it appears that there are a few that don't think that this discussion should happen on the black flame thead so I wanted to start this one to see if the theories can be worked out. maybe the parties involved can even post some tests that will prove black flame. i just want to find out why there is a difference. i have reposted mississippiman's reply from the other thread with my comment and additional questions. hopefully i'll get some answers so i can understand the black flame mix better.
well, that was a bit of info to go through but i think it is important for myself and others to understand how black flame works. i believe that it's important before jumping into a more costly solution.
|Originally Posted by MississippiMan
You need to re-read Mission's post. He was pretty much "dead on" target. With a little correction for "windage", he could give Cheney a good go at any "Shoot Out".
i went back and re-read it as you suggested. i still don't understand how that would not introduce a viewing cone problem. by saying that the screen has gain doesn't that mean there is more light coming back to the viewer than is being scattered?
Taking too narrow a view of the effect of the metallics is what is tripping you up.
"Narrow" could be defined as suggesting via a "question" that there is a reduction in "viewing cone" which is decidely NOT the case. Your new, so you do have some reading to catch up on. Reading the posts of those who have actually made a Black Flame screen will offer you more to go on than participating in speculative Q& A sessions. But personaly like the way you pose your queries, without too much pre-determination of what you feel the answer will/would/should be. Many on here could take a lesson from such an approach.
i have read through a majority of this thread but didn't find any real technical discussion about how this works. that's why i am asking. i understand that those actually using black flame are pretty happy with it but i want to find out why this is different than a gray screen...from a technical point of view. it seems to me that it's just lest costly to buy a gray paint from home depot than it is to buy all the separate ingrediants for black flame.
There is no precise alignment of the metallic flakes that would result in a despairingly large majority of reflected light returning directly back toward the viewer. There is a "preponderance" of light coming back, but it's directionality is mitigated by the Pearl, which containing a far more diluted mixture (smaller Mica Flakes) of reflective material, helps to moderately redirect light over a broader area within the Mix, and hence, outward into the viewing area. A Purer Aluminum or Silver surface will always be more directional, and therefore look significantly brighter, but usually suffer from a much more directional viewing cone aspect.
so, if I understand this correctly, then what you are saying is that the combination of metalics and thier various orientations make a screen that scatters the light the same as a matte screen?
Recent mixes/applications using such brighter paints and/or surfaces are not new, but some of the approaches, and the "direct reflective"compensatory materials being used are, and the result is a mixture of older, well known virtues/vices with more recent revelations concerning refraction of light All in all, this bodes well for those who need must seek out the brightest possible application, for if the directionality issues of such mixes are conqured, they will have a very important place in the broader scheme of things than they currently do.
The higher lumen PJs avaliable today allow for the inclusion of a darker base mixture in Black Flame. The addition of compensatory pigments help balance out shifts (pushes) toward the extreme ranges of the color spectrum.
this makes sense to me. more light from the projector means you can have a less reflective surface (darker) as long as a comfortable amount of light still reaches the viewer.
No matter if the PJ is bright, and the BF base surface is dark, or the PJ of a lower lumen nature and the BF base surface lighter in hue, a mix based on the multi-pigment concept that is Black Flame in it's several varieties works to augment and enhance reflective light in a more balanced nature than many/most other applications that strive from brightness as the solution for battling ambient light, or "Grays" that seek to do likewise by sheer darkness and a excess of available lumens. Such "Bright" applications might be perfectly at home in higher ambient light situations, but just too intense and discomforting in controlled lighting situations, or "Grays" with PJs of higher lumens might result in intense colors and blacks, but at the expense of "color correctness" and a controllable level of dynamics.
what i still don't completely understand is how this can "augment and enhance reflective light". doesn't than kind of statement imply that there is some increase in efficiency? wouldn't that also introduce a viewing cone problem. i think we all agree that light can't be created.
This then is why Black Flame does in fact exist as a flexible mixture. It's just about able to be adjusted for any circumstance, and do a great job indeed in any circumstance if correctly applied to that existing situation.
There is no contradiction...; only a controlled combination of the effects presented by several different and varying "enhancements". This in itself is pretty alien thinking to many with plenty of experience in dealing with Front Projection Screens....DIY or otherwise. Screens have always been thought of as being "passive"..., even UHG Screens didn't alter the light (...beyond some "pushing"...) but rather redirected light more toward dead center. Black Flame does in fact take Light (color0 and make it work toward an end result it otherwise would never take advantage of or produce. It certainly cannot be considered "passive", but how far it goes toward being "active" (....actually altering light to an advantage...) is not within my ability to ascertain accurately enough to make and definitive statement.
i'll be honest and say that this black flame looks like a good solution for many people. i just don't understand how light can be altered. how is it being altered? i can see that it is being reflected but not altered.
But you know it will happen.
PB_Maxx's work toward finding effective balance points between reflectivity and enhancement is what has led our charge toward achieving ambient light performance without suffering too much compromise in other departments. I personally do feel that there are specific elements in Black Flame that do in fact help to "reject" ambient light to enough of a degree to make a noticible difference, but it has never been claimed that pure rejection of such was it's strongest suit. It has, is, will always be a combination of several aspects specifically unique to Black Flame's make-up that working together, on or off a reflective substrate, that will result in a excellent blending of the most widest selection of desirable attributes.
so, maybe black flame does reject ambient light...and you feel that it makes a noticible difference. if true that would mean that the black flame certainly is different than a regular gray screen. isn't there some way to measure the spectrum that the screen reflects? wouldn't that be the final proof?
That Black Flame is compared to/against the "Industry's" Ambient Light offerings is testomony that something decidely new can often cross bounderies that have been left unexplored, and can wind up doing more than any single-purpose application has done prior, across a broader front as well.
where can if find these direct comparisons? i'm sorry but i haven't found these yet. can you direct me to them?