Originally Posted by bud16415
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.
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.
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.
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.