Originally Posted by Seegs108
As you put a truly reference screen adds NOTHING to the image while taking nothing away either.
That 2nd half is the tough part. The ST100 is about the worst you can get for ANSI CR retention. Does that count as taking away?
I don't like visible screens either (one reason I generally don't even try much to evaluate projectors at shows where they often use screens with lots of visible texture to me), but unfortunately screens are about trade offs. It isn't like Stewart didn't have a 1.0 screen back when the ST130 was considered the reference. The ST130 retained ANSI CR better and when viewing with some other lighting would generally retain on/off CR better too. I also think the small amount of extra ft-lamberts in the center of the screen over the edges could have an advantage without having very noticeable hotspotting.
Extra projector resolution now might affect things, but I think some of this is just what trade offs people choose.
For instance, with a JVC or Sony VW600 somebody could close the iris a little more with an ST130 and get more native on/off CR with the ST130.
I think it would be a good idea to try dimming the projector some for the ST130 in a comparison with the ST100 to try to make sure some artifacts seen with the ST130 are not just because of higher ft-lamberts. Some would probably still show up, but might be reduced at the same ft-lamberts.
Back when I started reviewing projectors I did buy a ST130 for my Stewart frame just because that was considered the reference. I would use it for reviews, but for personal viewing I was more likely to use the HP.
I still have Firehawk and Grayhawk materials from those days that I should get around to selling at some point since I sold the ST130 in the frame that all 3 pieces fit.
To me the perfect screen doesn't exist. That would be one with no sheen/sparklies, that would only send light to a place if a viewer was there (for CR retention) and would only reflect the light from the projector. So, not likely