light...enough to make a difference. But anyone who wants to be contrary for argument's sake can say that those remaining small percentages serve to prove that a Mirror does indeed scatter light.

And if you put any of those "Glassy smooth" surfaces under a high powered microscope....and OMG!
You can see bumps!

But the effect those microscopic bumps have is virtually nil as far as being measurable, and even then only by the most sensitive of test equipment. But...it's there...so in that sense you are 1 to 3% correct

Of course anyone with reasoning power would see that such an effort made to disprove a Mirrors stated performance characteristics by stating that the "texture" on such surfaces affect such performance to any noticeable degree was / is in fact a feckless one. That certainly is not my intent to do so, so please don't use my own silly example against me.



Now that's total nonsense. Your canvas's weaved surface has texture measurable at a factor 10x what you state, and ONLY the heavier application of paint by Brush served to mitigate that weave. Without paint, the weave on the canvass would have been quite apparent under close scrutiny...even back in 2006. Never mind today with brighter PJs with vastly better Contrast...the latter being something that will always serve to highlight texture...not hide it.

Proper spraying has always been, and will always be superior to an Brushed or Rolled application. Both the latter can achieve something close to parity if done perfectly, using the most optimal tools, paint, and technique. However the size of the "IF" in those equations can be far larger a hurdle than many can attempt to jump. Spraying correctly is just a small "bump" to either step over or stub a toe on...seldom does one trip and fall completely on his face.



Once more...can you point to where I used the word "imposable" or even "Impossible" in relation to your own effort? Nope...what I said was "Any screen that has any degree of texture present after construction / painting will never offer a "open window" effect." The use of the word "present" means texture you can see The thickness of your brushed on coating (...I know you applied more than one coat...) is many times that of 3-4 sprayed on coats, and most probably 2-3x thicker than 2 coats rolled on by a low nap roller. And you used a Flat Gray w/ Poly in your paint, so there is some fudging going on as to just how much "sheen" there really is.

Basically, your screen looks like a "Flat Gray" and reacts like it's Flat...not like it has any real degree of sheen. If it had enough sheen to really matter...(ie: offer any real increase in gain) it would be hot spotting. If I recall correctly, the use of the Poly in your case was every bit as much or more purposed to allow the paint to "settle out" and apply better, as it was to improve the tendency of the Gray toward any attenuation of light. You yourself stated that the PJ's light output was the real determining factor....not any degree of "sheen". That's why you could use a darker Gray.

You must of forgotten about that.....that's the answer.

Still, it's obvious you did an exemplary job with that brush. But that still doesn't mean very many others would ever be able achieve similar results...and that's why people don't use Brushes to paint smooth Projection screen surfaces. I haven't seen a single post to that effect for the last 5 1/2 years since your original Thread's posting. Point me to one and I'll never bring that up again...I promise.

Now that self-tensioned Frame? That was indeed a work of wonder.
As evidenced that it was the one aspect of your project that a few people actually duplicated.

jfnirvana292 might indeed accomplish making himself a decent screen for under $100.00, but not one like yours with such a splendid Frame, nor virtually any BOC Screen that uses a well constructed Frame trimmed with a good, black surround. Nor will he be able to "likely" achieve a painted surface with "no noticeable texture" using a Roller. (...or Brush...)

But what he does get done painting his existing wall might suit his expectations well enough to satisfy him...and his budget. And leave him ready to easily upgrade his screen to something even "Mo Bedder' in the future. That is what his request is all about.


The above is a classic example of why 99% of the avid posters and DIY screen experimenters of the last 5 years no longer work out of this site.

My first post to this thread was given to allow the OP some perspective into what I had done and in his asking about stretched fabric screens that were painted. There was an additional post talking about art canvas and I had hoped to interject additional information I had found dealing with canvas. Most large manufactured screens are built around a fabric based approach. Go to an IMAX theater and see if they have built it from 300 sheets of drywall. I have never said there is anything wrong with a drywall screen and was trying to point out pros and cons of each.

I won’t waste readers time with endless rebuttal of topics long past. I’m sure they can get a taste of the flavor it would become from the several rebuttals already posted. The only comment I will make is to this quote:

“ And your completely wrong about a Mirror,as it does scatter light...it simply reflects "almost" all light directly back at the source. Well...., let's be careful now not to draw another nonsensical rebuke....”

This is incorrect mirrors do not reflect light back to the source they reflect light per the rule (angle incidence angle reflection)
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/u13l1c.cfm

I’m long past arguing about things as simple as 6th grade science. Readers beware with all posted as fact on the internet by people that are “experts in the field”. I no longer post here except occasionally to test the water. It’s clearly still a pond only big enough for one fish.



On edit:

I would like to add my apology to the OP for any part my being here has caused strife within his thread. I was not trying to force feed any ideas into anyone. Anything I posted was intended to be helpful to you.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 35
12/1/11 at 10:56am
Somebody give the poor Guy some Cheese to go along with that Whine.

Gosh, the secret is out. MMan is solely responsible for driving away every member who ever posted with ill intent, in a aggressive or abusive manner, ignored Forum rules, or cast disparaging insults on DIY Screens. And gosh durn it, where does MMan get off ever questioning what anyone else posts? How dare he ever think he could respond to another member's own rebuttal?

Just read MMan's last post. Oh my goodness, it was so nasty. Certainly deserving of a response blaming him for driving away everyone who doesn't post, or cannot post on this Forum anymore.

Not even. In reality, because some people cannot say whatever they want to without being held accountable, or have anything they post questioned, they aren't happy campers. For the record, virtually everyone of those supposed "avid posters and DIY screen experimenters" who "left" were told to leave for repeated infractions, or left because their own crass postings were being deleted for being infractions, and pretty darn soon they were going to be told to leave as well for such repeated violations. And the decisions were not ever made by, or influenced in any way by me... only by the AVS Moderators. And yet some of those past and "current" offenders go so far as to say I influenced the Mod's reaction. Or that the Mod's are guilty of being preferential in their treatment.

Bud's post are themselves a classic example of him taking every opportunity to cast his own brand of rhetoric into the pool. Always worded as to make him the offended party...and always presented so as to make any further comment from my direction be considered an offense...not a response.

Well facts are facts. I spend inordinate amounts of time helping people. I respond to many varied posts on a variety of issues. Some only dabble, or only have a very limited amount of info to offer so they hardly ever post (...that's my fault too, of course...) while others seem to lie in wait for an opportunity to dredge up the past and point accusatory fingers of blame...often veiled in velveteen words and expressions of great remorse.

It takes a certain personality to bitch, moan, and basically try to steer blame and fault to someone else via baseless accusations just because what they post is not held to be sacred.

What is certain to many is who is really responsible for making a concerted effort to help, and whose own efforts are far too often more purposefully directed at creating conflict.

Certainly it is regrettable that the previous post had to be centered on and intended to be what amounts to being a personalized attack. And sorry, but no edited apology can mitigate or compensate for the freedoms already taken.

What confuses me how it can be inferred that "Anything I posted was intended to be helpful to you" seems to include all content of the rest of the posts.

We'll let's close this out with me pointing out something.

Often, info is imparted by some that is narrowly directed to a specific point, that in fact is not relevant to the present circumstance. Someone asks for a easy solution that cost under $100.00, and they receive a suggestion that will cost enough more to make a difference, and considerable handiwork to accomplish. Good intentions? Certainly. Relevant? Not nearly as much so.


Still others will offer a rebuttal like explanation like :
"This is incorrect mirrors do not reflect light back to the source they reflect light per the rule (angle incidence angle reflection)"
...when in fact, since the light source is almost directly in front, the "angle incidence" is almost directly returned.

They wouldn't be well served to consider that....and since that was really off topic as to what the questions and needs of the Thread pertained too, it was elaborated on more than was necessary. By both parties...admittedly. But absolutely.... let's not waste the reader's time by bringing up topics long past....at least not until we have already done so. Since that has been already accomplished, there shouldn't be the need to say anything else....right?

T-Bone did an excellent job presenting his BOC suggestion, as well as noting what it took to make Canvas have an acceptable surface. In fact...Bud didn't do so bad either. But bear in mind who felt obligated to take umbrage with even a slightly contrary response.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 35
12/1/11 at 11:01am
jfnirvana292,

What do we need to do to get you up and going and ready to paint that wall?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 35
12/1/11 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Somebody give the poor Guy some Cheese to go along with that Whine.

Gosh, the secret is out. MMan is solely responsible for driving away every member who ever posted with ill intent, in a aggressive or abusive manner, ignored Forum rules, or cast disparaging insults on DIY Screens. And gosh durn it, where does MMan get off ever questioning what anyone else posts? How dare he ever think he could respond to another member's own rebuttal?

Just read MMan's last post. Oh my goodness, it was so nasty. Certainly deserving of a response blaming him for driving away everyone who doesn't post on this Forum anymore.

Not even. In reality, because some people cannot say whatever they want to without being held accountable, or have anything they post questioned, they aren't happy campers. For the record, virtually everyone of those supposed "avid posters and DIY screen experimenters" who "left" were told to leave for repeated infractions, or left because their own crass postings were being deleted for being infractions, and pretty darn soon they were going to be told to leave as well for such repeated violations. And the decisions were not ever made by, or influenced in any way by me... only by the AVS Moderators. And yet some of those past and "current" offenders go so far as to say I influenced the Mod's reaction. Or that the Mod's are guilty of being preferential in their treatment.

Bud's post are themselves a classic example of him taking every opportunity to cast his own brand of rhetoric into the pool. Always worded as to make him the offended party...and always presented so as to make any further comment from my direction be considered an offense...not a response.

Well facts are facts. I spend inordinate amounts of time helping people. I respond to many varied posts on a variety of issues. Some only dabble, or only have a very limited amount of info to offer so they hardly ever post (...that's my fault too, of course...) while others seem to lie in wait for an opportunity to dredge up the past and point accusatory fingers of blame...often veiled in velveteen words and expressions of great remorse.

It takes a certain personality to bitch, moan, and basically try to steer blame and fault to someone else via baseless accusations just because what they post is not held to be sacred.

What is certain to many is who is really responsible for making a concerted effort to help, and whose efforts are more purposefully directed at creating conflict.

Certainly it is regrettable that the previous post had to be centered on and intended to be what amounts to being a personalized attack. And sorry, but no edited apology can mitigate or compensate for the freedoms already taken.

What confuses me how it can be inferred that "Anything I posted was intended to be helpful to you" seems to include all content of the rest of the posts.

We'll let's close this out with me pointing out something.

Often, info is imparted by some that is narrowly directed to a specific point, that in fact is not relevant to the present circumstance. Someone asks for a easy solution that cost under $100.00, and they receive a suggestion that will cost enough more to make a difference, and considerable handiwork to accomplish. Good intentions? Certainly. Relevant? Not nearly as much so.


Still others will offer a rebuttal like explanation like :
"This is incorrect mirrors do not reflect light back to the source they reflect light per the rule (angle incidence angle reflection)"
...when in fact, since the light source is almost directly in front, the "angle incidence" is almost directly returned.

They wouldn't be well served to consider that....and since that was really off topic as to what the questions and needs of the Thread pertained too, it was elaborated on more than was necessary. By both parties...admittedly. But absolutely.... let's not waste the reader's time by bringing up topics long past....at least not until we have already done so. Since that has been already accomplished, there shouldn't be the need to say anything else....right?

T-Bone did an excellent job presenting his BOC suggestion, as well as noting what it took to make Canvas have an acceptable surface. In fact...Bud didn't do so bad either. But bear in mind who felt obligated to take umbrage with even a slightly contrary response.

Reply
Reply
post #18 of 35
12/1/11 at 3:12pm
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 35
12/2/11 at 6:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

jfnirvana292,

What do we need to do to get you up and going and ready to paint that wall?

Im kind of leaning towards the boc again, i cant make up my mind..
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 35
12/3/11 at 7:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfnirvana292 View Post

Im kind of leaning towards the boc again, i cant make up my mind..


I don't know if this can help you make a decision, but there is no way in 'ell that a Raw BOC Screen could even begin to compare with a SF or RS-MM screen, or even a well done Reference White Screen. Strong words, but validated by a great many who have gone before you, and who have had excellent results that far outdistance not just a DIY BOC Screen, but expensive Mfg Screens as well. Now you could go to the trouble to build a BOC Screen...with Frame and all, and then paint it with a high performance Paint and most likely get the same performance, but with a wall to work with...one that can be used, that would be an exercise in redundancy, and added expense. Myself, I would always deign to avail myself of a good wall surface instead of making a surface. It's always advantageous and satisfying to do something well, and have it be easy at the same time.

Really, with such a simple solution at hand there's only one decision to make, but it's not my place or anyone else's to make it for you. In the realm of DIY Screen making, possessing the best results possible requires the coinage of desire.

One can always settle for less....and sadly, some do.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 35
12/4/11 at 1:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

I don't know if this can help you make a decision, but there is no way in 'ell that a Raw BOC Screen could even begin to compare with a SF or RS-MM screen, or even a well done Reference White Screen. Strong words, but validated by a great many who have gone before you, and who have had excellent results that far outdistance not just a DIY BOC Screen, but expensive Mfg Screens as well. Now you could go to the trouble to build a BOC Screen...with Frame and all, and then paint it with a high performance Paint and most likely get the same performance, but with a wall to work with...one that can be used, that would be an exercise in redundancy, and added expense. Myself, I would always deign to avail myself of a good wall surface instead of making a surface. It's always advantageous and satisfying to do something well, and have it be easy at the same time.

Really, with such a simple solution at hand there's only one decision to make, but it's not my place or anyone else's to make it for you. In the realm of DIY Screen making, possessing the best results possible requires the coinage of desire.

One can always settle for less....and sadly, some do.

It just seems that a boc screen will look nicer in the room..i could do the boc screen, then paint it with some good paint....? I may be playing 3d movies once in a while, would that affect anything?
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 35
12/4/11 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfnirvana292 View Post

...I may be playing 3d movies once in a while, would that affect anything?

if that's the case then you definitely DO NOT want BOC... with it's lack of both gain and contrast.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 35
12/5/11 at 8:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

if that's the case then you definitely DO NOT want BOC... with it's lack of both gain and contrast.

....and that evaluation parallels everything already said in this thread...2-3x in fact.

Yes....as I said 2x, you can paint a BOC screen, but why anyone would want to bother with constructing a Rigid frame, one that MUST be plumb, square on all sides....not subject to twisting and warp-age, and require a degree of effort and skill set that is not necessary, is not really sensible "unless" the Screen must be easily removable, or hang over an existing window..

Even then, DIY Screens that are made from flat materials, or painted on a wall are going to be a better, more logistically wise choices.

jfnirvana292, as far as "nicer" goes, out of at least a couple hundred examples, I've never made a unattractive screen, and I daresay virtually most all have looked "a lot better than" their Mfg. counterparts. I realize you have to depend upon someone else's advice and opinions at this conjecture, and that can be scary. But the DIY Screen Forum is not new, nor are the contributors rank neophytes. Even those who have made just one screen can effectively advise one such as you about the validity of DIY over Mfg...or any specific differences between DIY applications....because they have the experience you do not.

I and others like me live & die by the advice we give. Those suggesting Mfg Screens have the easy out. In DIY it had better be right out of the gate, and that my Good Fellow is why we spent a far greater amount of time advising and assisting fellow DIY'ers...to help them be as assured of success as possible.

However....there comes a time where repeated questions and repetitious comments can start to become wearisome. The choice is, and always has been yours to make, based upon your own thoughts and feelings, advice you have received, and hopefully no small degree of consideration that you have to just "Do it"" and stop worrying.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 35
12/5/11 at 2:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

....and that evaluation parallels everything already said in this thread...2-3x in fact.

Yes....as I said 2x, you can paint a BOC screen, but why anyone would want to bother with constructing a Rigid frame, one that MUST be plumb, square on all sides....not subject to twisting and warp-age, and require a degree of effort and skill set that is not necessary, is not really sensible "unless" the Screen must be easily removable, or hang over an existing window..

Even then, DIY Screens that are made from flat materials, or painted on a wall are going to be a better, more logistically wise choices.

jfnirvana292, as far as "nicer" goes, out of at least a couple hundred examples, I've never made a unattractive screen, and I daresay virtually most all have looked "a lot better than" their Mfg. counterparts. I realize you have to depend upon someone else's advice and opinions at this conjecture, and that can be scary. But the DIY Screen Forum is not new, nor are the contributors rank neophytes. Even those who have made just one screen can effectively advise one such as you about the validity of DIY over Mfg...or any specific differences between DIY applications....because they have the experience you do not.

I and others like me live & die by the advice we give. Those suggesting Mfg Screens have the easy out. In DIY it had better be right out of the gate, and that my Good Fellow is why we spent a far greater amount of time advising and assisting fellow DIY'ers...to help them be as assured of success as possible.

However....there comes a time where repeated questions and repetitious comments can start to become wearisome. The choice is, and always has been yours to make, based upon your own thoughts and feelings, advice you have received, and hopefully no small degree of consideration that you have to just "Do it"" and stop worrying.

Ok if i wanted to buy paint to paint the wall or screen, what would you recommend getting and staying under 100 bucks? Either the wall, or BOC will get painted this weekend I need to order tonight/tomorrow at the latest.

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 35
12/5/11 at 3:44pm
if you're talking about an OTS (off the shelf) paint that will also have enough gain to do well with 3D... under $100... the answer is none.

now either you are reading or listening to the advice given because
on the other hand, your could purchase the 3 or 4 components and mix them yourself... and roll it unto a well prepared wall... for easily under $100.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 35
12/6/11 at 6:49am
If I may add one late option to the pile - have you considered the Menards panel (referenced in another thread in this forum)? My budget is similar to yours, so I went with this panel and haven't thought about it since. The panel sells for around $20, so the investment is minimal should you decide it's not for you...
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 35
12/6/11 at 8:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by timrutter23 View Post

If I may add one late option to the pile - have you considered the Menards panel (referenced in another thread in this forum)? My budget is similar to yours, so I went with this panel and haven't thought about it since. The panel sells for around $20, so the investment is minimal should you decide it's not for you...

Well my Stars & Garters !

I just realized out OP has really never provided any real data as far as the following.

Room Dimensions.
Wall / Ceiling Color
Lighting (Artificial and Natural)
PJ choice/desire
Screen size desired
PJ Throw/Location
Seating distance
Residence location

Really, the conversation has centered around justifying DIY when in fact no justification is needed. Particulars about the System's configuration...supposed or planned is needed before any further meaningful discourse can continue.

And jfnirvana292, I suggest you provide such asap and don't go rushing into building / buying anything until such info as you do provide can be vetted and taken into account.

timrutter23, your post helped pull things back into perspective, and frankly, those of us with years of experience on this Forum should have noted the lack of input and addressed it several posts back.

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 35
12/7/11 at 9:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

Well my Stars & Garters !

I just realized out OP has really never provided any real data as far as the following.

Room Dimensions.
Wall / Ceiling Color
Lighting (Artificial and Natural)
PJ choice/desire
Screen size desired
PJ Throw/Location
Seating distance
Residence location

Really, the conversation has centered around justifying DIY when in fact no justification is needed. Particulars about the System's configuration...supposed or planned is needed before any further meaningful discourse can continue.

And jfnirvana292, I suggest you provide such asap and don't go rushing into building / buying anything until such info as you do provide can be vetted and taken into account.

timrutter23, your post helped pull things back into perspective, and frankly, those of us with years of experience on this Forum should have noted the lack of input and addressed it several posts back.

Thanks!

Well i textured the room today, skipping over the section where the screen will be so my options are open still


Room Dimensions. 12 feet between the projector and screen, its 24 feet long.
Wall / Ceiling Color: White (will be tomorrow after I paint)
Lighting (Artificial and Natural): a medium sized window (egress), plus 6 can lights in the ceiling.
PJ choice/desire: whats PJ? I Have an Acer 5360
Screen size desired: 100" +
PJ Throw/Location Ceiling
Seating distance: 12 feet
Residence location
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 35
12/9/11 at 8:44pm
Thread Starter 
Any input?

My walls are bright white, is that good enough
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 35
12/10/11 at 6:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfnirvana292 View Post

Any input?

My walls are bright white, is that good enough

With a 12' Throw distance, you can get anywhere from a 97" to 106" diagonal image. 102" diagonal seems a good middle ground.

White walls, eh? Ugh. Your still too sparse on the room's dimensions. Things like Ceiling height, and width across the Screen wall are also important to be able to judge just how much of potential problems might be possible because of projected light reflecting off such surfaces. A PJ's ("projector) own light output can work against itself if the light bounces back onto the screen, or lights up the entire room just as if you had lights on.

So I'll speculate on a few things to keep things moving.

Say you have a 96" high screen wall. A 102" diagonal screen is 50" tall. That leaves 46" to work with between the Top & Bottom edges of the screen. Your mentioning a 12' seating distance seems to indicate one row of seating. OK....then in that case, you can place the screen as low as possible to increase the distance between the ceiling and the top of the screen. That is a good thing to do with a White Ceiling.

Let's say you place the screen 20" from the ceiling, leaving 26" to the Floor. That's pretty close to being "centered" on the wall, and 20" distance from the ceiling will help some to reduce the amount of reflection.

The side walls are nothing if not the same issue....adding to the deleterious effect the ceiling can have. If the side of the screen comes in too close to the walls, light is gonna bounce off 'em with a vengeance if a bright scene is playing. For many, (...putting any reduction of contrast aside for a moment....) if they are watching a movie in a darkened room and the scene goes from a dark to light one, having the entire room light up like someone flipped on the lights can be in the least disconcerting, and often it's quite annoying....seeing that it can whip one right out of being immersed in the image/story.

So what to do? For some the solution has been to possess a High Gain Retro-Reflective screen that has a narrow viewing cone that restricts light to an area centered on the PJ / Seating area. That's OK in a room where the screen is almost the same width as the room, and watching from a side angle ain't a'gonna happen.

For others, owning a High Contrast, dark Gray screen works by mitigating the amount of contrast-related damage to the image all the reflectivity can cause. Blacks go "Gray...Colors get muted....shadow detail
s get lost.

You have a PJ that when in "Torch-Mode" (full brightness) can light up that 102"er brighter than a Plasma/LCD TV. It's a DLP, so that's good....but a highly reflective darker shade of Gray can help fight against weakening Black levels and keep Colors looking dynamic and richly saturated.

Also, when you do view Movies / TV at night, running the PJ in "Low Lamp" mode can help contain reflected light. What does get loose and bounce around will....when it get's back to the screen, fail to affect the screen's performance nearly as much due the lessor amount of luminosity available to be spreading & bouncing around the room.

To be frank, there isn't a white screen in existence that can really fight against ambient or reflected light without being grossly high in Gain. Even then, the PJ must have adequate lumen output so it can power up a decent image on a darker Gray surface.


There is no way you can provide too much info...or too detailed an analysis of your situation. Many such as myself can take all that info a precisely tell you what you need to obtain not just "passably good" but downright stupendous results, But....it's info we gotta have lest our postings be nothing but speculation or generalizations.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Screen Section

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › DIY Screen Section › Projector Screen for Under $100