Behr Silverscreen vs RS-MaxxMudd-HL  

Why not compare using the test panel images I created for just for this purpose. The link can be found on this forum thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=663749

Tiddler,

Some time ago, an edict came down for everyone to NOT post Screen shots on the DIY Forum. This occured because of the resulting innundation of Screenies by those who were uncommonly proud of their DIY results. So many that it was claimed that we were gobbling up storage space disproportionatly.

There is a Sticky at the top of the Thread Listing admonshing us all to avoid posting Screenies. (Note: Your images can be construed as "science" and not mere "Eye Candy" bragging, but it's not worth taking the chance of a "Wrist Slapping".) If you need a good Host, try http://www.PhotoBucket.com for free You can then hyperlink your images, but they remain stored on that site. But they load automatically....., like this;


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...understand.jpg


.........which BTW is a RS-MaxxMud (Full Strength) image from a Optima H79

There can be ONLY ONE. ;)

BCortez has a point. A "boring" execise to be sure, but a valid point nonetheless.

Yeah, we scientists are a "boring " lot, aren't we ;D But if we werent' as thorough, we'd still be worshipping the sun, and thinking the universe revolved around us. But then, I know some folks in U. S. politics that seems to still think that way. :D

.....as well as some AVS'ers too.


:eek: :p ;) :D

......according to some popular beliefs.

But hey, those images tell a specific tale. I'm sure the SS would measure up completely with the dastardly "Top coating" that has been put forth.

Eh? What?

if indeed tiddler's modified rs-maxx is the same shade of grey as silverscreen... then the pictures he posted do tell a rather telling tale.

i don't discount that there will also be differences when the test patterns are used as well.

even an untrained eye such as tiddler's wife was able to see the differences and identify it when the bigger picture was presented with no biased knowledge of what was what.

the first set of pics shows why so many people have issues with grey screens when it comes to dirty/dingy looking skin tones... and i think adding pearl and polycrylic will go a long ways towards improving silverscreen in this regard.

honestly, aside from the skin tones... i could live with silverscreen and continue to have a great deal of respect for it as a simple one can solution.

I hope folks don't get me wrong, or misinterpret anything from my posts. I am not advocating SS or any other formulae. I'm only saying we should do a full-color side-by-side comparison too. Showing pics is valid, but it's really tough to show differences in color, luminosity, hue, etc... on a picture that doesn't have the same values spread evenly across the screen surfaces.

Let the viewer decide, that's what I say. To do a rip of a famous commercial, "It all about the I's" (y'know, eyes).

Tiddler

The first thing that pop out is the gain improvement on the maxxmudd over the silver screen. it shows in the off angle shots across the board. The straight on shots the maxxmudd is several degrees brighter than the SS while at the 45 degree shot they look close.

I have been saying all along that the SS is way to dark for 90% of the projectors out there IMO. I know it has a great following but there is a lot going on in that paint and the lamp black and the umber combination in those percents would take a very bright projector to overcome.

Your sample on the right looks very close to my silver leaf mix as to gray scale as best I can judge from the lights on photo. I would love seeing the same comparison made to something like what I used with the poly topcoat. I think it would be a fairer test than using SS as a base to compare too.

It’s also easy to see why you don’t want the white screen with your projector. Blacks are really washed out on that white. I’m sure those test images are pretty bright and are causing a lot of rebound ambient but even in the movie shots the blacks need help on the white screen.

I’ll post more thoughts later when I have a bit more time to study them.

Whoops der it is!!!! :eek:

SS/Poly Top Coat, Nurse! Stat!

Too late. :( Call the Wife in.

Tiddler, your a wonderment, and an example for us all. Those earlier comments about your earlier effort....., Fegitabowdum. Your showing "Upper Echelon" status now!
(...and to think, if I'd done similar testing myself, how many obstruse posts and challenges could have/would have been avoided? PB_.....take heed! )

You moved fast on that Hosting recommendation too!

Crap....., I might as well go on vacation. The "House" is being watched, painted, and put in order. ;)

Too say in the least, your :cool:

It will be interesting to see how some will attempt to explain as to why the SS images seem to 'improve' at off angles, as compared to the RS_MaxxxMudd which remains the same throughout.

Common sense and logic would seem to point to results that would show SS just getting darker & darker the further off axis you go. Likewise, if RS_MaxxxMudd was gonna do anything detrimental, it too would follow that path. The latter I can understand completely as to why it did not nose dive, but the behavior of the former?

Sumbody....anybody...., 'splain it to us all! Pullllease!

Eye aye eye aye! A sharp stick would do less damage than Tiddler's latest offering!

BC, We's gotta get plowed together. Might be all that's needed fer ya ta fergitabowd dis thread.

Either that, or a Lobotomy. :p

i second Bud16415's comments. although I haven't posted the screenshots, i've done a similar comparison and found the same results. good work tiddler.

i do have a few more comments. bud16415 alludes to a comparison between the RS-MaxxMudd-HL sample you already have and a lighter shade of gray/poly to match. i would suggest also testing only flat latex...in a matching gray to the RS-MaxxMudd-HL. you could simply lighten up the silverscreen using a little UPW until it matches.

with the flat latex experiment, here is my prediction: when you do the comparison again you will see that the RS-MaxxMudd-HL is brighter when viewed on axis. that's expected. now, when you move off axis, you will reach an angle where they are equal. also expected as that is what you have already shown in your first run of screenshots. now, when you push further out, the flat latex paint will become brighter than the RS-MaxxMudd-HL.

what it all means and proves is that the RS-MaxxMudd-HL composition introduces a slight viewing cone...definetly beneficial for on-axis viewing. i have a screen based essentially on RS-MaxxMudd that uses lamp black to darken it a bit more, and eliminates the metalic gold for simplicity. with this screen this is the result i see.

once you see what the "flat latex only" does, you could do the comparison of flat-gray/poly mix to your RS-MaxxMudd-HL. the flat-gray/poly mix utilizes additional "sheen" and begins to act more like the RS-MaxxMudd-HL. however, it won't quite give you the same brightness when on-axis...and that poses the question, "why is it brighter on-axis than the flat-gray/poly?" i believe i know why. anyone else wanna guess?

I asked for an explanation about the reverse tendency for SS to lighten up on axis.

I surmise the following.

The components of SS. primarily the abundance of Lamp Black & Raw Umber, when presented with light that reflects directly back on axis, attenuates such light due to the angle of incidence that results in the light's deeper absorbtion into the paint. So being, the light's energy is reduced to the point that it returns not only darker, but substantially weaker. This is born out as being the case by repeated evaluations of SS being too dark for many PJ's light output.

Moving off axis, one finds that projected light reflecting at a more severe angle is being truly reflected more, and absorbed less.

The exclusion recently of Deep Base from RS_MaxxxMudd also came from the realization (....first noticed by a few MMudd Light Fusion advocates AND vehement distractors...) that for some reason, a slight blurring of the image was occurring as viewed from directly ahead, but images were sharp as a tack from the extreme viewing angles LF provided.

At the time, most chose to blame the Mirror's "gap" as the culprit, but when I started using RS_MaxxxMud w/no Deep Base but rather UPW in it's place, never another comment about blurriness was ventured again. PB_Maxxx was the individual to reason that issue out, so Kudos go to him in that regard. His erstwhile reasoning, and the resulting improvement led to the renaming of MMudd-SE to include and give credit where credit was deservedly due. Hell...., he got Top Billing, after "Radiant Silver". :) All I came away with was "Mudd" ;)

....and I believe that exactly the same instance is responsible for, and the answer to Movielvr2006's issue/question. Absorbtion & less reflection, due to the lack of metallics not allowing for compensation for the muting effects of the Poly. It seems obvious that any "sheen" provided by any Poly with less than a "Gloss" finish will also cause a lessening of clarity as well. A "Gloss' will reflect more light directly from the surface, which enhances clarity, but of course also greatly increases glare (severe Hotspotting)

One/all should note that the Top Coat I recommend for SS includes Pearl. Also, the Black Flame Accelerant Top Coat is likewise blessed.

In virtually every instance in the past when Clears or Clear-Satins were tried in excessive amounts, both hotspotting and indistinct images were the result, leaving most experimentation with such items to fall from disfavor.

Now, either I nailed it, or I'm about to get nailed.

Which is it? :confused:

What type of materials did you apply your SS and RS-MaxxxMudd Mixes too? Hardboard?

thank you mississippiman for your idea. it is something that i hadn't thought about and is certainly a plausible theory.

let me explain what i am thinking. the flat latex reflects the same amount of light whether you are on-axis or off-axis. the RS_MaxxxMudd is the one changing. in other words, the flat latex has a flat gain curve like the plains of kansas, and the RS_MaxxxMudd has a gain curve more like a soft rolling hill. the brightness of the RS_MaxxxMudd is higher in the center because you are at the top of the curve (hill) and is less bright off-axis at the bottom of the gain curve.

both of our theories could be tested simply. take pictures of a white projection with a digital camera of each paint, both on-axis and off-axis. then, compare the luminance values at the center of the projection using a program such as microsoft paint. you would compare the flat latex on-axis value against the value for the off-axis. my theory says they should be very close in value. now, compare the on-axis and off-axis for the RS_MaxxxMudd. my theory says the values will be further apart than for the flat latex. you can then repeat the comparison, but obtain the luminance values at the edge of the projection (using the same photos). now you have 4 luminance values for each paint surface you can compare together. the 4 values for the flat latex should be close together. the 4 values for the RS_MaxxxMudd should be further apart.

ok, onto movielvr2006's theory: part two. the question i posed about why the RS_MaxxxMudd will develop higher brightness than a gray/poly mix is slightly different as the poly adds sheen into the equation. i don't believe that the gray/poly mix can generate the same brightness as the RS_MaxxxMudd in the center of the screen because the RS_MaxxxMudd is truly doing something special.

ok, ok, here it is! the RS_MaxxxMudd exhibits three types of reflectivity, namely: specular (mirror-like), diffusive, and retro. the gray/poly only has specular and diffusive. this is where everyone throws up their arms :eek: :mad: yelling wtf! a few months ago, i would have done the same. now i have a deeper understanding of what is going on. certainly, others, including you mississippiman, have suggested retro-reflectivity in the past and have been beat up over the issue. but now i think it is the only explanation for the difference between paints with metalics versus paints without.

so hell, now we have a wholly new question. how does the metalic component work to develop retro-reflectivity? well, my answer to this is what is known as "corner retro-reflectivity". it's simple enough to explain to kindergartners (not that i'm calling you guys kindergartners :D) using a flashlight and two mirrors. you set up the two mirrors at a 90 degree angle to each other. now point the flashlight at one of the mirrors. what happens? well, the light hits the first mirror, bounces towards the second mirror, then bounces off the second mirror back to the flashlight. translate that concept back to metalic paints. the mica flakes represent the mirrors, and the projector is the flashlight. there it is, my grand-unifying theory of projections screens :cool:

now, mississippiman, you may have been trying to say the same thing over the last few years, just not presented in this manner. i'll let you either agree or disagree to that :) . i think its a concrete explanation just presented differently.

First off, thanks for holding back the 'Nail Gun' :eek:

Your right in respect to the explanation of the metallics. Many have both wondered about, and questioned the validity of the need/use for the metallics chosen, going so far as to try to find different powders or flake content that either increased or decreased the "Lay" aspects (ie: reflective properties and angle of reflectivity...) of the stuff. From the first, creating a "Thick" Mix containing Pearl (mica) flakes that could add more reflectivity seemed to me as a common sense approach. But others would swear that the mere presence of any other paint coating such particles effectually negated the effect. Even so, they offered no explanation as to why the inclusion of such did in fact effect a difference. All they had to go on was "my word on it" and that was weak brew indeed for some.

All along the way, in my obstruse and non-scientific jargon, I've related that it was the suspension of the particles in a non-aligned manner within the various mixes that both augmented the characteristics of Retro reflectivity with that of paints of a Flat nature, but only to a desirable point. I avoided mixing "greys" with such mixes for quite a long time, preferring to allow the PJ to produce whatever contrast that would be seen. As a result, MMud was touted as being deficient in producing Blacker blacks (....never said it did however...) as compared to Greys (neutral or otherwise) but in reverse, those other options didn't "PoP" like MMud across the range of PJs most of us utilized. Light Cannons could avail themselves of the Grey formulas and do well, but excepting on CMRA's ME, few PJs under 1000 lumens failed to look anything but dingy under such circumstances.

Much was conjecture, and trial by error (combat?) based on a myriad of prior posts I consumed in 2001-2, some by very respected Members of the far flung past, that laid waste to the desirability of such materials. To this "pre-schooler" (I like that better... ;) ) much as in my BBQ'ing, a little of this and a little of that usually results in a tasty sauce much improved on the "out of the Bottle" experience. I had to follow my own path creating MMud, a mix that combined both Base & Top Coat properties.

Many have lamented, or outright rebelled over my 'nonsensical' descriptions ( Voodoo science some have called it...., or worse.) Others have wrote complimenting me on my perchant for explaining things in a manner laymen could both learn from and enjoy what was both a valid observation, and a somewhat playful mangling of terms. I always did try to inject a little humor into what often could be boring hours at the keyboard, if only to amuse myself it would sometimes seem. :rolleyes: ;)

But much as your post illudes, once the seeds of something plausible are planted on a open Forum, those more concerned with proving instead of outright conflict and rebuttal, and who posses a better handle on the correct terminology, often come to the rescue and refine the equation for everyone's benefit. And guess who also learns from such instances? Yours truly.

Sadly, some "less than patient" folks have taken great offense over someone getting so much 'press' while spewing what they felt was utter nonsense. And with continual postings of such often heated and angry rehtoric, have drawn others who at first were skeptical but benign observers along with them. Friends became enemies. Such a waste. ;(

That I was at least somewhat to blame for getting it all started cannot be denied, but my intentions were rightly placed, and if my expressions were at least somewhat responsible for others to engage in forward thinking, then at least that could/can be construed as a good thing. IMO.

Ok, I did take this chance here to try to explain away my fallacies, so I'll stop now hoping you/all will understand me a little better. (...if such is possible or desired...;) )

Or will I? It seems not, to at lest some extent.

Of all the individuals (save CMRA) I've encountered on AVS, PB_Maxxx was both the most supportive and eager to help improve upon what I advocated so long and hard as being a good road to go down. Once I learned and accepted that a Silver based Grey hue would not effectively crush everything to oblivion, MMud-SE was born. So then was a whole 'nother round of battles, with me trying to explain why CR was being increased with less than negative end results. PB_Maxxx added Poly to the substitution of some of the water, and a more refined silver metallic, (...and later Pearl) and RS_MaxxxMudd was the result.

Black Flame was a true collective effort. A testomonial to people working together, not at cross purposes.

Another thing, both related and controversial. Screenies. They can't be taken well with paint/material applications that deliver too much, or not enough light back to the camera, digital or otherwise. At first, as would seem obvious, the paints utilized made all the difference, muting this and augmenting that in such a manner as to deliver exactly the right balance of light to both the eye and the camera's metering systems. Yes, they can only be considered as subjective a yardstick as the individual's equipment, source, camera, and surface can allow, but in the end, the better the surface was, the more easily all the other aspects fell into place. Saying THAT sort of stuff infuriated A LOT of people, for it portended to say that only specific DIY applications were really able to deliver equal and balanced reflectivity, as well as correct colors. But I think we know enough now for most all of us to accept that as being fact, and not just an incarnation born of my Cajun conjuring. :D

What works, works. Some people will not rest until the 'science' is rooted out of something. God forbid it get mangled by me along the way! I've made the mistake (...and repeat doing so at times...) of criticizing people for trying to muck up a working application with "tests" and "comparisons". I know that's counterproductive thinking, and some of that thinking is due to my just not having the time to "go there". But much the same as some of us 'oldies' get exasperated somewhat with newbees asking the same old questions and for advice, all previously posted and obtainable via some legwork, those trying to explain away proven applications, or reinvent the wheel can make those of use with thousands of posts on the subject JUST GO A LITTLE INSANE! AS IN CRAZY!!!!

'Scuse me. ;) I'm getting better at accepting the the need for effectual explanations on the 'science' related aspects, if for only the reason that as more learned individuals get involved in DIY Screens, it's just gotta become a prerequisite. The exponential popularity growth of Front projection lends itself to such a need, and it seems obvious that people go Ga Ga over a good informative post. Tiddler represents someone who has dived right in, accepted some of the well natured barbs tossed his way, as well as the pro-offered advice, and continues to go forth and both illuminate and embarrass those of use lagging in our own efforts. Thanks Tiddler.

;) Now go away. ;) JKA

Of course now, all this lends itself to also explain why the individual properties of a complex mix like Black Flame can indeed work together and individually to effect something not experienced before. Or can it/ does it? I 'think' so to the point I 'prefer' to believe I "KNOW" so, but that's me. Your milage may vary.

But.......iffin' ya don't gas up the ol' crate and go for a drive, you'll never knows.

Tiddler
In case I forgot to say so in the first reply to your testing efforts “Nice Workâ€.
And from what you listed as the ingredients on the SS can of your neighbors that is the correct mix ratio for classic SS in a quart can. So we know we are dealing with the real stuff in this test.

As to attempting to answer MM question I think movielvr2006 pretty much said what I would have said. The SS does not improve in gain or performance when viewed off angle rather the maxxmudd paint lowers itself to the SS level. The SS being a purely diffusive type surface throws the light in a nearly 180 degree pattern. While the maxxmudd by the very nature of what gain is, if more light is coming forward then there has to be less to the sides. The screen cant make lumens it can only direct them.
I also agree about the 90 degree retro reflective nature of the metallic in the paint. Keep in mind at 90 its pure retro and that’s how things like safety tape get there huge gains and bike reflectors, in a paint mix sure a percent will align at 90 but some will align at 89,88, 87….etc when you have a uniform random mixture such as what will happen in paint you don’t get the pure retro reflection but rather an averaging effect. And with such your viewing cone will take on the look of a bell curve.

One thing that does happen when viewing off angle the image the way we see and the cam sees the screen is compressed. By this I’m saying when you view a 16:9 screen straight on it looks 16:9 as you move off to the side at some point it will look square. And when viewing it at say 85 degrees it looks like a vertical line of light. so in part what we see as a image getting brighter off angle is we are seeing what light is coming off the screen compressed over a smaller area to our eye. Thus the appearance of brightness. The second factor to be considered is our eyes and the cam also are not light meters. They both have variable apertures and both try to adjust in such a way to give us the most true information possible. So you can use the side by side A,B comparisons to compare to each other but not to compare picture to picture in terms of brightness.

Some of you that have been following my posts over the last few months may have read a few times how I described a A,B,C comparison and in a way Tiddler did such because he shows both samples against the background screen be it a 1.4 white.

These same steps should be used in any form of a shootout and IMO a 1.0 gain white would be included in each shot as a reference. The panels should also be recorded in both the center position and a side position. ( but I digress )

One last observation of the screen shots. The ones with the gray scale bars and the one with the smooth transition and also the ones with the blue screen light show a hint of hot spotting starting on the maxxmud sample IMO that sample is pretty close to as high as you will want to go with your projector based on the limited information such screen shots can show

I disagree, because if RS_MaxxxMudd was losing so much as to be compared to the output of SS off axis, such would be just as noticeable without the comparison. Besides, it looks like the luminosity value of the side shots very closely matches if not equals that of the direct views. A actual metering would tell the tale, but the difference between the two in direct view comparison leads me to believe that the SS is getting better on the perimeter, not the RS_MaxxxMud getting that much worse.

Lastly, if the SS was indeed throwing light as equally as you state Bud, it would look equally dim from every angle, and not show the tendencies it does toward having such a dark center. On the other hand, up till now, virtually no one has ever questioned or doubted the bright, even 180 degree viewing cone RS_MaxxxMudd provides, while plenty of people have noted the failings of SS in that dept. Not necessarily because of a severe drop off, but rather because of general dimness.

But I will state that this comparison is the absolute first time I ever have seen a straight up SS application go from poor to better. No matter else what may be said, I think we can all agree that it is an unusually strange occurance


Nail Guns at ready? Shields are up. Scotty...get us out of here!

Is the melamine surface more glossy than an eggshell finish? If it is, and I suspect it is, this may explain the higher gain on the Maxx screen. Since the Maxx mix is "semi translucent", it will allow the base to impact the performance. A latex paint, like SS will "cover" up the effects of the substrate much better than a mix like Maxx. I have painted the Maxx mix on various substrates and it's performance is impacted by the substrate. Although, what bud and movie have surmised seems logical to me. But in this case, I'm willing to bet the melamine is doing more than the flake. Simple to test. Paint a piece of bare wood with an UPW or Kilz primer, ie something flat white, and then put the modified or unmodified Maxx mix on and compare to the melamine panel.

That explanation in no way explains the difference in percieved gain, or the loss thereof at the resepected areas. All things being equal, all things were equal, excepting the paints involved.

Anybody who could attempt to explain away why RS_MaxxxMudd has more gain overall than SS is overlooking the obvious for one reason or another.

Of course the suggestion on the change up of the substrate is a valid suggestion, but I'm positive it will only hurt the SS even more, not help it.

It's all perception. You are viewing a background, Elune screen with 1.4 gain, with a higher gain than the SS panel, maybe 0.7-0.8. It will look dimmer on axis. however, as you move off axis, the Elune screen also starts to drop off, probably more rapidly than the SS due to the 1.4 gain, and starts to look a little dimmer than the SS. The SS probably has a gain of 0.7-0.8 on axis and probably doesn't lose alot of gain off axis because it is gray and flat. I have seen this many times in my experimentation.

But the examples show show the exact opposite to be true. Dim at center, brighter at the edges. Your take on that?

The melamine substrate, if it's what I'm thinking it is, and I'm guessing here, has a gain higher than 1 due to the gloss. So much like the Elune screen, will drop as you move off axis. Probably more so because it is "glossier" and will have a high peak dead on. This will change how the topcoat looks. Especially one that is tranlslucent. That is how the latest variations of CG work. The substrate is key here. Glossier bases can cause hotspotting and higher on axis gain. Penalty is lower off axis gain and a subseqent drop off in brightness. Uniformity off axis may be impacted, but in most cases, from what I have seen, seems to be pretty uniform.