Originally Posted by bud16415
We are only talking about a coat of paint here not waking up to cancer or something. Most of us old timers have more coats of paint on our screen than we care to remember and a pile of smaller test screens that would half fill a garage.
Not really. What is being said by a few is that in no manner, way, shape or form is there a need for or justification to use anything but a simple tinted Paint. let's keep things in their correct foem, not distort them hoping others will fail to see the true effort and meaning behind the statements.
Keep this in mind and let’s forget about science totally for a bit and go as many say by what we see and experience. As NewGate88 has said and I believe he’s being honest and has no dog in the hunt. He did the same thing so many of us have done and all ended up at the same place. We experimented our way (somehow) to a level of perfection that we not only can live with but we feel that it would be imposable or impractical to get a better image than what we see with our eyes, and then we stop. Some just sit back at that point and enjoy.
That is all I or anybody else want for the DIY'er to achieve, excepting the part where people necessarily have to "experiment. By far and away, the vast majority of posters asking for advice do NOT come looking for advice that suggests that they try this first....then move to something else. They want the best possible solution the first time out. The issue that arises is that if someone is then told what that solution is, sometimes someone else comes on not to help or suggest, but to dispute, disclaim, and create the potential for a antagonistic atmosphere. And it's all just so obvious.
The part I find ironic is that people are willing to tell of the process to their own success (and I love reading about that) but they are not willing to believe that someone else reached that same level of visual nirvana with something much simpler in terms of paint. They will say well I’m sure it looks ok but only because you don’t know what you are missing yet.
This sort of statement is so ambiguous as to be almost a bait for a response. Well here it is. I know of no instance where you can point to such where someone who has achieved satisfaction via a advanced DIY Screen application has ever ventured to sat such. No...instead it's the opposite....just as occurred on this thread. Someone comes on and says "You don't need all that "mixing" stuff. Just use a can of White paint..', and then tosses in various dismissals of the referred to application. That statement of yours is just another example of trying to tip the balance of opinion toward your way of thinking. No one criticizes or dismisses anyone's efforts on here.....except those whose agenda is to try to prevent others from trying something different from what they themselves feel is all that is necessary. Once again...all too obvious, and it's very easy to point out. But for some reason those such as yourself never do that....that would be self defeating.
For all the years I have been involved with this I have been told I’m not really happy I just think I am, and I should retry some of the things when I experimented with them I must have done wrong.
That is not true and your saying so is an attempt to bolster your coming statements.. The only time you are / were taken to task is in instances just like this...when you make decisive statements against something, and have no experience...actual experience to back those statements up. And through it all, never have I seen anything posted on your threads or elsewhere that Bud's screen is crap...he only thinks it looks good, and that he did not achieve the best image he could with the set-up he created. What was said at times is that you "Had" to do what you did because of your PJs Contrast, your ceiling's proximity, and that your results were entirely dependent on making a screen whose dark Gray was able to be countered by your PJ's lumen output. Some of these newcomers don't know all this...but if the need to know arises.......
One thing I’m personally a believer of that I bet you haven’t read anything about here is screen texture. All paint has texture that is microscopic on its surface and based on that texture (sheen) you will change your directional gain. There can also be a non-microscopic texture to the screen that is still sub pixel size. The reason I bring this up is any time there is gain it’s the nature of a flat screen to be brighter in the center than the edges. If we can see it it’s a hot spot if we can’t it’s still there. MM mentioned the reverse images above. That was one method of seeing what your eye couldn’t not a method of slamming someone.
That's bunk. That is exactly what was intended. Any such example that represents something the eye cannot discern in a real life situation becomes pure misinformation when used in that manner. And besides....it is the gain that is achieved that makes or breaks the performance when gain becomes a necessary element to have. Also, never was any similar example shown of any "competing" application, unless it was a complete opposite, a sub-1.0 Gain screen that could never create any such effect because it lacked the ability to reflect even the same amount of light it received.
As far as "Texture...I don't see how you can even dare to make that first statement, owning to the fact that a primary goal for spraying is to minimize "Surface" texture, avoid roller marks, and allow even a noob to achieve a nearly perfect surface.
"Texture" as relates to "gain" is not the issue...and that phrase is grossly misinterpreted and misused...just as you have done. It is the appearance (...or not...) of the difference between the reflective particles (...especially if not properly masked...) and the surrounding base paint. If a balance is not achieved between Gain and Color, even a Glass smooth surface will look "speckled" or "Grainy" under "some" viewing conditions. True "Texture" (ie: a rough or streaky surface...) can amplify such.....but even modest texture alone will not affect image quality if the paint used is truly Flat in sheen. leastwise from any normal viewing distance.
When you get down to the fine details of what makes an open window image some of us found things like a less dispersive image gain improved had these slight brightness changes and maybe the eye couldn’t see them but the brain could process them diluting the perfect illusion drawing the eye back to the 2D-ness of a flat screen.
I hope you re-read that and realize what you said is that the eye could see nothing wrong but the brain could determine else wise...but didn't feel it necessary to inform the "conscious self" of the viewer. Man....that's absolutely silly. If something cannot be seen, and does not register on the conscious mind / self, the it cannot be a factor to be concerned with. This fixation on "Open-window-ness? You should note that back in 2003-4 when I was presenting MMud / MMud-SE, that was when that phrase was most often used. and that predates your own DIY effort. Even then, with a preponderance of Pearl Metallic within the Mix, no "specularity" existed. It was the combining of "Dark & "Light" at and beneath the Screen surface that presented such. The highly reflective "White" mixes like MMud 1:1:1 never suffered such.
No one, myself included, has ever denied the desirability for having a apparently invisible, transparent screen. But just the same, much effort has gone into achieving DIY Screens that have both gain, contrast enhancing colorization, and muted "specularity". No one, including me has ever denied that if the Screen's surface was not properly applied, or if someone wanted maximum (...like your combo...) ambient light performance out of a PJ that did not posses the amount of lumen output required to push onto a very dark "Flat" Gray, that the combination of dark Gray and sufficient gain dd not come with other considerations.
What has happened is that such detrimental appearance has been reduced through effective design and effort...to the point where people can use a Projector under adverse circumstances that would decry it's effective use otherwise.
All this was always disputed and everyone trying to hone this to a razor sharp edge has long left the forum.
They left because the "Razors" they used indiscriminately were used to savage Threads, people's reputations, and Forum decorum. That is the ONLY reason...and your defending them or trying to justify their leaving by putting the blame elsewhere is just the same old thing you've always done when you wanted to toss in a zinger at the end of one of your posts. Do you ever stop to wonder what might have transpired had the individuals not acted so obstructively, made overt demands (...and accusations...) , basically try so hard to dismiss everything but their own concept of what DIY was / is all about? Do you so easily forget that when all that happened, they all dismissed the very idea of any Paint application needing any sort of metallic content? (...and reversed course when they discovered they would never achieve any real additional performance gains without including such?) The / your habit of bringing up those poor souls and how they left because they were so mistreated is based on ignoring all the discord, abuse, and overt attempts to dismantle the reputation of the DIY Screen Forum as a whole, and to make it into something they felt it should be....and ONLY that. And when they could not....then they left, or were made to leave because of their own behavior. They were all crass, abusive individuals who cared not one bit for what they were turning the Forum into, and don't even begin to think it's not apparent that by your own postings of such incomplete commentary on this thread isn't indicative of a a somewhat if at least more benign similar intent. The difference with you being you have never been "openly" insulting, preferring instead to veneer your intent with oblique references and "selective" information followed by a
Problem being that it is still made to be so obvious because it's always my own posts or efforts you target..
That is about the only...and biggest complaint about what / why you seem occasionally determined to come onto the Forum to contribute....and that is a shame. but do not blame me....as I was certainly not the one who came onto a thread with the intent to discount all other applications or convince others that someone was trying to steer them down some unnecessary path. What I did do was specifically address the questions and concerns of the original Poster, and got him actually determined to make something happen.
There is a notion here that the screen can make the image better than it is coming out of the projector or what the director of the film shot. Screens can alter things for sure but in all cases its subtracting from what is intended to be seen.
Baloney. "In all cases"? So why do some screens receive ISF certifications? A projector is just a machine, and there are no perfect machines. So NO projector can absolutely accurately reproduce a perfect replica of a image, Digital or Film. Some however do come much closer than others. But also, under the wrong circumstances, by combing the wrong projector with the wrong screen surface in a environment that is unsuitable (...or less than ideal...) for the job, that then is when the expressed intent of the Director is thwarted. Improve the Room and things get better. Use a Screen that helps the Pj "as is" to present a better image under the prevailing conditions, and indeed the image has been made better "at the Screen". That old ditty about how some say that others say screens can improve the "specified performance" of the PJ is rooted in people trying to twist things about to serve their own purpose and comments. NOBODY ever says that....period! You can't even point to a single instance over the last 5-6 years...let alone in this thread, of that I'm certain. If there is any "notion" here it is the notion that you can fool people into reading what you want them to read...not the actual truth of the matter. What is often said is that the image, as presented "outside"
the Projector can often be improved upon by the type if screen utilized (...your doing exactly that yourself...) under certain circumstances. And improvements in the Room / Lighting can also help the PJ / Screen combo to produce a sterling quality image that would otherwise be adversely affected. No...nothing is truly "Added", but absolutely some things are "Changed".
If I’m willing to believe someone else has found their perfect screen with a paint mixture with metallic particles in it and claimed by eye to be best. I don’t understand why they can’t believe I reached perfection with something without metallic and trying to apply science to explain why.
So who said otherwise?......with the exception that as far as "science" your simply restating what you have read that others have concluded through their own efforts. Plenty of people have been referred to non-metallic applications....in the past and recently, when the circumstances dictated such. If not...then they were directed to look elsewhere. Only in worst case scenarios where someone posts, "I'm going to do this sort of screen in this sort of way for this sort of purpose" and the obvious outcome will be bad do they ever get "stopped' from doing so and redirected. That's what having people with considerable experience around to help and advise is all about on any Forum.
Ok here is when I will be told I haven’t tried enough with advanced mixes or that I am only thinking my screen is perfect because that’s what my eyes are seeing.
The only person who has repeatedly said the latter is you. As to the former....that hasn't changed for years.
When I feel obligated to post a missive like this, it's not intended to be for any reason other to present what is to be considered an accurate and complete overview of a situation that is being intentionally misrepresented. Be it a little or a lot. That I do not move about, searching for other member's posting in an attempt to be intrusive or to mislead is pretty easy to ascertain. What i have learned over the years is that "Not to post a reply" only encourages an increase in such things...because the nature of such people is to find encouragement through getting away with being aversive...or in the least, intentional posting to bait for responses they are sure will follow. If they are called out...without being called names...often they just "go away" and let the productive efforts get underway.Edited by MississippiMan - 12/8/12 at 7:57am