Screen Advice Please - Seymour AV or Da-Lite High Power

The Seymour screen is acoustically transparent and has drawbacks because of this. It is used when you need to place your speakers behind the screen. If not, go for a solid screen.

If you're going for a normal white screen I would recommend screen research solidpix. They have fairly recently released their superb solidpix material with a cheaper frame giving you really good bang for the buck. Stewart's screens are also really good but they are much more expensive.

If you need gain the High Power is a really good choice. It will give you more than twice the brightness of a normal white screen. The HP will not have darker areas of the screen. It is completely uniform. Seating's far off to the sides will be dimmer however.

Please note, your projector will need to be just above (6-20") over your eye balls when seated for use with the HP. 20" is going to be almost no gain.. so 12-14 would be about as high as I would go.. This will require a projector with lens shift.. ceiling mount the projector out of harms way, you will get 0 gain and defeat the purpose of the HP screen.
So set up properly there will be no jumping around playing wii or kinect..

The closer your eyes are to the projector's lens the brighter the pic will be. My projector is behind the back row just about 2ft above eve level in the front row. It's out of the way and no one is going to damage the projector. Having said that you can't just stretch in the front row without the pic on the screen being affected. I just tell others not to do that and there really aren't any issues. I used to have the projector on a mount and about 3 feet or so above eye level just behind the front row but I was always concerned about someone bumping their head on the projector so it was moved.

The only time I ever notice one portion of the screen where the brightness is uneven is in the corners on the preview screen (but this could be my installation job). The brightness gain you get far exceeds any of these types of concerns and not to mention I always wonder why people really care about every seat getting the exact same picture as the chances of every guest (or family member) being as picky as most of us here at AVS is highly unlikely.

The HP screen is a good screen, even in a batcave. I actually have a neutral and HP screen in my theater. I watch the same movie on both of sometimes. Can't make up my mind, which is better. My HP screen is 120in and my neutral gain screen is 100in. Overall the neutral gain screen brings out the extra details and sharpness to the picture. With your projector it will be bright enough. But if you can shelf mount the projector, the HP screen will be plasma like. So, it depends on what you want. 3D, gaming, and just having a bright plasma like image will benefit the HP screen. The neutral screen, give you a better picture if you watch high quality movies, like blu rays, a better viewing cone, and a sharper image. I would pass on the AT screen and go with a Carada, Da Lite, or if you are looking for a budget neutral screen, go for a Visual Apex screen.

I let some know that its brighter toward the middle and they don't care. They still love the big picture wherever they sit

It's not as bad as no gain at 20''. Use this calculator to see what gain you would get in your setup.

Put in this data in the calculator:

ON-AXIS GAIN: 2.4

MAX VIEWING ANGLE (ONE SIDE): 30 DEGREES (AT ONE-HALF THE ON-AXIS GAIN)*

GAIN AT MAX VIEWING ANGLE: 1.2

MIN OFF AXIS GAIN: 0.9

The thing is - you can get a screen that has both better image quality and is cheaper than the Seymour if you don't care about speakers behind the screen. Of course you do what you want.

Please note that the HP 2.8 gain screen that Tryg reviewed is no longer made.
The current version is a different manufacturing process and a completely different fabric surface. I own the HP 2.8 and I had the 2.4 side by side. The 2.8 had considerably more gain than the 2.4 way more than .4 and at a different curve. So that original review has some parts in it that are no longer quite as true as they were. If you want real gain you are going to have to get close to the center of the cone with a just over the head shot from the projector. Will it look bad at 3 ft, nope, but you will not be getting the befits that you bought it for..

The new 2.4 is less sensitive to viewing angles and will give you a brighter image than the older HP2.8 when the PJ is mounted high above your head.

I have both the HP2.4 and the HCHP at home. The viewing cone of the HP2.4 isn't that bad actually and definitely wider than the 2.8 sample I have. The image is still way brighter than a 1.0 gain white screen even quite far out to the sides and it never gets much below 1.0. Even at 3 ft above your head it will give you a significant brightness advantage to a normal screen. I would never mount a PJ so high with the HCHP though, it's much more picky with projector and seating placement.

Do you have any hair left? It can be maddening to decide. At times like this I do two things: start writing down the pros and cons of each; then take my time deciding. I will take a few days to process all the factors so that the stress level is low. Somehow, a good decision is distilled in the end. "Stay calm and carry on."

I would say that you have two very different screens in contention here. Both make very good pictures, but are designed to meet certain needs and/or performance goals. I think you would be wise to reverse the direction you are on. Rather than picking a product and building your priorities around it/them, you would be wise to priortize your performance expectations, then select the product(s) that will create the performance you expect.

Deciding how close you want to sit based on the experience you will have is a better criterea for chosing a screen than the visibility of the weave in an AT screen. Ten feet from a 100" wide 1.78 screen will give you about a 40 degree viewing angle. That's just a few degrees shy of the SMPTE nominal angle and renders a good experience. I regularly use either Seymour XD or Dragonfly Acoustiweave at 10' with no problem. Okay, if you have 20/10 distant vision, you might.

On the same approach of achieving a nominal experience, screen/sound association (or vice versa) has a strong impact on the experience. When the screen is large enough to occupy as much of our field of vision as it does in your case at 10', then it is very obvious when the center speaker is below or above the screen; the disassociation of voices from the speaking person is very obvious. For that reason, I am a very strong propenent of AT screens. The left and right can flank the screen or be just inside the image edge and work great, but having that center near the center of the screen is natural and impressive.

Another case for AT screens is that it gives you the opportunity to utilize a bit of acoustic treatment behind the screen between your speakers. A non-AT screen is a significant reflector of sound above about 500 Hz or so.

A factor that you will have to evaluate is whether the seating at 10' puts you in a nominal acoustic position for LF. That is a factor of room proportions and placement. Sometimes the two (nominal location for image vs nominal location for LF acoustic modes) come in conflict in small rooms. Hopefully, there is a reasonable compromise, but we don't know much about your room.

Finally, regarding the HP screen, one thing that has not been mentioned is throw ratio in relation to angular reflection and your seating location. The farther your throw is, the less sensitivity to projector height. It's all about angle. At a 15' throw and a 10' viewing distance, the angular reflectance "window" will be small. If your throw is from >20', it is less sensitive to placement and a gain screen will appear more uniform in luminance.

Good luck.

I'm not sure I follow your description, but I'd recommend that you do a scale side elevation drawing of your room. It doesn't have to be elaborate, but it will give you an idea of where things (projector, screen, seating rows) are and their relationship. I would start by suggesting that, if your projector can cover your 100" diagonal screen from the back of the room on a wall shelf or ceilling mount, go with that. It kind of gets it out of the way and gives you a healthy longer throw (but 5m is not particularly long). In the drawing you will be able to see the angle of reflectance of the projector to the screen to your eyes on the two rows, etc. You will also see what you need for clearance for your speakers behind your screen and how that affects the screen apparent size and distance for weave detection. Remember, unlike with microperf, you don't need any significant clearance between an AT weave and your speakers.

Clearly in a room this size, one of the rows is going to be a "compromise." Either the front row is going to be a bit close, with the second row the real pleaser, or the front row will be near nominal with the second row being the one with the "comfortable" view. Surprisingly, both are enjoyable, so don't worry too much about that. If you can pull it off, I'd vote for the latter scenario.

SizMik, you may find this graphic useful. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post20695274