A 135" Diagonal 2.35:1 White Milliskin over Light Silver Milliskin Spandex Screen Build. - Page 2

You had to be there.....

The Top edge of the Frame was effectively covered in Spandex. You cannot shoot a screw through Spandex, it will bind up and twist the Fabric immediately. So I simply tugged the rearmost edge of the Spandex toward the fron, exposing the Wood edge along the back, and angled a Screw into / through the Frame and into the solidly mounted "Block" it was resting on. (see image again)

One Screw per location (4) was more than adequate to secure the Screen against anything but a Chain & Winch tugging on it.

Such Lenses are called "Anamorphic Lens" and a sobering fact is that the least expensive of them cast as much as 3x your Projector's original cost.
http://www.panamorph.com/products/UH480

http://www.garrett-smarthome.com/proddetail.php?prod=F200SYS



Least expensive "New" I could find......
http://www.htmarket.com/ht-uh480.html
combine with this:
http://www.garrett-smarthome.com/proddetail.php?prod=A480KIT-8PROL



However there are a few Bargains to be found:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1419322/optoma-hd80-w-panamorph-uh380-lens
(older model)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Panamorph-PSO-U100-Anamorphic-Lenses-with-brackets-/190809919298?pt=US_Projector_Lamps_Components&hash=item2c6d284f42
(wow...this seems to good to be true. Call them to verify, of course)

In truth, you could ditch your current PJ, and but a Panasonic AE8000 for about $1000.00 less than the least expensive option you'll find, and just do away with the need for a A-Lens altogether.

No...the White / Gray Moleskin was swapped out in Feb. for another end users needs, and with this project I left what strips of Silver / White Milliskin remaining there on the floor. If you go back and look at my images, there was one decent sized scrap of White Milliskin lying on top the "White over Silver ' Combo, and in another image you can see a pile of "Silver & White" End scraps. But all that stayed behind to.

Might be some more available though before too long.

The Spandex was not stretched that tightly Just snug enough to be certain that all winkles and folds were gone.

From direct observation, the actual shade of the Milliskin Light Silver/Gray is slightly lighter than The Silver Moleskin. But it is the smoother, tighter weave of the Milliskin that is really at work, and most important. Tighter means more reflective, and a more optically (visually) clean surface as well.

Bumping this Thread.........

...............because for some reason those who seem to want to discount the viability of this solution "Visually" have never bothered to comment on what is seen within this Thread.

Please remember, DIY Screen making strives to equal or best Mfg Screen applications, and do so for a considerably less expenditure. But baring being "all that", if the end results are still worthy of note and acceptable to the "average DIY'er, then absolutely, the application in question is still worthy of consideration.

And as plainly seen in this case example, that is easily seen to be the case.

It certainly shouldn't, and so far, no one has reported such as happening. On the contrary, if there is any complaints "visually" it how Spandex is a sub-1.0 gain surface.

If I / we / anyone tells you tun screaming the other direction....would you listen?

Obviously....this is neither mainstream or previously discussed. If you want to try it, then do so....and let us in on the results. Either way, right or wrong....someone has to try it.....right? And right or wrong, an accurate report on this Forum can't be considered as being a bad thing, can it? It might sting...but then again...it might be something of note. Lastly, what someone else might "say" can't / won't work you might find does exactly the opposite when actually tried.

It's your call.

That would be very redundant....and amount to being a "light sponge" almost as much as would be using a solid Black background. But....if you had lumen output to spare, you'd get at least a brighter image using Silver over Silver than you would using Silver over Black.....but not nearly so much as if you used Silver over White.

Using Black at the rear was / is standard when perforated or open weaved AT materials were / are in play, however the more gain the available reflective surface has, the more predominate the difference between the open & closed areas. This results in more visible awareness of screen texture in the least, and the dreaded "Morie" effect at worst. Of course, when using a very slightly stretched White Milliskin, anything "behind" the Spandex has a lessor effect than it would if such material is pulled much tighter.

While some might discount or disagree, when using a combination of White over Silver, the best balance is usually achieved....as been shown here and elsewhere in actual use.

I advise against it....but your the one who must take what amounts to a leap of faith.

That sort of lens is only intended to covert 16:9 to 2.35:1 Play a 2.35:1 movie and you will have to be able to move the lens away from the PJ. And almost assuredly re-adjust both Zoom and Focus. How easy that would be...or even if possible depends upon the PJ used and you haven't related that info.

No....it all seems to "iffy" if not down right wholly inadvisable.

To me and the other member it was more obvious in person than the Screenies show. A very bright, vibrant image. Colors that do not appear shifted or off. Plenty of detail and sharpness. That despite the obvious specifications:

To my recollection, the Screen's actual "outside" Frame dimension was 130.5" x 56". The Spandex was wrapped completely over the outside edges of the fram]e. That actually makes the image as shown almost 143" diagonal, not the stated 135"er of the Thread Title. But the title does say what the end measurement of the Screen's diagonal size will be after the Trim is applied.(...inside dimensions 123" x 53" ) In the shown images, the image is zoomed out to fill every wee bit of real estate.

Temporary throw was at 15'. If the White / Light Silver Milliskin is 0.9 gain, then the foot lamberts would measure approx 15 fl.
0.8 gain? 13 fl. That latter level is the absolute bottom end of acceptable reflectivity for any screen that wants to be considered dynamic and vibrant....and that's "in the dark"

While not having access to equipment to make my own exacting measurements, I can relate from experience that the surface is NOT as low as 0.8 gain

As claimed, the surface texture was / is completely undetectable from just inches away.

Than you miss the biggest points concerning how "normal" DIY'ers share info. They don't publish graphs....the don't post a White paper. The talk about what they choose, how they put it together, how happy (...or not...) they are about the end results, and lastly...if they have the camera and the skill set to know how to take shots that do in fact represent what they themselves see to be happening, then those shots are the final push many aspiring DIY'er need to have both the confidence needed to make a decision, and gain the impetus to get'ter dun. The posted results should be more than encouraging enough for someone considering White over Silver Milliskin Spandex screens that fall between 84" and 120" diagonal. The one above looks great at 140"+

Consider the normal arguments against screen shots. much is said....but darn...even the naysayers use those same shots to tout how good their set up is. go figure. When an Image is dim, if a camera compensates enough to raise brightness so that the image photographs better, the usual end results are blown out whites and little shadow detail. However if a image is properly metered and exposed, suddenly there is a photo replica of what the eye sees. Or....it shouldn't be posted, as good or bad, it's misleading.

Over the years, taking accurate shots was all DIY'er had to strut their stuff. It still is the primary application for doing so, but many are clueless as to what /how to do it.

That IS changing....and you can tell by looking at the "Screen Shot Wars" threads. Use to was...only the SLR & DSLR crowd w/Mfg Screens could claim they had it down pat...and Boy... ya better not tell them THEIR shots were worthless or misleading !!

No...the real reasons behind Screenie haters are usually hidden from view. Jealousy....PO'edness because a DIY'er is showing such excellent results for little expenditure. Someone determined to find a way to dispute shown results. Etc, etc, etc.
But when time after time, one after another, good ol' basic Members get even the most basic instructions, and have decent DIY Screen at hand...the there comes the eye candy....and the wars are waged anew.

It is my experience understanding that yes...a camera can distort reality if improperly used. But I also know for certain that if someone knows how to use a Camera, and if the screen itself doesn't present hurdles such as undue hot spotting, gross retro-reflectivity, producing obvious color pushes, or is too dull / dim, that very accurate, exacting images can be had. Without effective post processing...a hideous taboo on this Forum...abysmal screen performance cannot be shown as being suddenly acceptable by any stretch. One can make things look "better". But near perfection does not come from a Camera suddenly turning a Pigs Ear into a Silk Purse. It just cannot be done, and those who insist it can...? Well I can't remember anyone actually going so far as to show that as being possible. If a shot has exacting colors, no crushing of detail...or whites...or Blacks...and shows fine shadows and no hot spotting, then it's almost assuredly a excellent image reproduction of an excellent source.

I'm going "there" because the shots I hurriedly took while getting ready to depart were nothing staged or optimized. They look very good for their being "Point & Shoot" in the real sense. That only happens when the Camera doesn't "have to" work hard. Everything within the captured frame is balanced.

Member Monumentally will have to take up that request as I'm almost 4 hours away. In as much as he's working feverishly to complete what is obviously a very raw, still being framed Theater, I cannot say at present when that will occur. I do know that after a weekend of movies spent lounging on Boxes and lawn chairs, the Screen was taken down and moved to a protected location and covered in Cloth.

Straight on is easy...everyone does that...but if I did them like that, the very width of the screen would prevent me from capturing the entire surface AND showing the degree of reflected light present in the room. I'd like to point out that a 0.8 - 0.9 gain screen just doesn't reflect light very well...it absorbs light. So what does the shots showing Stud faces lighting up tell one?

Wish I could'a, but as I said, I barely had time to pop in a DVD and get the ones I did. Maybe when I get back up there to go huntin' some long horned Wood Rats.

It sounds close enough that absolutely you should. Even if there are slight differences, the differences you observe between Mole and Milli would be valuable input. Yeah, without it being exactly the same material, someone can (...and probably will....) state that the results are not indicative of acceptable results or precise enough to warrant suggesting such material to a DIY'er. That's bunk to the Nth Degree. The real concern is as to if the example is in fact done in the same manner. If so, I'll have no doubts about how it was done, and or why. You want to know...and others would like to see comments coming from someone with actual experience using a similar material in a real world test.

Hi!

Ya know.....installing a couple Hangman Brackets to the rear side of the Frame, and the opposing wall surface should do it all quite nicely....and simply. The hanging method we used was only a temporary solution at best so we could shoot an image when we were done, and would have needed refinement in any case.

Whatever is done, you want to keep the distance between the front face of the center speaker and the inside surface of the Spandex at an absolute minimum like we managed to do, so factor that in to whatever plans you make.