Originally Posted by mani
Steve Bruzonsky came to see my theater and I had to tell him that this is an AT screen even when he was standing on the stage.
I wouldn't go by anything Steve says. He puts way too many @@@ characters in his posts.
Regarding 4K source- why would you want a 4K projector if your screen can't resolve 4K pixels?
Because there is no 4K source material so there is nothing to resolve. Resampling a 1080p signal to 4K actually softens it. So the only benefit is to reduce visibility of projector pixels. The notion then of needing a screen to resolve said pixels seems cross purposes to me. Indeed, a woven screen will randomize the pixel edges in a 1080p projector, giving you somewhat similar effect to a 4K projector with respect to softening pixel edges.
The reason people like the pop/sharpness of DLP is because of well defined pixels.
That's right. In that sense then, going to 4K projector will take some of that away and hence my repeated comment that 4K projectors with 1080p content will produce a softer picture, not sharper. Any impression of sharpness comes from biasing the interpolator to exaggerate high frequencies.
If you look at the picture below, you can see that there are multiple weaves and holes in 1 mm of the screen. If I was to project 4K image on my size screen each pixel will be 1.05mm horizontally , which it seems like will be well displayed on this .surface.http://www.screenexcellence.com/prod...-surfaces.html
Again, that is marketing material. Any kind of texture will raise the noise floor of the image. Ask for a sample of matt white material and tape it on top of your current screen. If you are not shocked at the difference, I will give you the quarter I missed for a penny
. I have done that at work with some 20 material and none even come remotely being satisfactory to DaLite JKP screen. My crew could not believe their eyes. Most of them also have severe color shifts that are visible this way.
Here is a review posted on their web site: http://www.screenexcellence.com/prod...-surfaces.html
First the Stewart Matt White:
This material was very color neutral. It appeared to have a very smooth surface. It had no surface sheen or sparkling elements.
This material is exceptional at extreme viewing angles. This is the best material tested for a neutral screen material."
- This material was mostly color neutral. It is the finest weave tested in an acoustically transparent screen.. It does have a slight texture from the weave used to pass the audio through the screen. At 8 feet it was slightly visible.
This material would be best for 9 foot or greater
viewing distance. At ten feet this material looked very good. The material does add a slight sheen to the image. Treble was 2.5 db down at 20 kHz
compared to the level at 2 kHz. The black backing added another 1 db loss at 20 kHz. The audio response effect was a relatively smooth loss from
3kHz to 20kHz. This material is only recommended from 8 to 9 feet because of light loss and color errors."
So clearly there is a difference between the two. If the texture shows from less than 9 feet, what advantage is left for a "4K projector?" By the time you sit far enough back, you wouldn't likely see much of the pixel structure of the projector anyway.
Besides, that color shift they are talking cost you money as it makes all the quarters look like pennies.
Seriously guys, there is no way to win with these material. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the total experience. As you said, this type of material has a huge advantage in how it lets you make the screen wider and also, speakers away from the corners and flush mounted. Maybe one day we invent the perfect screen that doesn't compromise video some to get there.