What is happening here? Opinions?

Summary:

SF v3 1.0

142" Diagonal 2.35:1 Drywall surface

Panasonic AE7000 mounted at the "extreme short end" of it's Throw Distance for the screen's size and using maximum Zoom

Screen was Smoothed, "spray Primed" and the Sprayed using a Graco HV2900 w/1.5 mm tip

Screen exhibits NADA graininess and NO hot spotting,

Hint:

The darker the image, the more the apparent the difference between the Contrast enhancing ability of the White Surface and the SF Screen surface becomes.

Note the Date of this posting 12-12-12

The Screen exhibits no sheen or visible texture under normal light or projected light....and/or at any distance beyond 2'. The close-up example was being flooded by a 250 watt Halogen Work Lamp, The Screen / White Sheet of Paper example was a Flash shot. As in any screen with 1.0+ gain, there is a very slight viewing cone. I included on-axis and off-axis shots so that could/would be shown.
Just because you cannot explain adequately what you see does not mean you have to litter up this thread with nonsense and sarcasm. I'll ask you one to cease and desist...or not to post on this thread again.I know you can offer something constructive...you just have to determine if you want to.

And no...the contrast enhancing ability of the Paint (on primed Drywall...see Summary) is "Keeping" the Blacks at a lower level without attenuating the Whites. That ain't making...that's called "retaining". And please note that every shot is taken in a reasonable but apparent amount of ambient light.

Why don't you be so kind and courteous as to remove such nonsense? It would speak highly of you, you know.

SeatCraft Vienna (4seating.com) I'm pretty sure you know exactly what is hiding behind that Drywall screen, and why AT considerations are of no concern, as well as to why the sound stage has no problem being expansive enough. But that is a subject for elsewhere so please limit your observations and responses to the subject of the Screen alone. Please.

Thank you.

We never rest....we just sometimes doze off a bit. You however seem to be intent with creating something akin to a intentionally disruptive banter. So stop. Once again. Please.

Thank you.

I'll repeat again...do not make obvious attempts to disrupt this thread. Be constructive or do not post.

Thanks for responding, but don't knock yourself out.

Truthfully, we both(PB & I) have developed virtually Black Mixes that have that ability, but along with that comes the same caveats we point to as being detrimental as far as other Mfg Black Screen apps. It used to be said, "You can't duplicate those results with paint". Not so...but you can't go there without consequences. Graininess & Substantial Loss of Viewing Cone. Deal Breakers for me.

So we don't advocate their use. You could also honestly say that if we did, those same caveats would be subjects of derision, despite the accomplishment. We won't settle for that. It must be "Mo Bedder" .

In many ways, those "Black Apps" are similar to if not exactly like Bud's Black screen. A pure Black works great..(...well, a little push toward Blue...).but only when a grossly disproportionate amount of Lumen are hitting a very small area. You can't pitch that as being desirable or practical. the difference between them....much like A SF v2.5 6.0 HG

The mix I;m currently working on /showing is a ultra light Gray SF. Despite what was said before, under ambient or room lighting, and a projected solid pastel image, there is no visible texture (graininess) or sheen...at all. A Macro shot under intense light shows a very smooth surface....but no procedure done by hand using thinned latex will ever achieve a glass smooth surface. Close...but no Cigar. This stuff ain't Auto Enamel or Lacquer

Another thing. The reaction of a High Contrast paint to any projected image structure (pixel-ation...noise...screen door) will always highlight those items presence. Do away with such (Lycos / Panny Smooth Screen Tech, etc). and most of the potential for such just "disappears". I'm using a Panny 7000 here.so that is probably a factor. Soon up, Darby Doublet will be added.

I do indeed intend to get a Good Calibration Disc w/various Patterns, then take a series of better shots. Those were obviously hand held jobs, and intended to simply show that even under those "less than ideal conditions" that there is indeed something to look and see..

Except on the "Screenshot Wars" Threads where countless judgements are made.....

......and anywhere else where someone uses a "Camera" to show the supposedly poor results of someone else's own efforts. Then...they becomes strangely valid.

While the uninitiated may well not know how to compensate for the variations Digital Point-N-Shoot & SLRs can introduce, those who do can indeed come very close to ACCURATELY portraying what they see using the Camera's abilities. As said elsewhere, perfection in representation is not the goal, (...nor even possible...) but coming very close is...and has been achieved before.

"Dissected" is actually a very good word to describe the concerted effort some feel compelled to make so as to wholly discount any posted visual exclamation as being "essentially worthless".
Then it's always comical to see the same person post up his own images of his own PJ / Screen and crow about the "supposed" quality.

The variables in PJ lumen output, screen gain or the lack thereof, room lighting or the lack thereof, zoom or no zoom, contrast on-screen and spot metering difficulties..................................

Simply put, it's really not easy to take an accurate depiction of what the eyes see, (...the eyes being the final judgement of visual nirvana, not a Graph or Pattern) but when it does happen, just as in any well composed photo, the quality of the resulting image speaks for itself.

Gary,

I didn't mean to confuse you. Or anyone else. A recent change in what is a SF 2.52.0 mix with the intent of boosting gain a small amount and also reducing the potential graininess effect to ZERO led to the creation of a very light gray concoction that did indeed have improved Gain and yet still improved contrast "on-screen" by deepening blacks without affecting whites.

At least as I and others with me could plainly see. The photos DO show that, albeit not as pronounced as in person, because I made no overt attempt to try to optimize my effort. I intend to make that attempt. I'd like to be able to use the AVS BluRay Disc, but since it seems it's just a File to be downloaded and burned onto a BluRay Blank that is escaping me at the moment. I do have no doubt that the difference would be easily enough discernible.

Actually, as far as screen shots go of that particular scene, it's pretty crappy looking.

I just have to say you sooooo wrong in your last statement. It's the sort of generalized comment that in effect misleads far too many in it's all sweeping intent.

When I post a screen shot, it's always composed so as to represent what someone using a similar or identical PJ / Screen set up should and will achieve. Of course variable will exist, but just the same, with a little input all of those things can be compensated for. And never it is stated that the shown results would apply in every instance, so going on about how no one has identical circumstances is redundant...and really not so very true because in the end, it's the purpose of this Forum to educate people on what IS best and correct as far as matching Screen apps to PJs to Room conditions. Would that we could be 100% successfull at that all the time.

After having taken well over 30,000+ screen shots, most to "correctly" show what is possible and what is being seen, I feel confident in my ability to provide accurate assessments. Others might not have or feel that assurance, while others will steadfastly deny the very possibility of such ever being the case. And those individuals can certainly offer many reasons for that to be so. But all / everyone of those reasons are predicated on someone being unable to know what to do and how to do so.

And that is most certainly not the case in 100% of all instances.