Silver Fire 4.0 with pt-ar100u (previously: need some help picking a screen paint for my new... - Page 2

Skim the entire surface. And the adjoining edges should be tapered so as to create a depression. Shave a tapper using a knife. Don't worry about how it looks,,,,or fits....you trying to create a crevasse for the tape to overlap and for Compound to be pressed into.

In truth, without floating out the Compound far away from the joint, you will not be able to disguise the joint's elevated surface if FiberGlas mesh tape is also used...and it should / must be used.

Do an initial "skim" coat over the Tape joint, then a light coat with a 12" Knife, then Skim Fills above and below the Joint's edges, barely blending those edges....then an entire Skim coat that is lightly sanded smooth, then skimmed again and sanded, primed, and the sprayed.

Dust the sanded skim coats off before doing another coat or starting to paint.

Sounds like a lot...but it's all really just taking care to do it right. and you must do it right the first time because it would be a big 'ol PITA to have to redo after spraying.

Bit I'll say this...if you do do it right, the fully skimmed, sanded surface will be an exceptionally good surface to work with.

I did have a bit extra. Probably enough for one more coat. However, I probably thinned out my mix a bit more than necessary, and then applied the first coat too slowly, which resulted in some runs. I had to sand those out. I then probably did another 7 duster coats for a total of 8 coats - i.e. more than necessary. In other words, I used up my 'mistake insurance', and still had some left over.

I do need to get some screen shots up sometime, and yes, I did use MM-standard.

BTW, my projector is a Mitsubishi HC1500, thus only 720P. However, after I put up this new screen, which replaced a BOC screen, both my wife and kids mentioned the picture looked 3D. They never comment on my A/V gear, so for them to say something is remarkable. Also, I notice no hotspotting, sparklies or degradation of picture when viewed at an angle.

Finally, I projected the image on the plain white melamine board before painting, and would have been happy with that; however, once painted, I compared the screen with the plain piece of melamine I had cut off to make the screen. In ambient light conditions, on the painted screen, while subtle, the image is less wathced out. In dark scenes, the blacks definately appear 'blacker'. So, yes, there are noticeable benefits.

MM (as usual) is spot on. I would just add that be very careful when sanding on mesh tape, try hard not to sand the tape as it will add another layer of PITA to the job if you sand the tape itself. Mesh tape is great for this use. Just take your time and it will be good, it really doesn't take that long for each pass. Good luck.

definitely option 2 without the screws.
adhere the hardboard to the backing/brace with something like... loctite's pl375
and of course, following mm's additional instructions.

OK, here's a screenshot. Not the best quality, but this attempt was my first. Anyway, I put up the plain slice of the melamine board about 1/4 from the right to try to show the difference. The picture does not do it justice.

couldn't tell a difference.

That's kinda crazy....I can see the difference in just the Thumbnail sized image.

There is a significant amount of Contrast improvement....the Strip of TWH shows to be a lighter Blue.

Yet look at Gandalf's skin tones....and the depth of detail in even the darker areas. Nothing dull or overly retentive there.

The difference is definately noticeable in person. It's subtle, but noticeable.

hmm...the strip is nowehre near the face.

I made two comments.

The latter to point out the image quality of the Screen itself.

One can easily surmise by looking at the strip that the facial tones would be showing "lighter", but just the same they can also appreciate that the colors as shown outside the "strip area" look very correct. And just as well, that would tend to point out that the degree of added IQ was/is also due to the improvement in contrast as provided by the paint application.

If the paint tended to attenuate the amount of reflected light too much...the end result would be a dulling...not enhancement of the image. Color depth (correct saturation) and deeper but accurate shadow detail is the end result of these types of contrast enhancing applications.

That being said, some would dispute that a photo cannot really tell an accurate story. That is a very well stated argument, especially when the shot looks exceedingly good. But it's kinda reverse logic to make such exclamations when many of those same individuals will use "photos' to prove their own points of order regarding their own screens, PJs, tests, etc. and the combinations thereof.

It has always been a case where any image taken and posted must be backed by the veracity and honesty of the submitter. So when someone says that a posted image...while looking good, does not actually do the screen's performance justice, it must be up to the viewer to accept such a statement at face value, or reject it as being wholly indecisive. (...or <<font color="Red">gasp> dishonest...) Likewise if the posted image looks almost "too good" to be true.

The old adage "You cannot make a Silk purse out of a Sow's ear." is a very valid point in all this. A screen that shows excessive directional gain as it relates to the viewable content will play havoc with any Camera's metering system. As will a surface that has too little gain. A Camera set to Auto Exp, and a shot taken using only zoom attenuation to equalize the degree of incoming light to where the shot taken visually represents what the photographer sees is the only best way to even approach accuracy in such instances.

That is why post-processing of screen shots is such a taboo thing. Take away the honesty factor, and everything you see everywhere becomes suspect.

Bluntly put...the lack of an ability to produce decent, normally exposed screen shots of any particular screen, be it Mfg or DIY, pretty much speaks of that Screen application as being deficient in one manner or another, or in the least, the mating of the screen and PJ is a mismatch that works against such acceptable end results. Cameras are not the real determining factor of the camera used in any way falls within a minimum level of performance potential, and is used correctly.

So OK....this is not supposed to be a OT post about the validity of screen shots. That Dog has plenty enough scars already from the whippings it's had over the last several years. But it does serve to justify the shown results above as being accurate enough that when combined with the poster's statement, should allow a reader to make at least a cursory judgement about what he sees.

Loving this thread...these are one of those topics that have a ton of info...and MISinformation, seemingly.

For instance I've rolled out a LOT of walls in my days and never noticed much of anythin really inconsistent, but it seems really common to get MUCH improved results spraying a screen onto a wall/surface. It was mentioned a bit ago, just want to qualify: is it mostly due to the silver content of the paint?

Don't mean to hijack the thread but this seems appropriate, here.

Thanks

James

Since your not specific on what MISinformation your referring to, (I got the dig though...) I can't address such. However, rolling paint onto a wall for painting's sake and looking at the end results isn't the same as blasting multi-1000 lumen images onto such a surface. With the latter, imperfections otherwise not seen in normal lighting can become extremely obvious.


No Hijack. Misdemeanor Assault perhaps.

Rolling Metallic content paint can:

• Arrange too many reflective particles perpendicular to the PJs lens, creating a "Mirror-like" excessive reflection.
  
  The increase in contrast as far as what come off the screen will highlight any imperfections. Small bumps can look like Hills because shadows at their edges are enhanced. Ditto with Roller marks and Pin Holes.
  

Spraying doesn't guarantee perfect results. Errors can be made doing anything, especially when it's a first attempt. However spraying presents much less risk when attempting to get the smoothest, most evenly distributed surface possible. And done correctly, works to mitigate the tendency of metallic particles to get flattened out, allowing the use of the advantage of increasing reflectivity, but keeping it under control.

^ oh my, SORRY! Wasn't at all intended for/directed at you! Just noticed that myself.

I was just stressing the MIS-information, lol.

I think you're absolutely essential to this forum.

Sorry for the confusion.

And your explanation as to the pitfalls of "painting for projection" and painting for painting is completely sensible, thanks.

James

Whew.....,

Now I can continue on with today without taking any more medication than I normally do.

Bear in mind, that if all that is needed is a basic Flat painted surface for accepting a projected image, such blemishes that would otherwise be abhorrent when using a metallic based solution become invisible when "Roller" coated with a "Flat" paint. Flat White pretty much hides all. Flat Gray a little less due what with the contrast enhancement it also provides.

Ya'know....if we all still had to depend upon using full blown $400.00+ Compressor / Pressure Tank -Hose Fed HVLP rigs, you can bet I'd be helping a slew more members refine their Rolling techniques. But all the same, those aspiring to use more advanced DIY Screen apps would still have to accept the need for spraying.

The introduction of the Wagner Control Spray into the equation back in '07, and the subsequent and various other Electric Turbine HVLPs since then (...some for under $50.00...) has changed all that and made it possible for normally cheapskate DIY'ers (...we all know who we are...) to aspire to achieve something not just great....but extraordinarily so.

Hey.....so tell me true. What part of any of the above can be / do you consider MISinformation? Be blunt...if something doesn't seem right, and you yourself noticed it, others might also and lead to unwarranted and unwanted confusion. Discussion of such things is what a Forum is all about. Discussing such things in a civil and constructive manner...even more so.

So sock it to us / me / whomever. Believe me....most all of us have developed Horny Hides.

^ Hold on. You know I typed "MIS" to emphasize the contrast between information and MISinformation? It has absolutely nothing to do with your username, please believe me. Total coincidence.

The MISinformation I'm referring is largely aimed at a lot of the contradicting stuff you can find elsewhere on the WWW (and sometimes on good ol AVS).

I can assure you that there's nothing you've supplied (that I've read, anyway) that I would categorize as MISinformation, lol.

Just the opposite, actually.

James

Oh... I already ascertained that by your follow-up post. I was simply fishing for anything I might have been overlooking that might have been misconstrued or in error that might need to be addressed or corrected, regardless of the source.

As I said, you, and everyone else has the express right to express themselves and point out inconspicuous and conspicuous errors, misspoken facts, or too-easily misconstrued advice or commentary. And certainly anything that might be considered dead wrong or in the least misleading.

So don't stop.....we all are/everything is always the better for such constructive input, and no one should be taken to task for offering such when it's done with good intent.

Your completely cool, and by a mile your comments all around are far more courteous than many we have to deal with.

All that other stuff? THAT is just something we all must deal with "Internet-wise".

That's how you do it. The paint actually "Dusts out" more evenly, and the extra water actually makes it dry faster, and pull tighter (flatter) against the surface. A higher water-to-paint ratio means that after the water evaporates out, the layer of paint is both thinner and flatter that it otherwise would be.

Well....a sure way is to apply a "Gray" eggshell-finish paint via two light dusters. (Flat Gray Primer works, but needs to be applied heavier...)

The increased contrast the Eggshell Gray provides will highlight the shadows caused by bumps, ridges, horizontal / vertical tape lines...pin-holes..cracks, and previous Roller marks as well.

From your description, I don't think the list of potential defects are nearly that long.

So.....you can risk simply using the Finish Paint Mix to check things out, or the last method that works well, is Spray Priming the Wall w/a Bright White Satin, and then using a 500 watt Halogen Work Light, set to one side of the screen and angled slightly toward the Screen. The wash of indirect "Bright Light" also finds high and low points, but you gotta look more carefully. If none are found, then the White Paint is dead on ready to get coated.

The brighter, more reflective the undercoating, the more it helps to retain maximum gain. This does mean however that one must still apply an effective coating over top, one that is both dense enough to provide a crisp, clear image, yet thin enough to allow the underlying White to help boost White level retention.

With any "Gray" surface, the latter can spell the difference between duller or more brilliant Whites especially.

Sparklies usually present themselves when the PJ is placed at a noticeably higher elevation than the top edge of the screen due to the angle of reflection from the sitting area, and then only when very bright, pastel colored scenes are viewed.

It doesn't happen always...paint application can have much to do with it. RS-MM-LL has less tendency to show such artifacts than darker mixes with metallic content, simply because with the darker mixes, there is a wider expanse between the darker background and the reflective index of the Mica.

A properly balanced mix tends to attenuate most of the Mica's reflectivity. Lighter colored mixes obviously have less disparity between the color of the Base Mix and the Mica additives.

Reviewing your thread, it seems to me that the original reason for considering the "LL" was that rolling was the primary type of application method considered. Once spraying came into the fore, with the ar100u's brightness, I'd say that you either should add the neutral gray base previously suggested to darken the mix, or ramp up to at least SF 2.5 3.0

You could add some small amount of extra UPW after making up the SF mix, to further mask the reflectivity a small amount, but really, I don't think that you'll be bothered much by "sparklies' in any case.

Absolutely!

I suppose I got misdirected over the original Rolling issue...because the "LL" is the only metallic-infused mix that can be effectively rolled. Even with that, due to your preponderance of lumens, I felt darkening up the mix was called for.

So very few ever make comment about "spark-lies' because the effect is no where near as pronounced as it is on Mfg Screens and other Mfg Screen paints that attempt the same degree of effect. It's sorta like they simply expect someone to deal with it. Our Formulas try to address...and mitigate that issue...and we succeed in doing so quite well.

But there are always those who feel if an application isn't absolutely perfect...it's not worthy at all. That advanced, reflective ambient light DIY Screen paint apps have come so far as to have people demand perfection is really in my way of thinking a profuse and welcome compliment.

Unless the comments become nasty of self serving as they tend to do with some.

However, you can go about it like this:

• Use RS-MM-LL "OR" RS-MM Standard with enough Neutral Gray added to effectively darken the screen by 2x
• Run the PJ on Low Lamp Mode
• Calibrate the PJ to the Screen's color and Lamp setting.

If the job you do spraying is righteous enough, viewing the end results will be sufficient to make any specific judgement based on the merits of the mix itself.

Beyond that, if any changes are needed, applying another 3 coats of an adjusted formula directly over the existing paint would be simple enough.

The amount of NG to add is subjective. RS-MM-LL is the equivalent of a SF 2.5 mix without any Colorant added.

Consider that when using the ultra-dark SF Colorant, it's added in 1 oz. increments to obtain a numerical designation (2 oz = SF 2.0) With the much lighter shade of NG you might purchase at Michaels (Liqutex Basics in a Tube), that amount should be doubled. So I would add a full 4 oz. Tube to obtain the equivalent shading found in SF 2.0

Be advised that it might be necessary to add a small amount of the specified Gold to offset any push into Blue that the NG might create when combined with the RS-MM-LL mix. Just because the Gray is Neutral doesn't mean it will stay that way if mixed with other combinations of paint. Hence one of the reasons we use a specific formula for the SF Colorant instead of relying on whatever combination another Paint Mfg might use to create their own NG.

As for the difference between SF and RS-MM, it all is determined by the balance of the amount of reflective components against the amount of Colorant.