Is a Stewart screen so much better?

When you get a chance google carada, dalite, & stewart screen material test results its from 2009 but it may be some help to you.

I wonder the same thing, I read this report but... http://accucalhd.com/documents/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf

As with any number of product categories, there is frequently a disproportionately large premium to be paid for a marginal amount of additional performance. Stewart, Da-Lite, Vutec, Draper, and others all make very good screens. Stewart has done an excellent job over the decades of establishing themselves as the Cadillac of screens. But as the cost of projectors have come down, they found it increasingly difficult to maintain market share relative to less costly competition. That may explain their recent introduction of an "affordable" screen line they call CIMA.

I own a 15' Stewart StudioTek screen and a 12' SMX audio screen and the SmX Screen destroys the stewart screen in my opinion, mainly because the SmX is an audio screen and the millions of little holes actually seem to add better contrast, or so it appears that way.

The SmX frame is also considerably better. I haven't tried anyone else's screens

But isn't the SMX screen also far more expensive than the Stewart screen? I was under the impression that SMX was one of, if not the, most expensive screen manufacturers. (Curious because I would like an SMX screen, but I've heard its pretty much as much as a car for a good size screen with their pro curv stuff).

has anyone heard of grandview screen?as i heard is the same manufacturer with stewart screen only the screen material is different is it true? and have anyone see any grandview screen before like to know if it worth to purchased it as my place selling it at reasonable price.

Thanks

I'm not sure if it is how your picture was taken but you should have NO wrinkles with the Stewart. I'd give stewart a call and see if your tensioning can be adjusted. And neither should the grandview if it is a tensioned screen.

Does that make a difference?

I own both Stewart and Da-Lite screens. IMO, yes, Stewart is worth the extra money. They make some very good screen materials. I find that the Firehawk G3 screen material is finer grained and a little more refined than Da-Lite's similar High Contrast Cinema Vision screen material. But, you pay more for that refinement. Stewart has some unique screen materials. Like very fine expensive wine, whether the difference is worth the money is a question only you can answer.

What about Severston? I just got turned onto them by a sales guy in an ultra high end place, he said they give Stewart performance at a fraction of the price. They had a 96 screen on display, looked nice enough to me, didn't found out what material it was though.

I've never heard of Severston.
You know, everybody thinks they can get Ferrari performance at Yugo prices. They don't want to spend any money on a projector, but then complain that the cheap projector doesn't perform or have a killer lens like the expensive projector. I really think you get what you pay for.

You should look them up, they provide screens for NASA, and they make IMAX screens. There isn't a great deal of info on them, but I've yet to read anything bad.
http://www.severtsonscreens.com/

By and large I agree you get what you pay for, the older I get the clearer that gets. However in an industry that tries to sell us pure silver speaker wire at hundreds per foot, sometimes it pays to think twice about price. I have to wonder when Stewart charges better than double most of its competitors.

Especially when I get such advice from a place that sells both screens.

I say buy the best screen you can afford as perhaps 1-3 yrs you might end up changing the projector where I think the screen is a keeper for a long time.
projector technology changes every year:eek:,my X9 is old now and it's a yr:eek:.