4K Sony VW 1000 first short Test - Page 4

Good point.

Any thoughts on how the CR performance of say 20K:1 native, plus Sony's good DI, would compare to 35K:1 CR w/o a DI?

This will be VERY interesting!

G-Rex,

I'm in the exact same boat in wanting a 141x60 Stewart screen to use with the Sony. I have a smaller ST130 with my current RS1 and love the screen material. I don't think you should even consider the ST100 at this size. Stewart is trying to get me to go with the reflections 1.7 and Sony used the ultramat 1.5 at CEDIA. Stewart is against using even the ST130. I'm even considering dropping down to a 13' wide screen. I also will have a wide, dark room. I'm catiously optimistic that these first reports of brightness may allow for the ST130, but this will likely still be a compromise for 2.35:1 3D content that is zoomed to fill your screen. Keep in mind that zooming effectively reduced your output by 33% and active 3D drops it another 50+%. 1.78 and 1:85 3D content should be decent at high power. When I get mine, I'm going to "over" size the picture on my ST130 to emulate the larger screen size before deciding on a screen. I'll be glad to share my thoughts.

Thanks for your thoughts Ben.

My ISF calibrator really thinks I should go with the ST100, while Stewart strongly recommends the ST130. If my throw is 18 feet for a 141" wide scope screen, doesn't that mean I will not be zooming that much, and as a result I will not incurr the usual moderate to max zoom light reduction? I understand there will still be some light reduction due to not using the entire panel. Is it less than a 33% light loss in my case?

I don't want to go 1.5 or 1.7 gain because I want to avoid the sparklies and the digital shimmering effect that comes with higher gain screens. 1.3 is the max gain I am considering.

Please keep me posted with your screen thoughts once you get your projector. I am doing some work in my room so I will not be up for about 6 weeks.

I heard from some members that the ST130 can appear to have sparkles too, I don't know if that's true or not since I never seen either. But I would think for the best image you would want exactly what the projector is throwing. I think the ST100 will give you that. Since all Stewart screens are top notch, I think you can go wrong. But someday when I get my 4k projector, I would definitely use a neutral color because extra brightness for 3D is not that huge for me. I'm using a SI Gamma 4K screen with my RS55 and I love it

ST100 is Stewart's reference screen. But for best results you must use it in a totally dark room (a bat cave) and the screen cannot be curved. Light scatters in all directions with this screen and the curve will cause light to reflect back onto the screen. ST130 has a positive gain and the light is reflected back in a viewing cone. A curved screen is ok because the light is not reflected back onto the screen.

The ST100 has no sparkles at all, while the ST130 has some, but fairly minimal. That is one reason why I would prefer to go to the ST100. Also the ST100, due to it not having a reflective positive gain, can show a bit more detail at 4k as the pixels and refracted light are not interacting as much. Again, only worth it if the 1000 is bright enough.

I pulled out my Stewart samples recently to have another look at the (small) ST-100 screen sample. I have the ST-130 screen, and the sample sheet had all the other Stewart screen materials.

I could easily see how the pixels were blurred on the gray screens with gain vs the ST-100. The ST-130 maintained very good pixel sharpness, neck in neck with the ST-100, though I could see the sparkly layer on the ST-130 up close.

One thing that surprised me is I was expecting the ST-100 material to look a little less contrasty than my ST-130 or the other samples. I just sort of assumed from it's wide angle light spreading that...I dunno...somehow the image would look a tad more washed out. But it was the opposite: there seemed to be just a tad more contrast on the ST-100 material, looking at small portions of the screen (e.g. holding it up to the picture menu display of my JVC RS55), there seemed to be a bit of a light spreading glow to the ST-130 and the other gain-added samples, whereas the ST-100 had a really tight look with contrast and pixels. Like I could see that slight glowing disappear when I put the ST-100 up.

It gave me the impression that the ST-100 would actually, in the proper light control conditions, give the best contrast results (if only in videophile amounts of difference).

One other thing though: Having done these comparisons before, especially when I had my Da Lite High Power screen up, things can be a bit deceiving looking close to the screen. For instance, when I compared my Da Lite 3.8 gain screen against a neutral white screen, from close up the substantial optical coating made pixel boundaries more blurry than on the neutral gain screen. One may expect this to translate to a slightly blurrier image from a viewing distance, but it was the opposite in practice. The HP actually looked sharper with images from the viewing sofa. I attribute it to the brighter image of the HP, given that increasing brightness tends to increase the perception of sharpness. I even saw this effect with the modest gain of the Stewart ST-130 vs the neutral gain screen.

However, if the light levels on each screen were equaled, perhaps the neutral gain screen would have looked similar or better in sharpness.

So many factors involved...

FWIW...

On looking at my samples of the SnoMatte 100 (same as ST-100) up close, there are actually a layer of sparklies in the material, which surprised me!
Not as pronounced as the ST-130 (let alone the Ultramatte 150, which is VERY sparkly).

For comparison, the Carada screen material show much less sparkles, though they have a minute dimpled texture and in that sense the ST-100 has distinctly finer, smoother texture up close.

Maybe JKP 1.1 should be on your list.

I'm testing it on a Vutec Silverstar and a matte white 1.4 screen. Should be interesting...

Hope you are wearing welders goggles with the SS!

I will be chasnging out my Studeotec 130 GII to the latest Studeotec 100. My screen is flat and mesasures out with top and bottom masking retracted to 54" x 96" or 36 sq ft.

There is a lot of babble here about screen gains. Please remember the larger the gain, the further must be your throw to avoid hotspotting on the Stewart 1.5 gain and 1.7 gain. Studeoteck 130 gain was set in the old days using the highest gain that could be used the throw ratio CRT FPs were set up at and not hotspot. Joe Kane who was involved in the screen material design wanted gain, a fairly wide half gain angle, and no hotspotting. Most digital projectors with zoom lens have minimum throws above 1.3 and hotspotting will not be an issue with gains say 1.3 and below. See the specs for the Stewart Ultramat 150, the specs for the 1.7 at last look have not been published. But as an insider I can tell you that you want at least a 1.5 throw for the 1.5 and a 1.7 throw for the 1.7. And remember the longer the throw, that is the higher the throw multiplier is within the throw ratio range of the projector, the less light the lens will transmit. Since maximum brightness for any projector is at closest throw, you are going to be offsetting some of the higher gain with less light coming from the lens..

Personally, looking at the specifications for the 130 and 150, I think the merits favor using the Ultramat 150 for a 2D/3D projector on a large screen, the materials are very close performance wise. Going up to the 1.7 in my opinion costs too much in 2D quality and I am hesitant to use it or recommend it. If you push the Stewart sales folks you get when you call, they will say if you want the best compromise 2D/3D, go with the 150. You will have a little dimmer 3D but 2 D will be better. Most sales guys are told what to say. They do not give their personal opinions. They are sales people and not technical expertsAt

At AVS we have samples for the 100, 130, 150 and 1.7 in stock for you to try. But remember sample sizes are about 8 1/2 x 11 and hotspotting can not be evaluated. Don't be sucked into one is brighter anf that's the one to get Look at black level, pixel blead, black detail etc etc..

millerwill..i will probably go as you did with the new hipower material..174x98..are you still happy with it over the 2.8 material?

Since he gotten remarried, he has given up kinky stuff like that. He just wears a a crash helmet now.

Wolfgang talked to Don Stewart some time ago about this and apparently they changed the it to have no sparkles anymore - how old is your sample?

Thanks. My samples are 2 years old.

A number of reviews have noted the ST-100 as having no surface texture, so I guess the difference between those reports and my sample of the Snomatte-100 might be explained by the ST-100 being redesigned. I've requested a larger sample of the ST-100.

Jeeze, I hope that's not directed at folks like me. A lot of us here try to be careful and consciencious in evaluating these things and expressing our experiences. I don't think anything I wrote concerning my experience with screens of varying gain was off the mark.


Just curious: Why?

I have the StudioTek-130 G3 and love it. However, I like the idea of a screen that is as "invisible" as possible, so the ST-100 intrigues me.

What's your reason for moving to the ST-100?


(Emphasis mine).

Mark, I see such comments about screen gain/hotspotting a lot, even from experienced installers. But I suggest we need to be even more careful about making such statements (for the sake of accuracy and education).
The problem I find in what you wrote is there is no distinction raised between the manufacturer rated gain of the screens and the application of optical coating used to raise screen gain (e.g. the actual characteristics of a screen).

Your post implies, even if you didn't mean it to, that one can look at the rated gain of a screen as an indication of whether hot-spotting will be more likely or not. But that would be really misleading. The tendency to hotspot isn't tied to gain rating per se, but to the amount and type of optical gain coating used on a screen.

Take the Stewart Firehawk G3 vs the Stewart ST-130 screen material. The Firehawk is rated at 1.25 gain, and the Studiotek is rated at a higher 1.3 gain. If we were to infer simply from screen gain numbers, one would conclude the ST-130 would hotspot more, and perhaps have more screen texture. But it's the reverse. The lower-rated-gain Firehawk is the one that sparkles more and hotspots MUCH more visibly. Why? Because it starts out with a darker screen substrate - gray vs white - and is made to handle room reflections/ambient light more aggressively - while also needing to raise brightness to acceptable levels from the viewing angle - so the optical coating is applied much more "aggressively" on the Firehawk, resulting in
much more hotspotting, more screen sparklies, and much more drop off of brightness off-axis.

Taking it further, look at the Black Diamond screens .8 gain screen. Going by gain numbers you'd never know that this screen has very visible texture and hotspots WAY more then most white screens, including higher gain white screens. Again, this is because hotspotting/screen texture isn't related to a higher gain screen rating, but it tied to how aggressively the optical coating is used. The BD screen starts with such an insanely dark substrate (to kill ambient light reflections) that optical coating gain must be applied aggressively to get the image to acceptable brightness to the on-axis viewer. The JK screen, rated at almost the same gain, or a neutral gain screen, or the higher gain ST-130 screen, won't hot-spot anything like the BD screen.

So statements like Most digital projectors with zoom lens have minimum throws above 1.3 and hotspotting will not be an issue bwith gains say 1.3 and below could be seriously misleading to someone who doesn't know better.

No doubt you know all this. But if we are looking to make sure our information isn't ambiguous, I figured these comments were apropos of our trying to be accurate in discussing screen characteristics.

Cheers,

It's funny, every time there is a discussion of the Stewart screens, hotspotting and sparklies end up in the discussion when the Firehawk is mentioned. I'm sure some have had a different experience, but I have now owned three different versions of the Firehawk, (currently on the G3), and with exception to the Sony Ruby, and JVC's RS1, I have been using Sim2's Lumis and HT5000E (2000+ lumen PJ's), and I have NEVER seen a "sparklie", nor have I ever experienced hotspotting with my Firehawks. I do note that my throw distances average about 23' to 10', 11' and 12' screens, so perhaps that is the reason.

I thought the ST100 was a remake of the "Ultramatte 100," not the Snowmatte, but not sure, and not sure the distinction would even make a difference. I do know that I'm unable to see screen surface on the ST100 when viewing movies (10' wide, TD of 21', seating at 14', 2200 lumen PJ).


Jim

Wow, now THAT is some screen! How far away do you sit?

But yes, I am extremely pleased with the new HP2.4 screen, finding it even smoother than the old 2.8 (which was also very good in this regard); no hotspotting whatever. And the somewhat wider viewing cone of the new 2.4 material makes it less restrictive of viewing position. So I'm sold on it.

Sounds better and better!

All good info, but it seems from the posts the 1000 may not sufficiently light up a 141"x60" scope screen for 2d and 3d in a dark theater. Taking into account zooming and bulb aging...if the answer is no, or if it's even borderline then best to go with ST130. I am a bit hesitant to go with the 150. It depends on who you talk to, recommended gains have varied greatly (from .9 all the way to 1.7) for the 1000 on a large screen. My room is not ready for 6 weeks so I do not have to make a quick decision.

It's just as amazing to me how few people notice, or are bothered by these issues with screens.

For the vast majority of people, it seems if you don't look for it, you won't notice it. (In fact it's amazing what we can get used to. My friend had a projector that was gradually going bad. At one point literally 1/4 of the screen had turned bluish and was washed out. This was not remotely subtle. It was like part of the picture was gone. I asked him if it bothered him and if he was going to replace his projector any time soon. He said "What are you talking about?" I actually had to point it out to him - he'd never noticed).

Since you own the screen, best not to go looking for artifacts. But it would be easy to put on certain images and point out the hot-spotting (in fact I've taken pictures of it on the Firehawk). But even with it's issues, the Firehawk is an amazing screen! Some of the best projected images I've ever seen were with the Firehawk.

Back to the Sony 1000.....

Just quickly (then back to the Sony...), it's not that I wouldn't notice it. I know what to look for in the image, and I don't miss anything. Just has not been there in my setups. I do however agree that many people are viewing compromised setups and do not "see" it. Probably the perfect example of how we fool ourselves is the normal light output reduction that happens slowly over time. When the lamp is finally replaced, it's like a new PJ.

Now, on to the Sony. I expect to have one in a week and plan to do a side-by-side with the Sim2 HT5KE. I'll first try it on the Firehawk G3 (12' wide), then the ST100 (10' wide). Not doing any sort of real eval, just want to get a sense of the light output and image quality of the Sony versus my favorite Sim2 PJ.

Jim

millerwill..right now i use a 2.8 hipower 172 incher scope format and sit 20 feet away. I know you sit really close and when i get the new screen i will try 16 feet.

Where did you get that idea?

A 12' wide scope screen is 81 sq ft (16x9) surface area. A 1.0 gain screen gives you 24 ftL at 2000 lumens with a new bulb and 14 ftL asuming a 40% light drop from.

The DCI spec calls for 14 ftL in a dark room.

I believe that's a physical impossibility for the Firehawk not to hotspot. Hotspotting is a function of how the screen works. (It works by being made more mirror like in it's reflection characteristics vs a diffuser, and being mirror-like automatically entails hot-spotting, which is what actually helps with the room/screen interaction). Every objective measurement made of the Firehawk has shown significant variation in brightness across the screen. It's there and even the best possible set up scenario can not fully avoid it, only mitigate the problem somewhat.

I've seen the Firehawk countless times, in every imaginable set up and throw distance, and hotspotting has been easily detectable every time. I have certainly been with people who have said "What are you talking about? I don't see any hot-spotting." Then I wait for a lighter scene to come on, I move them off central axis, and then "Oh..yeah...now I see what you mean..."

Even from on-axis, if you have an evenly lit scene, you can see the dimming toward the edges of the screen. Take a look at Art's review of the Firehawk:

http://www.projectorreviews.com/Stew...hawk/index.php

The hotspotting is visible in every photo of the blank screen, and is extremely visible in images like his screen shot of the football game.

That you don't notice it is something to be happy about I wish I didn't notice these things - my choice for screen materials would have been much wider. (Whereas I don't seem to be sensitive at all to color shifts from different angles on a screen. My eyes glaze over when a calibrator talks about it because it may be something he is sensitive to, but I'll never notice).

And on that note:



I'm jealous of your ST-100! It's so hard to find ANY feedback on that screen because so few people own it. I look forward to your report about the Sony on both your screens.

(And I'd love to know: do you have a bat-cave like HT? Is the ST-100 working well? How's the contrast etc?).

Thanks!

Hi. Rich. I use the term babble as in thread chatter. I babble here a lot.

You are correct in there being a whole different ball gain re throw distance on gray screen bases with optical coatings. I think nowadays mostly in terms of whate screens with minor degrees of optical gain coatings. Fopr such screens there is a general correlation of throw ratio numbers to screen gain to avoid hotspotting. With safety being to go a little longer in throw number than the gain.

Gray screens of negative gain basis and optical coatings to make over gain positive biolate my general rule. Firehawk G3 needs a minimum throw of 1.6 to avoid hotspotting and this is because the hotspottinbg issue depends on the gain of the coating and not on thje color or gain of the substrate. With white screen substrates, the substrate has a goin of neeear one and the gain of 1.3, 14, 1,5 etc is supplied by the coating and there is pretty close to minimum throw equalling the gain prided by the coating. With a gray screen base of less than 1, the overgain is sort of the cross product of the two two gains. Firehawk G3 has an overall gain of about 1.25. I don't remember the gain of the substrate, something like 0.8 and an optical coating of around 1.55 gain would get us to 1.24. The minimum throw is 1.6. Firehawk SST has a gain of 1.1, asuming the substrate gain is also 0.8, the optical coating gain would have to be about 1.4 and 1.4 is the recommended minimum throw. So your explanation is much more correct than mine which shopuld have been limited to neutral gain base material screens.

Now your question goes to why do I want to go to Studeotec 100 or Snowmat.

As I understand they are the same materials but just different names. The Residential side of Stewart uses one of the names and the commercial side of Stewart uses the other. But I have been told the materials are one and the same. Stewart will no longer send out samples to consumers. Such samples must be requested by a dealer and the dealer wil furnish the samples to his/her customers. We currently have 100, 130, 150 Firehawk G3 and the new 1.7 gain availabe for our customers. samples are about 8/11 by 11 and are marked as to which side should face the projector, Email Mike or I for whatever samples you need (provide your full name and mailing address) and we will get them right out to you.

My screen is 36 sq ft in area and the Sony puts out 2000 or so ANSI lumens and my throw will be about 1.6. Closing the iris down I will still have too much light for my 1.3 gain screen. Cutting the screen gain by 23% (30/130) will help. Plus because of critical testing and the tight pixels that will be crammed into my small area screen, I need atextyreless high resolution scren. My room is a near black pit and I have no issue with ceiling or wall reflections. The Joe Kane Affinity ,9 fabric interests me very much and I like it but Da-lite won't make it to snap fit my expensive 4 way masking Stewart frame. Too expensive to junk the frame and I think both the .9 JKP Affinity and the Stewart 100 are the best two out there. The light uniformity probably is better on the Stewart from Wide Screen Review tests but I feel the texture (smoothness) is better on the JKP or call it the ability to sharpless resove 8 zillion pixels on my pin head sized scren. No tests exists for determining the lack of pixel bleed etc other than examining an single pixel line on off pattern on both screns. I'd be happy with either one.