Originally Posted by curttard
I think you might be misunderstanding what the image was that I posted. It's the actual frame from the bluray. It's not a picture of the frame, it's not the frame as displayed on a projector, it's not the frame as displayed on a TV. It's the actual, unaltered, digital image on the disc (well, re-sized for the web). It is what the director, cinematographer, and everyone else involved determined the image is supposed to look like. Any deviance from that is by definition "incorrect". When you put in the bluray and project it on your screen, this image is literally what you are projecting. It's what you are trying to reproduce.
Yet when a PJ / Monitor does reproduce it, it will NEVER be the same as the encoded content. Combine a PJ with any particular Screen and it's a toss up of anywhere between a Foul tip to a Home Run....or maybe just a Walk. Those who spend inordinate amounts of time and expense to obtain reference level viewing often also wind up stating how dull and static such viewing is.
So they search for a different PJ with different Lumen output / Contrast specs and / or a Screen with gain...or a Gray / Metallic surface. And some calibrate to those Screens...a little...a lot...or as best as they can...or not.
Making a Screen that serves to help make an image vibrant and contrasty is the goal on this Forum....few espouse the desire to have a reference White 1.0 gain screen that does nothing.....even with a calibrated $9K JVC...to help them see the image as they want to. Add size to the equation and things go even deeper into "Choice" as well as cause and effect.
You made this thread to show how your solution provides such exceptional brightness combined with deep blacks. You are now saying the photos are showing brightness that was not actually produced in the room. In other words, exactly what we've been saying -- that the photos are inaccurate and misleading.
I said nothing of the sort. I said the Image off the screen was so bright that the whites and brightest colors made it difficult for the Camera to capture the shot. But not impossible. I stated I did not try to zoom, and use the attenuation of such action to compensate. Also...as you conveniently fail to note, that image was taken in considerable light, with overhead Cans just ahead of the screen on 3/4 illumination. Nothing about that shot speaks of any intentional attempt to impress...if it were, I would have dumped the lights, and stepped back...zoomed to frame...and shown the screen as it looked in action.
My method of judging a Screen by screen shots does not entail using any setting other than Auto...and Zoom when attenuation is necessary. That's it. Pretty simple...yet unless one knows such simple solutions, or possess a DSLR and manipulates the settings to accomplish something similar, the end result will be similar to the above. That I chose to post that image only shows i was not trying to use it to help anyone make any determination. Read my captions. Then give it a rest. Your seeming quite trite.
Besides, you ignore the actual referenced images I started the Thread with. Your just arguing for arguments sake, and creating your own grist to mill.
Further, you also spoke rather condescendingly about your experience and exceptional ability to produce accurate screenshots. So why is the picture so blown out, then, if that's not what you were seeing in the room? All you had to do was lower the exposure. I can take a photo of a 42 ftL plasma TV and not have the whites blown out like that. If you can't control exposure then how can we take your screenshots seriously?
I didn't speak condescendingly, nor made any personal reference...I simply stated a well known fact, one that is lamented by very many members...some of whom I have helps overcome such hurdles.
I can post eye candy that can amaze and delight...but it can also bring out the Hounds who love to chew on a bone until their teeth break. Down Boy. Your teeth are showing.
I never commented at all about that image being a sample to expound upon. It was you who posted it because it served your purpose to do so and then rant, and avail yourself of whatever else you could conjure up. And you are conjuring...creating issues, attributing comments and supposed attitudes to me that simply are not true, where not implied, and never considered. If I had a rolled up newspaper..........
Again: The frame grab I posted has not been "reproduced on any other medium". It's the frame itself. It's THE SOURCE. The digital image encoded on the disc. If the PC you are viewing this thread on had a perfectly calibrated display, you would be seeing exactly what the filmmaker intended. If your projector and screen produced a 100% accurate image, and you magically managed to take a 100% accurate photograph of it, then the photograph and my frame grab would be indistinguishable on your PC.
Your PJ is not reproducing it "as is" nor is your Screen .Photo must be somewhat below 100% accurate....yes?
An actual grab from a bluray can and should be used as a reference to show all the detail, all the values, and all the colors that are in the image, and thus can be useful to show what is lost in a projected image -- or at least in the photograph of the projected image. Can you give a logical explanation of how this could possibly be used to "mislead" anyone in any way? What can, and is, being used to mislead others are screenshots with clipped blacks and whites, giving the impression that a screen solution can match a plasma tv for brightness and contrast.
No such intent, nor statement, That particular shot was never "Claimed" to represent anything...your just saying it was.....but truthfully....it's a realization that many on here have expressed...and experienced, the "Bright as -better'n a Plasma" opinion. While not entirely accurate on all fronts, considering size and color / contrast performance...it kills any Plasma you've ever seen...since you have most likely not seen one at 135"+. unless you attended last years' InfoComm. And that biggun' was nothing except big.
Look at my own example in my last post. In what way do your shots show a superior screen solution? My screen is bigger, my projector is dimmer, but my screenshot flat out shows a better image, that is far closer to the source than yours. How do you explain that? Does this mean my screen solution -- a plain piece of Budget Blackout cloth from Joann -- is superior?
My postings are attempts to explain and illustrate why screenshots cannot be accurate representations of a projected image.
Closer? Hardly so. Seems over saturated. Whites are blown out in areas. Colors are off. It's also hardly any bigger if at all....just lower on the wall.
Originally Posted by curttard
Long story short, I painted my BOC screen with RS-MaxxMudd-LL.
I'm sticking with the RS-MM-LL because it's brighter than my original BOC -- important on a 10.5 ft wide 2.35 screen with a Mits HC4000 -- and like I said, the hassle and expense of painting is enough that I don't want to repaint it. When I move next year, if I have a good wall available and the same projector, I'll most likely paint the wall with the Sherwin-Williams. My new screen is significantly
brighter than my original BOC in bright scenes, as I said, but honestly I wouldn't have known it if I didn't have a BOC panel to compare it directly to.
I'd like to see you show undisputed that is a raw BOC. Last you stated you had a RS-MM LL screen.Nothing in any of your posts alludes to the screen shown as being BOC. Did you toss it (RS-MM-LL) out? In any case, we must take your word for it....right?
This thread isn't about the merits of calibration....nor is it about using DVD Grabs to judge the accuracy of a screen application. Your posted "Grab" against the shot I took didn't even meet the criteria that was asked for by narhic_fd. It's become only a OT vehicle for you to try to press home your own personal take on a subject that really...the majority on here neither agrees with, nor cares to hear about such limiting and dismissive opinions. Everyone already has heard it all numerous times....so all that can be construed here is that you simply want to stir up a pot of contentious commentary. You went looking for something....with a specific intent that is pretty obvious...and it certainly wasn't intended to illuminate or educate. Just irritate if you could. In fact, there seems to be a undercurrent here that smacks of some "foreign" encouragement. It's all just a bit too "Deja Vu".
That's OK though...as your officially "ignored" from here on. Just remember...don't use that Pro Classic.