Originally Posted by superleo
Again, and again and again.
You want a DIY screen to give you comparable data of a commercial screen...
To be fair, MM routinely gives gain figures for his screen. So he IS giving comparable data to a commercial screen...he just gives them without having actually measured them.
At the end.. the information provided does not satisfy your requirements try something else...
You are missing the point, it is a DIY screen.
This is funny to me. You say it's absurd to provide any kind of data because the tools required -- hugely useful in many respects other than "proving" the superiority of one screen over another -- cost a bit of money. So your advice is, instead, to just keep trying screens until you find one you like, at $60, $70, $80 a pop and lots of time and effort. I can tell you that personally I spent about $200 getting my screen painted with RS-MM-LL, between sprayer, supplies, and paint; plus another $50 or so trying small amounts of two another paints, plus far more time than I would have liked; the i1 Pro, by comparison, is $250. I, for one, would enormously have appreciated some data being out there so I could narrow my decision down in advance. Why is your advice simply that everyone keep reinventing the wheel? I was under the impression that generally in human civilization it's considered a good thing for things to be recorded, so that we can learn from each other's mistakes.
Originally Posted by prof55 Gain:
I'll assume you mean both on and off-axis gain in your request. A single figure, (i.e. 1.5) while it might sound good, wouldn't really tell us a lot. Brighter is better, but if folks on the side see a sharp drop off, the application won't work for everyone. So a single gain figure, while fun for comparison, is basically a bare start.
Gain figures can help us narrow down our choices, and as has been pointed out, these numbers ARE provided -- they just aren't substantiated by measurements. Hotspotting can quite easily be indicated by photos or testimonials.
Color: ...No, I'm not suggesting that we should disregard this spec entirely, I'm merely pointing out that it is not a sacred as some seem to think, and it is easily checked by the simple comparison suggested above. Further, if a DIY application were to show a pronounced "push" (as some have), it would be immediately spotted by those who try it.
Color is important enough that it's neutrality is routinely touted as a plus for a given screen, and presumably we all feel it's important enough that controls on our display to adjust it are vital. Further, if you have to decide between two otherwise similar screens, wouldn't you choose the one that's more neutral? Assuming you're one of the (apparently rare) enthusiasts here who actually calibrates his displays, having to make significant adjustments for a non-neutral screen will result in loss of brightness.
Finally, I doubt the ability or need for the average DIY screen builder to interpret and apply the specs you find so dear.
You don't think the average DIYer needs or can understand gain figures or color neutrality? Then why is every post here about brightness and color etc? Since few seem willing to provide pictures that can accurately depict how two screens compare in brightness, and even fewer compare multiple screens side-by-side, you don't think simple, measured gain numbers would be useful?
The final judgement is ultimately the satisfaction of the eyes and ears of the user, as it should be.
Sure. However, I'm absolutely stunned at the notion being put forth here that it's somehow not a useful or even necessarily desirable thing for us to share objective data, so that more of us can hoepfully arrive at a "satisfying" solution the first time, rather than having to repeat the same process of trial and error as hundreds before us. It's truly bizarre to me that you seem to welcome and find useful posts of firsthand impressions like "this screen has lots of pop and my wife said it's like looking at a window", while downplaying the utility of things like "this screen has a gain of 1.1 but pushes green out of the box; once calibrated back to 6500 it has a gain of .9".
The difference in many screen solutions is a matter of degrees. Having, at the moment, four different ones on hand, I can tell you that the difference between them is probably entirely unnoticeable if viewed in isolation one after the other; you have to see them side-by-side. In fact, after having a BOC screen for the past two years, and then switching to RS-MM-LL, not one of my regular guests asked "did you get a new screen?" or said "it looks brighter than it used to" -- they simply didn't notice at all.
So if, according to you, things like gain and color neutrality aren't needed, can't be understood, and aren't important to most people here, then why is there this continual quest in the first place? Why not just recommend OTS paint and be done with it? Obviously, those small degrees DO matter to most of us or we wouldn't be here.Edited by curttard - 12/19/12 at 9:37am