or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › DIY Screen Section › Silver Fire mix
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Silver Fire mix - Page 6

post #151 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidahn View Post

Does anyone know what the gain factor is of Silver Fire, say compared to HCCV? I know this was asked before, but no one replied. Gain has been discussed a lot, but not in numerical terms. For example, I've noticed that it has higher gain than matte white, which means it's higher than 1.0-1.3. Benven's tests show his silver is higher gain than his 1.8 gain CGIII, so if SF is similar in gain, it's higher than 1.8. How does it compare to, say, Da-Lite High Power in terms of gain and AL rejection?

David

I have not used SF, but am familiar with the performance of various similar mixes. I also am now using a HP screen with an AE900U, and have compared it to a test panel I have of a silver metallic based semi-transluscent medium gray mix that's painted over mylar. I'm sure this test panel is very close to the SF in terms of gain and AL performance. I estimate the gain of my test panel to be 1.0; it gets a slight boost from the mylar substrate. If painted on a non-reflecting substrate, it would probably have a gain close to 0.7. I'd estimate the gain of SF to be between 0.7 and 1.0, depending on how dark the SF mix is, it's transluscency, and the substrate used. A lighter SF mix will have a slightly higher gain with less ambient light performance, and a darker SF mix will have slightly lower gain with better ambient light performance, all within a range of 0.7 to 1.0.

The HP screen performs quite well with a reasonable amount of ambient light, best if viewed within its optimal viewing cone. I find it very watchable with a light on in the room; however I prefer the lights off. I have a 100 watt bulb from a tourch light on right now that's 3' from my screen and find the HP screen quite viewable. See one of the HP threads in the screen section for more opinions. My 1.0 gain test panel looks miserably drab and dingy by comparison to my HP screen, and I would not prefer using anything similar. If wanting to use a low gain, ambient light solution like the SF, I suggest using a higher lumen / bright projector.
post #152 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Time View Post

I have not used SF, but am familiar with the performance of various similar mixes. I also am now using a HP screen with an AE900U, and have compared it to a test panel I have of a silver metallic based semi-transluscent medium gray mix that's painted over mylar. I'm sure this test panel is very close to the SF in terms of gain and AL performance. I estimate the gain of my test panel to be 1.0; it gets a slight boost from the mylar substrate. If painted on a non-reflecting substrate, it would probably have a gain close to 0.7. I'd estimate the gain of SF to be between 0.7 and 1.0, depending on how dark the SF mix is, it's transluscency, and the substrate used. A lighter SF mix will have a slightly higher gain with less ambient light performance, and a darker SF mix will have slightly lower gain with better ambient light performance, all within a range of 0.7 to 1.0.

The HP screen performs quite well with a reasonable amount of ambient light, best if viewed within its optimal viewing cone. I find it very watchable with a light on in the room; however I prefer the lights off. I have a 100 watt bulb from a tourch light on right now that's 3' from my screen and find the HP screen quite viewable. See one of the HP threads in the screen section for more opinions. My 1.0 gain test panel looks miserably drab and dingy by comparison to my HP screen, and I would not prefer using anything similar. If wanting to use a low gain, ambient light solution like the SF, I suggest using a higher lumen / bright projector.

Interesting post.

I'll start by saying I completely agree you're not going to get a DIY screen to perform like the HP in terms of AL rejection. We just don't have the technology and manufacturing capabilities at home to do so. The HP is an all around incredible screen material, unfortuatly it isn't suitable for all applications... including either of mine.

Next I'd like to question your gain predictions regarding the SF mix. Given the high metallic content of SF, I'd be amazed if it were <1. I have ZERO experience with this mix, but based on screen shots and metallic content, I'd guess the lighter versions of SF would be somewhere around 1.5 to 1.9 gain. One of the two of us is way off base, and you might be right, but I agree this mix will not compare to the HP in gain.
post #153 of 1426
I would have to concur with 1Time. Gain would be around 1ish. It depends greatly on the substrate, not so much the SF mix. I have a 1.8 gain screen and can tell you for certain that the gray mixes that are highly regarded here are nowhere near the gain of my 1.8 CGIII screen. Now before anyone gets all bent out of shape here; this is not a knock against mix, just merely an informative observation.

1Time, you got a HP?? That must be sweet!! I'm green with envy. Happy viewing.
post #154 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wet1 View Post

Interesting post.

I'll start by saying I completely agree you're not going to get a DIY screen to perform like the HP in terms of AL rejection. We just don't have the technology and manufacturing capabilities at home to do so. The HP is an all around incredible screen material, unfortuatly it isn't suitable for all applications... including either of mine.

No doubt about it, the HP is not for everyone's viewing conditions or projector for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wet1 View Post

Next I'd like to question your gain predictions regarding the SF mix. Given the high metallic content of SF, I'd be amazed if it were <1. I have ZERO experience with this mix, but based on screen shots and metallic content, I'd guess the lighter versions of SF would be somewhere around 1.5 to 1.9 gain. One of the two of us is way off base, and you might be right, but I agree this mix will not compare to the HP in gain.

Your's and benven's response about SF's gain made me take a closer look at the current SF formulations and re-evaluate my gain estimations. The following is a quote from the first page of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

and a minor update... Nov 17th, 2006



rs-maxxmudd (left panel) vs. silver fire screen


"SILVER FIRE"

(base components)
24 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Pearl #02601
16 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Silver Metallic #02603
8 oz. Behr Interior UPW Flat #1050 (or Exterior #4050)
6 oz. Delta Pale Metallic Gold #02624

(viscosity components)
24 oz. Minwax Polycrylic - Satin Finish
10 oz. Distilled / Tap Water

(color components)
60 ml (2 oz) Distilled / Tap Water
60 ml (2 oz) Delta Pale Metallic Gold #02624
30 ml Delta Cardinal Red #02077
17.5 ml Windsor & Newtwon "Galleria" - Pthalo Green (PG7)
12.5 ml Delta Ultra Blue #02038

* use 3 oz. of the 'color components' and add/mix it to the 'base & viscosity components'

-------------------------

Silver Fire - L (Lite)**

** use 2 oz. of the 'color components' and add/mix it to the 'base & viscosity components'

-------------------------

Silver Fire - SL (SuperLite)***

*** use 1 oz. of the 'color components' and add/mix it to the 'base & viscosity components'

The current formulations of SF have quite a bit higher concentration of pearl and metallic than I recall having mixed for my test panel. I made my previous estimations assuming it was much closer to the ratios I used for my mylar based test panel (oops). However, I'm not at all unfamilar with mixes of these approximate proportions of pearl and silver metallic (and higher) and I'm sure benven has quite a bit of experience with this as well. And based on my expereinces as well as from what I've read (studied), I estimate the following:
- A 100% silver metallic screen will give something approaching a 2.0 gain, rough estimate.
- A 100% pearl screen will give something approching a 1.5 gain, rough estimate.
- The addition of a white paint and especially UPW or one that's designed to cover well will decrease the gain exponentially.
Considering these estimations and never having seen a SF screen, I'd estimate SF to yield a gain somewhere from 1.0 to 1.3 depending on the version of SF used, the transluscency of it's application, and the reflectiveness of the substrate.

Apparently the gain of a SF screen is not interesting enough for any current owner of a SF screen to post a screen shot comparing their SF screen to a 1.0 gain UPW test panel with the lights off, and then offering a comment on the estimated gain of SF. My guess is this may not have been done since SF's gain does not compare all that favorably, just guessing.
post #155 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by benven View Post

1Time, you got a HP?? That must be sweet!! I'm green with envy. Happy viewing.

Yes, and it's definitely a keeper. Thanks
post #156 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Time View Post

Your's and benven's response about SF's gain made me take a closer look at the current SF formulations and re-evaluate my gain estimations. The following is a quote from the first page of this thread.



The current formulations of SF have quite a bit higher concentration of pearl and metallic than I recall having mixed for my test panel. I made my previous estimations assuming it was much closer to the ratios I used for my mylar based test panel (oops). However, I'm not at all unfamilar with mixes of these approximate proportions of pearl and silver metallic (and higher) and I'm sure benven has quite a bit of experience with this as well. And based on my expereinces as well as from what I've read (studied), I estimate the following:
- A 100% silver metallic screen will give something approaching a 2.0 gain, rough estimate.
- A 100% pearl screen will give something approching a 1.5 gain, rough estimate.
- The addition of a white paint and especially UPW or one that's designed to cover well will decrease the gain exponentially.
Considering these estimations and never having seen a SF screen, I'd estimate SF to yield a gain somewhere from 1.0 to 1.3 depending on the version of SF used, the transluscency of it's application, and the reflectiveness of the substrate.

Apparently the gain of a SF screen is not interesting enough for any current owner of a SF screen to post a screen shot comparing their SF screen to a 1.0 gain UPW test panel with the lights off, and then offering a comment on the estimated gain of SF. My guess is this may not have been done since SF's gain does not compare all that favorably, just guessing.

You guys are probably right, the gain is probably somewhere around 1 to 1.3. Like I said, I've never tried this mix (yet, I might still) so I don't have any real world experence with it. Thank you for the input.

BTW, I really wish I could use a HP, it's such a great screen... and cheap too.
post #157 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbondioli View Post

... Stewart Firehawk... Dalite High Power

Can anyone compare the Silver Fire mix to either of these screens?

Nobody has given a direct answer to my question yet, but I think I now have a good reference point to compare the Firehawk. Somebody please tell me if I've got this right:
Silver Fire potentially has gain of 1.3 (and it is angular reflective, right?)
Silver Fire boosts black levels.
Firehawk G2 gain = 1.25, angular reflective, boosts black levels.

It seems to me that Silver Fire might be a great alternative to FH... RIGHT?!?
post #158 of 1426
Oh... well I am interested in both! It's OK if nobody has experience with both SF and FH.

Of course, my SF screen may not even compare to other SF screens, due to lack of painting skills


Thanks.
post #159 of 1426
OK, 1Time. Please believe me, I'm really not trying to be rude (unless you are... then back at ya!). I guess I'm new to "DIY Etiquette." It just seems strange to me that half of this thread is about comparisons, screen shots (or requests for screens shots), yet NOBODY except me wants to see comparisons against well-regarded commercial screens? Silver Fire vs. white sheet is interesting, but Silver Fire vs. Firehawk is not? Really? WTH???

But, if brand name screens comparisons are forbidden or frowned upon in this forum, then I don't want to break any rules. Cool?

So all I really want to know is if a Silver Fire screen would improve black levels AND have a positive gain. Ummm... compared to a matte white wall!
post #160 of 1426
Gbonddioli

You are not breaking any rules and if I could I would run tons of tests comparing DIY against manufactured screens. The real problem is no one that makes any of these advanced mixes seems to do these comparisons. There are only a handful of members that have done much side by side comparisons and most of that effort hasn't been directed at competing with manufactured screens more so showing comparisons between known standards we all have sitting around.

Actually as of late a lot of comparison has dealt with improvement compared to effort and skill involved to complete the task.

Once a sample of say Silver Fire and a sample of Fire Hawk are set side by side then come the debates as to what projector was used in the test and at what calibration and how the projector was mounted and what was the content of the test and under what ambient light the test was conducted, lets not forget viewing angles.

Things like gain etc are often guessed at because most members don't have a good method to measure such things. Likewise manufactures often stretch their claims to screen performance.

If you want to undertake making samples of any of the DIY screens and get samples of manufactured screens. Many here will be very supportive of any efforts testing you want to do, myself included.

IMO anyone that wants to offer up a DIY screen solution that they have made one or a hundred of and show us what they can about its performance, I don't expect anything more of them than that. There is also nothing wrong in someone coming along and asking how it compares with any and all other screens. And in the absence of any comparisons that only leaves doing the testing yourself if you need to know. The data base here is pretty fragmented but its slowly filling in. in time I'm hopeful answers to questions like yours will be common place.
post #161 of 1426
Thanks bud16415! I guess I figured that FH and HP screens were popular enough that someone here would have experience with either/or plus Silver Fire. But what you just explained makes perfect sense: my simple question would turn into a serious debate between more experienced enthusiasts. I've already decided to order a retractable HP. But, sooner or later, I will add a fixed frame screen. I have a feeling, knowing me, that if I could get the Silver Fire to turn out properly, I'd have little desire to spend $2k on a FH. Likewise, if I buy the FH, I'll have little desire to put forth the effort to make my own screen Otherwise, I'd be happy to share the results!

Thank you to all the people who DO put forth your time & money and share the results for the rest of us (that means you, too, 1Time )

I've been learning alot about HT for the past year. Now that I'm starting to put my system together, I should soon have knowledge to contribute. Maybe in DIY... maybe not
post #162 of 1426
gbondioli,

Now you and I, the newbies to this forum, are hoping that PB_Maxx's lack of pics REALLY means he's too busy or doesn't have access to a FH to compare with. So PB_Maxx (or MississippiMan if you've made a SF), can you please show us a side-by-side with FH or at least a 1.3 gain white screen for a gain comparison? 'Cause the FH is ridiculously expensive! Help us save some money here!

David
post #163 of 1426
I believe SF to be an excellent and efficient DIY solution and have never stated otherwise. How it compares to other screens DIY or manufactured is only partially known to me and sure I would like to see more information but until someone does the testing I'm not assuming the results to bite.

It's easy to criticize others efforts without a platform of your own to defend. Like I said in the above post asking for information is good and in the event none is available take that at face value or make the effort and conduct your own tests and come back with the results.
post #164 of 1426
My word, such impatience!

gbondioli, I can understand your consternation at not being able to have someone conjure up a specific and detailed comparison to the Mfg Screen app you most want to have judged. Such things do have to be considered a "roll of the dice" when asked for, however. Usually, those sort of comparisons get published because the owner of such a Mfg Screen did the comparison themselves when contemplating a "upgrade" due to reading effusive commentary and seeing great screenies. So they make a sample up of the DIY app, not the other way around.

But, in some cases, it does happen somewhat along the same direction you have asked for.

But the assumption CAN be made that since DIY-SF is comprised of much of the same base ingredients as the DIY RS-MaxxMudd mix, and is itself a DIY development pursued by PB_Maxxx because it is a step further along the way toward better performance, that nothing has been lost in the advance toward better performance. That would not be in keeping with what either PB_ or I would stomach. Making direct comparisons ourselves, or posting opinions made by others only brought trouble, and attracted undesirable comments and attitudes, so a lot of what can be construed as reluctance to bother with such can be explained by the "Burnt once" principle.

But more importantly, you should consider that the expectation that upon request, a comparison between any specific Mfg. Screen and a DIY endeavor that goes unanswered because such a Mfg screen is not readily available should not give anyone licence to consider that reason to believe (or state) that anybody has something to hide, nor should it provoke exclamations that it must Suck either.

It would of course be very nice to be able to have a standing repository of full sized Mfg Screens to make instant comparisons with. But on DIY screens, the most usual course of action involves the use of sample swatches. Some action by you is to be considered both prudent and advisable because ANY Mfg. Stewart screen costs a bundle, and if you can equal or best it's performance for 1/10th the cost, man, ya just gotta try!!!

(Your request for a 1.3 gain "White' comparison can be accommodated fairly easily. That's because it is already on "The agenda".)

I myself have several upcoming HT venues, and the application of the paints will be done via methods that have been offered up on this Forum for others to duplicate.

As I post instructions as to their construction, and later photographic depictations, I will try to include some comparative standard whenever possible. Those with samples of Mfg Screen material, send it to me and it WILL be included ASAP. I cannot aspire to chase down requested samples, and I cannot go into long explanations as to why or why I have little time to pursue such.

I'm not supporting any particular DIY applications that I do not have personal experience with....with most all having been done several times over. WYSIWYG as far as I'm concerned, and those who have been supporting other recent DIY applications through extensive testing only take such idealism to the upteenth level. (although some of those folks do tend to dismiss too quickly DIY apps that have no such "Testing" pedigree...)

So I'm most likely to post "IMOs" as opposed to "Tests" simply because it's very apparent that a bunch of other folks have the time and resources at hand to do so. But as I said above, if publicly asked to do so, and if I'm presented with any Mfg. sample, I can state that there are few on this Forum who can more readily effect multiple comparisons of such samples against any variety and size "Mudd based" or RGBY DIY applications.

I just have to find the time to do so, that's all. And simply put, if someone takes the time and expends the effort to provide me with such comparitive fodder to chew on, I'm gonna give that request a higher priority than a simple request for me to do it all on my own.

I do still have a 84" Sony ChomaView screen sitting in my Storage collecting dust bunnies, so that will be venturing forth soon. That's been promised before, and sadly has not happened due to many circumstances, some public, some private, but it's on the agenda...and will happen sooner or later.

That's about the best I can offer.
post #165 of 1426
I am new to all this DIY projector screen stuff. I finished making my first screen 2 months ago and it is a decent screen, but I could use more. Currently I am running on a 97" blackout cloth screen. I am reading all of these mixes and getting quite interested. Could someone narrow down all this talk and let me know what mixture I should use to paint a screen? Please include the ingredients and how to use it. I read the very 1st post on this site and couldn't make sense of what to do, how many coats to use, and what part to paint first. thanks!
post #166 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbondioli View Post

I have an Optoma H78 and total light control, though I prefer a little ambient light. I'm currently projecting onto a beige wall. I've tested many samples, and my first overall choice is Stewart Firehawk, followed by Dalite High Power. I was actually planning to get a fixed frame FH and a retractable HP, since they both have their own advantages under different circumstances.

Can anyone compare the Silver Fire mix to either of these screens?


If I could replace one or both commercial screens with SF, I'd be interested in giving it a shot. The more I research and plan every aspect of my HT construction, the more 'hands on' I want to be!

Sorry I didn't chime in earlier.

The SilverFire mix has superior ambient light qualities in contrast to the FireHawk. At least with my comparisons.

For reference:

Black-out cloth far left, Stewart Greyhawk, Firehawk and Studiotek 130 in the middle and my BF screen on the right in pure daylight lit room.




Here are a couple of other shots that illustrate this mix's ambient light qualities along with one pure dark shot.




If you are interested in reading more about my experience and build story check out the thread I created a while back.
post #167 of 1426
Thanks for those shots. The Firehawk looks like a black hole! Are sure you aren't just missing a block of pixels the same size as the FH sample?
post #168 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbondioli View Post

Thanks for those shots. The Firehawk looks like a black hole! Are sure you aren't just missing a block of pixels the same size as the FH sample?

Not likely. However, what one could conclude from that screen shot is the Firehawk turns black and unwatchable in the presense of ambient light. Alternatively, one could conclude that since the Firehawk was so poorly represented in that screen shot, it was not an accurate or fair comparison. Thus, any conclusions drawn from that screen shot should be taken with a grain of salt.
post #169 of 1426
I'll chime in,

Firehawk's performance?

I've seen 'em, and they do NOT live up to the hype and claims that were made when they came out. I'll qualify that statement by saying that with a Panny AX100u, the properties of the FH should come into themselves and produce a better image w/better Black levels than say, a matte white, but then there is the cost to consider.......,

Otherwise, if you sport less lumens than stated above, expect a dull viewing experience. The blacks might be deep, but the screen shows no vibrance or "PoP" And the FH screen exhibits quite a bit of texture as well. SDE from LCD's really stands out, requiring that with a 84" FH, you sit at least 12' away. That turns 84" into the equivalent of watching a 42" TV from 8'.

That isn't "The Big Picture" as far as I'm concerned.

In my way of thinking, any screen app not suited for viewing from a 1:1 seating/diagonal width ratio isn't worth a hoot.

But that IS my opinion, being used to being able to accommodate such.

1time,

Although I'll agree that I too would prefer to see the FH sample within the boarders of the SF screen for a better representation, your comments about all of the other screens you mentioned being "superior" shows a pre disposition toward an an obvious bias, and a perchant toward issuing comments that can only serve to stir up trouble. Or in the least, an outright dismissal of the SF's abilities.

The Poster did in fact post a comparison. Take issue with how he did it, but don't state that it never happened.
post #170 of 1426
No offense but those two shots, set up the way they were (not implying anything done intentionally mind you - that's not to say that it wasn't either), wouldn't give any screen sample a shot in heck of performing. Firstly, they're both off-axis shots - no big deal. Then if you look at what is being projected onto the FH - the first pick is nothing but black, and that's black from a pj calibrated for a much lighter gray screen - the second pic is all orange with a touch of white in the upper corner, but it's way off axis on the opposite side. I would seriously think twice about making any decisions based on those shots if they were all comparably priced materials.

mynym,

I love your screen! But don't show those comparison shots anymore unless you redo them cause those are bad. If you're gonna redo them, pm me.

mech
post #171 of 1426
I agree with you , mech.

I do not object to some who dictate that the shots are less than effective representations, but I do object to such when the attitude behind them is obviously adverse.

I'm sure mynym took them off axis to show that SF does not suffer as much loss off axis as the other samples. It was not to "place a finger on the scale" as some would have it seem.

Any/all of them will do better under optimal conditions, but the "best" should always shine under conditions less than optimal.
post #172 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

With all this being disclosed why don't the individuals wanting proof just simply make a small batch up and do the testing they wish to see. Document what you do and how you do it and show the world what it is you want with hard facts. Don't stack the deck in the reverse order as you say the proponents do but just do a fair test to the best of your abilities and let the chips fall where they may.

I agree wholeheartedly!

mech
post #173 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

I have asked and I have even nudged. But what I haven't done is draw conclusions based on someone else not wanting to comply with my wishes. The best I can say when not knowing is I don't know.

If my longing for this knowledge becomes more than I can handle not knowing I will go spend 50 bucks and make some up and find out what I need to know. Be assured when I report back to the group I would explain the logic behind my tests along with what it is I found.

Extremely well said, Bud, and a great example to follow.

Garry
post #174 of 1426
There's no reason to compare it yourself if you are not interested in using the Silver Fire in the first place.

I would like to post in this thread without it being deleted, so I will agree with all of those posting here in favor of using a Silver Fire DIY screen.
post #175 of 1426
Thread edited - play nice.

Garry
post #176 of 1426
So asking the person making claims for a comparison is worthy of being deleted now?

He said it is better than a firehawk. Which tells me he has seen the two side by side. Is it wrong to put the burden of proof on the person making these claims?
post #177 of 1426
Biglyle, I'm going to comment on your post here on the thread rather than by PM, in hopes that it will provide insight to other members as well. Please bear in mind that though my comments address your post directly, they also apply to anyone who posts here. My (and your) comments will eventually be removed in the interest of keeping this thread on topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by biglyle View Post

So asking the person making claims for a comparison is worthy of being deleted now?

He said it is better than a firehawk. Which tells me he has seen the two side by side. Is it wrong to put the burden of proof on the person making these claims?

No, ASKING is not what gets deleted - it's the manner in which you ask. I refer you to your original post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by biglyle View Post

Shouldnt the person touting the mix as BETTER THAN A FIREHAWK be the one responsible for backing up his outrageous claims?

You don't just ask for a comparison, you make it clear that you already have an opinion: You find the very idea that SF could outperform FH outrageous.

You're entitled to this opinion in the same manner that MM is entitled to his. But by your own standards, shouldn't you be posting the tests that brought you to your conclusion?

Another, and perhaps more important point is this: If you don't have something constructive to add to the thread, don't post. If you have comparisons that meet the same criteria as the ones you demand, and present them in a non-combative manner, they might fit into this thread. Otherwise, what is your motive? This is not a debate forum, it's a place where people can exchange meaningful and helpful information about DIY screens.

AVS Forums are viewed by MANY people. This particular thread has over 8,000 views, many of which are probably from non-members. Please bear this in mind when you post, and keep your comments both civil and constructive.

Garry
AVS Moderator
post #178 of 1426
Hey, everyone...

First off, thanks for this forum and for this thread. I was considering a pull down or electric screen, but I have a nice curtain in my theater room, and wanted to paint a screen on the wall so that if I had the screen rolled up, it would still look like a screen was there!

Anyway, I decided that as long as I looking to both purchase and paint screens I would take a chance on this mix. It looks like a $50 gamble that may pay off...I don't even know if I'll buy a screen now. I did use the Minwax poly in my mix, because the Home Depot I frequent doesn't carry the Behr matte poly. (I've since found it).

My question is this...I have one more coat to apply, but the result does show more of an eggshell finish...what benefit vs. harm would I do if I rolled a coat or 2 of the Behr matte poly over the entire business when I'm done? Thanks for the advise!
post #179 of 1426
Ok...great!, thanks for your help on this, and the work you've put into it. The picture looks very good, though a bit different than the white screen I was using... I'll need to do a little tweaking with my projector settings. Do people find that they normally need to adjust their brightness/color/contrast settings when moving from white to gray/silver?
post #180 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by doodlehawk View Post

Do people find that they normally need to adjust their brightness/color/contrast settings when moving from white to gray/silver?

Many do, because the previous setting were usually slanted toward increasing CR because the screen did not add anything int the equation. With SF, a boost is already provided at the "screen's surface", one that might lead to over-adjustment of what is both desirable and correct. (...although those last two items sometimes do not match up....)

This can, and does also apply to adjustments in R-G-B and Gamma. Different PJs will respond differently to the surface provided. But if the surface provides enough adjustment potential, then tweaking can get one closer to perfection. What SF does is up the potential of a PJ Menu's arsenal. Being "adjustable" itself before it's applied is all the more reason it can be considered a Mix that can go both ways, and perhaps a little to each side as well.

When I set up a PJ w/a SF Screen, especially darker Hues, I start with the PJ on Factory Default (....unless that setting has extreme pre-sets in place...) and I employ NO Black Stretch, Cr boost, or Iris Reduction CR enhancing tricks or methods. Colors are default @ 0.0 From there I adjust first the "Image Pre-Sets", looking at 'Dynamic' or 'Vivid', noting how they appear, noting the settings they represent, then from there, I usually leave CR alone or reduce Cr by up to 2 points, increase Gamma (....that means a lower (-) number BTW.....) -2, and then from there start any further calibration. Often, none seems necessary. In fact, the end result may not be exactly 6500k, but the resulting combination often lends itself closely to what is best for the situation.

The final and most important thing is to know that any well balanced mix with Silver as a major proponent has properties that both do, and have always lent themselves to the reproduction of projected imagery. It was just that too often, other 'nasty' issues were lurking just outside of the viewing cone, or in the positioning of the lens, no ambient light viewing, or perhaps just because of too much spare luminosity. (Hot Spotting)

Silver under control, and adjusted for to achieve the best results is almost always going to be a superior performer to any White, or simple Grey. But ya gotta do it, use it right. And of course, done really "right" as in a mix such as SF, you can hang onto ambient light view-ability as a bonus.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Screen Section
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › DIY Screen Section › Silver Fire mix