The official Screen Research thread. - Page 3

No, I'm mounted directly to my ceiling. At least I am in my current room.

Cheers,

Hi John,

I thought I read you had a stand somewhere???

Sorry about that.

Larry

Larry,

Nope. No worries though. I just wanted to set the record straight

Can you send me a PM with your e-mail though please?

Best,

I am not sure if this has been covered,but is there a minimum distance the center channel should be back from the screen? I am going to be pretty tight in an upcoming installation.
I recall Dennis Erskine indicting some problems with sonic reflections from the front of the speaker cabinet to the back of the screen that were detrimental to the sound at any distance. I am going to experiment with some fiberglass on the face of the speaker,but should I be more than 1" away? It looks like we may be forced in that close. Thanks Dallas

My speakers are within a inch from the screen with not a problem . Other screens that are not Screen Research there will be problems but not with Screen Research. This is not a perfed screen and there are differences when it comes to this.

Why are you putting fiberglass on the face of the speaker.....that would not be a good thing.

Larry

At CEDIA, Dennis and Tony Grimani found that the face of the center speaker was reflecting the reflected sound back through the screen.This interacted with the original output of the speaker in the room causing a measureable change in the sound of the speaker! Putting fiberglass around the face of the speaker ( not the drivers) eliminated the problem.
Less scientific I thought I noticed a change in the sound of the center as I moved it back an inch or two in a previ ous SR installation.

Interesting....

I will need to e-mail or call Tony and ask.

Larry

Hello all,
I am the process of acoustical treatments and purchasing my screen. I have gone through many ideas around screens - here's my journey.

- Selected screen ratio 16:9, selected size ~123"

- Initially thought I would go with Stewart for a acoustically transparent screen (because everyone I talked to said they are the cadilac of the screen industry). Based upon this I framed in my procenium/speaker stands to leave 116" inches between for the OD stewart screen dimensions(I think the Stewart needed 114" OD or smaller)

- Learned about moire and the disclaimers and horror story around Stewart - decided to look for alternatives

- Looked at both Screen research and Vutec. Both appeared to be good - one certified and one with "great potential". I also was concerned about my silver speaker cones and the vutecs, but it sounds like that may be addressed.

- Recently decided that I would spend the extra money and go with a CP2, but I went and looked at the standard SR sizes and they have a 126" diagonal that requires 116.3".

So I have 3 options:

1. Go for 114.7" diagonal screen that needs 106.3" OD width

2. Order a "custom" SR CP2 screen that is ~123" Diagonal(or whatever would bring it down to a 115-115.5 Width)

3. Take a look at the vutecs (or other) a bit more.

(I also can't reframe my procenium any bigger, due to speakers/subs/etc)


What does everyone recommend? Is #2 above going to raise my costs a lot because its custom? (If so I can eliminate that, as I have already crossed my comfort level in this purchase).

thanks!

Austin

Autin,

For the Stock Screen Research if I am reading this post correctly you have some options.
The 100 wide is 114.7 diag and 56.2 ht.
The 110 wide is 126.2 diag and 61.9 ht.

These are both in the 16:9 ratio.

I think you said you just have 106.5 width or so. The screens can be made custom to a point without changing the ratio of the screen. Is this a face mount screen wall or are you putting this into an aperture???

Larry

My maximum width is 116"(but would like it to be a 1/2 shy for safety!

here is the link to screen research's stock options. The actual cloth width is fine at 126" diagonal, but the when you add the frame in(factored in "Overall width") - the width exceeds 116".

I am planning on fastening it to a false wall in front of a center channel.

thanks,
Austin

Austiin,
All you do is add 6.3" (3.15" to each side) to the screens width and height to get the total OD. So our standard 110"wide screen (viewing area) will have a total width with frame of 116.3". So if that's too big, we can make you a screen that is EXACTLY 116" wide (with frame). It will cost you the price of the 110" model, except that you would add 5% for custom sizing/material loss.

Good viewing and listening.
John

Coupla questions for bigbaldguy,

I am considering a CP2 for my new cinema and want to install a custom 15' wide 2.35:1 scope screen. However, I would like to be able to use the four way masking system to create smaller size scope screens anywhere between 15' and 11' wide so that I can dial in the perfect screen size for my initial projector but which leaves room to expand the screen size as brighter projectors come along. Is this going to be feasible, ie will the four way masking allow such ranges to be framed?

Secondly, any comments on the blackness of the masking material. I am wondering how less black the acoustically transparent masking is compared to velvet.

Cheers,

Mark

I don't remember who asked me and which thread it was in but here is how I made my frame and how it looks.

The screen is 110" x 62". I took 1/2" plywood 3" wide and laminated 2 pieces together for each side giving a 1" thick frame. I routered a 3/8" deep x 3/4" wide channel for the J-channel to sit in. This brings the fabric right up to the frame with no gap which you would have just putting the J-channel on the surface of the frame. The frame is covered in black velvet and held together at the corners with L brackets.

Once the screen was installed into the frame I mounted it to the screen wall opening which was framed with exact demensions as the screen. To mount the screen to the frame wall I used inset nuts on the frame and 1/4" bolts through the screen wall frame.

Everyone who sees it thinks it must have been a bought frame or a professionally made screen. When I tell them I made it myself they are very impressed.

Here is a picture which of course doesn't capture the look very well but anyway you will get the idea.

Paul

Hi Mark,

The Screen Research four-way XMask or CMask masking systems will allow you to do what you are asking for. But the question for you is -- what native size screen do you want to START with -- 2.35, 1.85, 1.78, or 1.33? With a normal scope constant height 2.35 screen with masking, all we normally do is use two-way masking only to make the sides smaller. If you want us to make you a native 2.35 screen with 4 masking panels, we can do it. But why would you want to mask the top and bottom? Are you using or planning to use a constant height scaler and anamorphic lens combination ? We can make you anything you want. Please write me off line with dimensional specs. john@stjohngroup.com.

As for blackness of the masking panels -- there are two options. Solid velour panels or acoustically transparent masking panels. The acoustically transparent panel option is not a total black out. But it really does not matter. There is a solid 1.5" bar that is velour covered that moves the masks side to side or up and down. This bar is where the overscan is terminated. You'll find that after looking at the screen with an image on it, with the lights off -- the side masking panels disappear within a few seconds from your peripheral view. Your scaler will be turning off any pixels in the area being covered by the masking panels. With the lights on or with no image being projected, you will indeed notice a difference in black level between the back velour covered bar and the acoustically transparent material. But as I said, after a few seconds of movie watching, you cannot notice any contrast.

Good listening and viewing!
John

Hi John,

Thanks for the helpful reply.


My plan is constant height/anamorphic lens. The top and bottom masks would be used for films greater than 2.35:1 ratio format or indeed for framing the screen for smaller sizes.

Mark

I guess this was sort of answered already, but I thought I would chime in here.

I purchased a 2.35:1 screen - 150" wide with 4-way masking. I had extra masking added so I could take the screen down to 4:3 and then mask down to 16x9 inside of that. My reasons were twofold:

First, I wanted to be able to mask down for 2.76:1 films like Ben-Hur.
Secondly, I wanted to mask for other projectors that couldn't fill a 150" wide screen, since this is my showroom as well.

We are still in construction with the room about half-way finished with soundproofing. I hope to be running by the end of January although that may be a bit optomistic. I plan on sharing a lot of how it works when finished (or at least finished enough to run).

HI,

I have a four way masking system on a 16:9 screen and the masking works very well with either two way or four way. Just push the button and he goes to what you preset with the software. There is minor setup for that and you can adjust it to what you want also. Very slick and works very well.

Larry

Plan on spending over $10,000 for a Screen Research screen of that size with 4 way masking. Can't even touch a Screen Research screen with 2.35 ratio with lateral masking for 16X9 for under $5,000.

Outstanding product, very, very, expensive for motorized masking versions.

gman,

Motorized masking? Like there is manual masking or something ;>) ?

Screen Research makes motorized drop down screens with masking. They also make two grades of fixed screens with masking.

If you we're to price a comparably sized masking screen -- fixed or motorized from Stewart with AT material, you'll find that Stewart's prices are considerable higher than Screen Research's equivalent model.

Write me off-line and I can send you detailed MSRP prices.

Good listening and good viewing.
John

Plan on spending way more than that for adjustable 4 way masking, which is what it sounds like he is wanting. I think MSRP on my screen was $33K +/- and while that sounds very expensive it was actually less money than the only other 4 way adjustable masking screen. The Stewart was more than $3K more than the Screen Research. (Note, I had black backing and the tailor-made option, as well as both RS-232 and IR control and the custom 2.35:1 4-way X-Mask which drives up the price)

When it comes to 4 way adjustable masking systems, unless there has been a new product introduced recently that I am unaware of, the only products are the Stewart Director's Choice and the Screen Research X-Mask. Adjustable side masking is a VERY different animal than fixed lateral masks.

another feature that I think is a Screen Research exclusive is image shifting. It's like tweaking the masks. But with a electric drop down with two way masking the screen adjusts and moves and masks move to the ratio picked at the same time and this is a very cool and affective feature. This is on the remote and a push button.

Larry

Daily work finding with SR CP-2
First,I read a lot about contrast ratio and brightness when SR is discussed. What i recommend to customers all the time to look at the perceived brightness, which is in my eyes more a question of brightness uniformity,like bigbaldguy explained. If one couldn't follow up at this point to understand what is said, please shade a bit the top and bottom of the lens, so that you will loose some brightness there. Then whatch a movie and i'm quite sure everyone will understend directly what brightness uniformity realy is.
I'm sure, i never ever had a screen like CP-2 in my hands before.
It's absolutely ammazing what kind of image quality you can get out of this screen.
Perceived better contrast with black backing
It is realy easy why people feels to have a better CR with then without. The light passes on a high degree through the screen. Due to the nature of a Movie ( light moves around and is not static) with plenty of room behind the screen and even it is black behind the screen you can realize the light behind.
Black backing blocks the light like you have it within the DMD chips with and without DC-3 technologie. The sooner the light is blocked you don't see the light behind the screen and you also will be more concentrated on the movie.
That is in my daily expierance the biggest thing with black backing.

Best
Armin

Still investigating the pricing. $33k isn't out of the question for screen and 4-way mask but as I'm in the UK i'll be paying sterling - now, if they do the usual trick of charging one pound for one dollar I will be mightily miffed.

Mark

Mark,
please realize, that the usual price upgrade from USA to Europe is not there.
My distributoin partners in UK getting their products from France.
Please see their contact information below.

Best from Germany
Armin

Gecko Inc Ltd
18-24 Brighton Rd.
S. Croydon, Surrey CR2 6AA
United Kingdom
Phone: 44-020-8603-0480
Fax: 44-020-8688-2491

Hello all,
Other than what appears to be barely "slightly" better acoustical transparency(maybe 1db better) is there any other reason why I would not save some money and choose the the clearpix1 fabric? It appears that both screens offer a .95 gain and are both offer matte white. Unless there is notable difference in material(for sound or material) the fact that the CP2 is THX certified and the CP1 isn't doesn't bother me.

My million dollar question is would I be disappointed if I went with the CP1 screen(with black backing) over a CP2 material? Also are more moire risks with the CP1?

CP1 AT stats

CP2 AT stats

thanks,
Austin

austin,

I am still getting over the flu since CES so I hope this makes sense. CP2 AND CP1 have the same acoustic properties it is just that with CP1 you are limited on size(I think 100 wide) and it is a different material. You also need to have your pj calibrated to 9500 k not 6500k which is industry standard for video. If you are going to get a half way decent projector or ever upgrade to one then CP2 is the way to go.

Larry

Hi Larry,
Thanks for your response. My plans are to get a good projector (maybe a ae-900 now and upgrade to a H-81, or something like that, in the next year when they are available). After hunting around a little more, it appears they do have up to 130" wide screen for 2.35:1 ratio screens, which is the aspect ratio I am looking to do(110" wide CH screen). It also appears they have a small blue tint to them that according to a press release allows the screen to perceive to be brighter.

Link to press release

Does this seem like marketing or does it seem like a bad idea. The cost between the two are 2-3 times more, MSRP.

Anyone have any comments suggestions on the CP1?

thanks,
Austin

If you properly calibrate your display's white balance any visible blue tint would be removed as long as the image contained blue; for elements that contained no blue at all there would be a blue tint. The only benefit I can see from this tint is that blue light is often the first to run out of power in a projector and so perhaps the blue tint compensates for this effect a little and allows you to run the projector slightly brighter than you'd be able to otherwise, hence the claim that it is perceived brighter...

I don't think I'd buy a screen specifically with this feature in mind. How many other screens offer such a "benefit"...?

Mark

Gents,
If you lay a piece of matte white CP2 next to a piece of CP1, the brain perceives the CP1 as being brighter due to the extra blue push. The screen does not look blue. Just brighter in comparison. The two materials have the same gain. Just different color balance. While very similar in audio characteristics, the CP2's has slightly less attenuation. As for calibrating for CP1, Larry - you don't set your projector to 9500K or 9300K. You leave it at 6500K and make your calibrations from there.

Hi John,


Blue push has no place in a properly calibrated setup. The push would be measured and removed during calibration, leaving it's appearance identical to the CP2, except for colours that normally contain no blue which would now have a blue tint...

What am I missing?

Mark