Which screen for Pearl?

google high power model b

if you had the bucks, the new Stewart Firehawk SST would go great with that projector. It the screen was made for that projector. Being that you cant go with that, follow Tryg's advice and go with the highpower

There were quite a few reports from CEDIA that people didn't much care for the new FH with the Pearl. Is it still 'highly recommended'?

Once again, if you go with the High Power be sure the Pearl is mounted not far from your viewing position or else you relatively quickly lose the gain advantage. This usually involves mounting the projector on a shelf behind and a just above the viewing position. It means that when you stand up your shadow will be cast on the screen and for some people that's undesirable. I say it's a small price to pay.

The High Power, being retroflective, doesn't need tensioning to prevent seeing waves. That is one reason this screen can be had at big sizes for about what money you have left. Call AVS to see.

There is some more discussion here and in posts preceding
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post8481973

Dan

And the other advantage of mounting it as you say (on a stand just above and behind the viewers' heads) is that it is closer to the screen, important for getting the highest brightness from the Pearl (and Ruby).

What about a Carada Precision screen? The Brilliant White screen is supposed to give 1.4 gain, and it has gotten great reviews for a very small price.

Would this be a good screen to use if the projector has to be ceiling-mounted?
Would ths be a good screen to use if there were light-colored walls?

Thanks in advance!

Not to diagree with other peoples opinions regarding the SST, from what I was told STewart and Sony worked together in developing the design for the screen. Personally, I thought they worked very well together

The story on the Stewart SST is that if you need to position the Pearl close to the screen, it won't hot spot, yet if it needs to be back a ways, the picture will still hold up. Plus it's got the new super smooth optical coating that's been designed for 1080p applications. If you want to see the best possible picture from a Pearl, Sony recommends this screen.

Seems like a lot of folks are looking at this but how does it handle ambient light?
That's not a strength for high power, correct? No one has mentioned a combo screen like the Graywolf. Complementing blacks and 1.8 screen gain would seem a good match.

I would try out the DA Lite High power... Cost is within your budget... At 2.8 gain it should be great..

I'm debating between the hp model b pulldown and their fixed screen. I was told the pulldown screens over time begin to develop waves and wear out. Is this not true with the hp model b?

Because of the gain differences (and different preferences for mounting height) you may want to consider one or the other based on screen size and mounting position rather than just generally accepting one screen as "best" for the Pearl.

If you have flexibility (dont mind a smaller screen size) and money to spare the new FH sounds very good. Most of the criticisms were that it wasnt bright enough which is to be expected with a lower gain screen that's too big for the lumens. If you can sit at say 1.3-1.5x from a 106" screen, the FH might be perfect.

Even without the (debatable) rapid Xenon light drop off the Pearl won't be a light cannon - choose your screen size with the 50% of initially reported lumens in mind (as opposed to advertised lumens.) Also remember that the Pearl loses upto 50% brightness at minimum throws (but gains contrast).

Xenon? But Pearl is UHP.

And don't you mean it loses brightness at minimum zoom? The CineHome measurements, btw, were closer to 15% loss at minimum zoom...

No?

Marc

hi

will it fit a 171" scope 1.4gain MP screen , black room, ISCO II ?

How many FtL do you need?

FtL = ( lumens * gain)/ screen area in sq ft

hi
well i wish for mmhh... 15FTL minimum

so 15FTL= 658 ansi.....
20FTL would be = 878 ansi....


pj location: 6.7meters....

Well then you have your answer.

the answer is how many hours it will be able to produce let's say 600-700ansi at a good CR ratio

How does the Studiotek 130 match up with the Pearl (in a light-controlled room)?

Oh, I see you are trolling! Good luck.

Yes the pearl is UHP. That's why I said even without ... Xenon i.e. that even though it does not have the (debatably) rapid dropoff of the Ruby it will still lose ~50% of it's initial brightness like all UHP bulbs do. UHP has a reasonable dropoff after the first 10% of its life and then a more gradual continuous drop in light output for the rest of the bulb life.

Minimum zoom = shortest throw.

I just read the cine4home article, and although it mentions that it uses the same zoom lens as the Ruby (which I would assume would cause the same light dropoff characteristics) he mentions a 17% dropoff in light but doesnt mention at what zoom extents (i.e. whether that dropoff is going from minimum to maximum zoom or not.)
If it is from min to max zoom, then that is an improvement over the Ruby.

Using the measured cine4home numbers, in the best case, you can get an initial 700 lumens @ D65, min zoom, adaptive iris, bulb in high mode, ~10000:1 DI CR. Given usual UHP bulb behaviour, this will likely drop to 350 lumens after a while (still bright enough for many uses). This is the brightest case. You can do the math on the other quoted values in the table. You could choose your screen where 700 lumens are just bright enough to give you the brightness you want, but then for the majority of the life of each bulb, you will be living with a brightness level significantly below that initial value. This is true for all pjs, nothing specific to the Pearl. You are better off chosing screen material and size based on the 50% number, IMO, but to each their own - not looking to offend anyone here.

I believe it is Max zoom=shortest throw and Min zoom=longest throw, just to clear things up.

I would like to know this too, seriously thinking about a pearl, and i own a 92" diagonal Studiotek 130 Stewart screen.

Somebody did the calculations for me with the 92" diag 130 and pearl and it came out to about 36ftL at min throw. So it should look verry nice and punchy I would think. I would also like some comment on this as I am looking at this exact combo.

The new Fire Hawk reportedly has a gain of only 1.1. It is a one material fits all in Sony's eyes. Mount it in a dark, light controlled room, only a partially light controlled room, bright walls, anywhere between 1.41 screen width to 2.4 screen width throw length and EVERYTHING WILL BE FREEKIN GREAT. Can't do better.

No sir. Not the case. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS. NOT THE CASE.

The Studeoteck 130 fabric has just been optimized by Stewart for 1080p. That is still the Stewart choice for a good theater room (good light control and favorable wall colors or distance away).

Also the new FH will hot spot unless you use at least a 1.6 screen width throw distance. Don't ask Sony. But I have it from the very best possible source. So with a large screen, one would be making a choice, minimum throw, maximum ft lamberts but some hot spotting. And if one wanted maximum ft lamberts, why go with a screen gain of only 1.1.

Be careful here kiddies. Every situation is different and do not be guided by Sony, In this case the phrase, Sony, no boloney, may not be applicable. Here, one fabric does not fit all.

Toe. With that size screen, I would go to a longer throw. Instead of 1.41 times your screen width, go to 1.6, only what about 17 inches further away? I do not remember the exact screen width for a 92D. You will obtain the best light uniformity across the screen and still would have very adequate brightness even as the bulb ages.

Mark, could you please expand a little on the new optimized studiotek 130 fabric for 1080p? What changes did they make exactly?

I just saw your post Actually I will probably be at about 1.7 times the screen width for the Pearl and 130 if I go this route. I assume this would be fine as well?

You will have to ask Stewart. All Stewart front projection screens are made with one of two fabrics. That's it. A white and a gray. Yep. I'm sure. That's it.

Now each of these fabrics then receives a mist of optical coating which then gives the fabric its optical characteristics (gain among other things). We are talking a very fine mist with 10 oz of spay coveing something in the vacinity of 2000 sq ft. Something like that. Could be more sq ft. That's it. What's in each spray is proprietary. I haven't a clue. All I know is the spray formulation was recently changed for Studeotec 130 and for Fire Hawk. Is the change big enough to justify fabric replacement on a fixed frame screen? Probably not, but it is better. I will be getting some fabric samples soon and will report any observable differences based on small sq footage viewing.


1.7 will be fine and Studeotec 130 should be fine if you have good ight control and non reflective walls and ceilings. I assume a relatively dark carpeted floor.

From reading Jason's show report, he mentions that Stewart uses a different substrate material on its Fire Hawk SST. I will check on Monday to see if Stewart is now, in fact, using 3 or more different materials. this year there is a new Fire Hawk, the SST, an improved old Fire Hawk, the G3, which gets rid of those speckles people sometimes complained about but which were not observable when watching a picture, and a new 1080p optimized Studeotec 130.