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

Silver Fire mix - Page 2

post #31 of 1426
Thread Starter 
what i've tried to say is that i don't believe a mirror is necessary for this mix to work very well.

but actually, there is a definite difference between the two... and a mirror has both positives and negatives that i have personally seen.

the positives...

better white levels. you will get better whites with a mirror. explosions will be more white. the shine that often travels across the edge of lettering (such as the THX lettering) or the edge of a sword's blade, etc are more pronounced and dimensional with a mirror. it's defnitely an effect that can not be captured in a screen shot.

better black levels. the silver base of the mirror results in deeper black levels.

potentially better black level detail. highlights and detail within the deeper black levels are potentially better dependent on the greyness and the thickness of the topcoat.

cons...

poorer flesh tones - i'm very much a stickler for good flesh tones... and i want the flesh tones to come as close to or match that of white screen as possible. (a very hard thing to do whenever grey / silver is present within the basecoat or topcoat). the silver base of the mirror tends to effect the flesh tones and make them a tad darker than i personally like. beyond the superlight... i'm not as happy with the flesh tones on a mirror as i would personally like.

the color spectrum from the light to mid yellows, some light greens, and some light reds can also be adversely effected as well by the silver mirror base. the shift is slight and noticable only when a white sample is present.

now as far as widening the viewing cone and increasing the ambient capabilities of the mix... i will reserve my judgement for a later date.

-----------

Wet1,

now as far as whether light is penetrating the topcoat... the answer is a definite yes. even after 4 rolled coats of silver fire mix on a white semi-translucent acrylic #2447... the image is clearly seen on the backside and could easily be used a rear projection screen in controlled lighting.
post #32 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wet1 View Post

Has anyone definitively determined if there's any benefit to using a mirrored surface rather than a white base? With this many layers of paint over the top, I have a hard time believing much of the light can make it down to the mirror and then all the way back to the surface... I'd think the difference would be nearly unnoticeable.

What's the cost of a 4'x8' sheet of acrylic mirror anyway?

If you want a good explanation of how much light passes thru a layer of paint or multi layers read this thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=713810

I had suggested to Tiddler to try painting a window so we could see the projected image on the back side. The discussion starts at post #5 images #11 #18 and the real fun starts on #37. He also painted mirrors (rolled) and tested them in that thread.

IMO this is the best test thread I have read to date.

As for flesh tones and grays. The thumbnail images below were shot on a coal black screen with tremendously high light concentration.
The thread that explains that experiment is:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=743468



post #33 of 1426
Thread Starter 
bud,

very few projectors have the ability to overpower the substrate such as your demonstration from less than 3 feet. however, due to the fuzziness of the images and with no white test screen present as a control... from the images you showed.. they do not tell the whole story. it is easy to show screenshots of flesh tones that appear to be pleasing on a grey screen until a white control is also present to show the difference. obviously this means you are close, but without the control you have no idea how off/shifted your flesh tones really are.


over and over again a control screen is asked of myself and for the most part i have complied with that request. however, i do find it odd though that in recent breakthroughs of greys and topcoats, etc, that only tiddler supplied a control screen in his screenshots.

if nothing else, any time light is altered my matter (pigment) there is a visual consequence... be it good or bad.
post #34 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

bud,

very few projectors have the ability to overpower the substrate such as your demonstration from less than 3 feet. however, due to the fuzziness of the images and with no white test screen present as a control... from the images you showed.. they do not tell the whole story. it is easy to show screenshots of flesh tones that appear to be pleasing on a grey screen until a white control is also present to show the difference. obviously this means you are close, but without the control you have no idea how off/shifted your flesh tones really are.


over and over again a control screen is asked of myself and for the most part i have complied with that request. however, i do find it odd though that in recent breakthroughs of greys and topcoats, etc, that only tiddler supplied a control screen in his screenshots.

if nothing else, any time light is altered my matter (pigment) there is a visual consequence... be it good or bad.

I couldn't agree more with what you just posted above and I'm among the biggest advocates of a comparison in all screen shots that are trying to make any kind of definitive statement about how light is handled off of a screens face or its inner mirror or anything else it does to the light.

There is a thread now running that talks about just these issues and how we can across the net with limited equipment review each others work and try and understand what they are doing and why.

One of the problems is its also been determined that most if not all whites also alter colors thru their pigments. When we are talking about screens that reflect light the ones with the greatest opportunity to alter colors are the ones that reflect the most of them. In the case of lamp black it has a couple of good points. First its concentration in most mixes is very slight. The thumbnails I posted have at least a 1000 times the black as any neutral or non neutral screen paints. So the first good point is not much of it. The second good thing about it is it keeps over 90% of the light that hits it. Bad for gain good for not changing colors.

On the other hand the white base we might want to uses as a standard is a very good reflector and when it pushes a color it does so with strong reflecting pigments.

I know the experiment I did was not to make a screen of black pigment only for some super lumen projector of the future. What I was trying to point out is first how the entire spectrum can be reflected from what appears to be black to our eyes and then how that black didn't alter even white light or light colors such as skin tones.

The logic was something like this. If a smidgen of black turns skin tones blue a whole boat load should have made them look like the Blueman Group. That didn't happen and I'm sure my black craft paper was far from a gray neutral but it was sucking up so much light it didn't get to alter the colors much.

The reason the pictures are out of focus is clear I ran out of focal length at the short throw required for the experiment. I could maybe repeat it with a lens in front of the projector and get it in focus and add a white reference. At that close the whites blacks and all the colors will be pretty washed out I'm sure 1000 plus foot lamberts.
post #35 of 1426
Thread Starter 
Quote:


One of the problems is its also been determined that most if not all whites also alter colors thru their pigments.

i couldn't agree with you more that maybe white shouldn't be the control that we've made it out to be. i find (and have mentioned before) that because it's so poor at absorbing light... that arguments could be made it alters/shift color by shifting it towards white and hence, a slight washout of the entire color spectrum aside from white itself. unfortunately, until many more minds are in agreement with us... it appears that is what we are faced with as a control comparison.

also, i wasn't knocking the fuzziness of the pics... i'm master of the fuzzy hand held pics myself.

i enjoyed your test and it did solidify something for me along with your statement "The second good thing about it is it keeps over 90% of the light that hits it. Bad for gain good for not changing colors."

...and that is, a very dark screen such as the one i showed of j-lo and a very light grey screen are far easier to get color correct and pleasing to my eye than a medium grey screen. i hoping soon that i'll soon be able to go back to test that very dark grey screen.
post #36 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

i couldn't agree with you more that maybe white shouldn't be the control that we've made it out to be. i find (and have mentioned before) that because it's so poor at absorbing light... that arguments could be made it alters/shift color by shifting it towards white and hence, a slight washout of the entire color spectrum aside from white itself. unfortunately, until many more minds are in agreement with us... it appears that is what we are faced with as a control comparison.

While I agree with you guys, I think we need to stick to white as a control because it's the closest thing we can all use as a reference... trying to reliably mass reproduce any other hue or color with precision (while still keeping it cheap and readily available) becomes very difficult.
post #37 of 1426
If I recall correctly, the CG series of mixes did just as well if not a better job. This statement is based on my own testing, observations and threads.

pb, that last picture of yours really doesn't tell us anything other than the SF is a silver colour. Looks alot like my CGIII screen. Could you please throw an image on your last picture of a white screen on your SF screen. Please take a 45 and 90 degree off axis shot as well. I really would like to compare what flesh tones look like off axis.

wet1, in my experimentation, I see no benefit of a mirrored substrate. IMO, a nice matte white substrate is the way to go. You can get more bang for your buck with pearl flake added to the mix.
post #38 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

here's a photo of the screen color of a silver fire superlite.

aside from the white walls as a color reference... i also have a BOC screen for comparison as well.


Great! That's about the shade I'm looking for, I'm not crazy about going into the darker grays. Superlite looks like the choice for me given the three shades.

Any chance you could post a few pics of that same screen (with images) and BOC under several on and off axis viewing conditions with & w/o the ambient light?

I'm 95% sold on this mix compared to other DIY or even commercial screens, but I find it very strange in all the threads I've looked through researching these silver mixes, I'm yet to see good pics of any of the silver mixes compared to a white screen under light AND dark conditions as well as on and off axis. This concerns me. It seems so elementary, yet nobody has posted these photos... why not???
post #39 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wet1 View Post

I'm 95% sold on this mix compared to other DIY or even commercial screens, but I find it very strange in all the threads I've looked through researching these silver mixes, I'm yet to see good pics of any of the silver mixes compared to a white screen under light AND dark conditions as well as on and off axis. This concerns me. It seems so elementary, yet nobody has posted these photos... why not???

They are coming , I'm told this week.

The best comparisons to date are in the link I posted to you above.
Post #37
post #40 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

They are coming , I'm told this week.

The best comparisons to date are in the link I posted to you above.
Post #37

So I hear, I'm very much looking forward to them! I'm not suggesting pb is trying to hide anything, but I do find it strange these images haven't been posted (by anyone) a long time ago to validate these mixes...
post #41 of 1426
Thread Starter 
Wet1,

actually there have been many such pics posted... but somehow they seem to get lost amonst the bickering and closed threads.

here's a couple from the past... (white mmud background vs. dark silver sample)


and another one from the past... (polywall vs. silver fire)


i've got a couple more... but i'm at work with no access to them at the present time.
post #42 of 1426
I've seen the first couple of pics, but not the last one. Unfortunately, I can't see much on that last photo (Beast) due to the POS monitor I have at work.

What I'm really looking to see is how the SF Superlite compares to a matte white screen under dark conditions (I know it will look better under ambient light). Are the whites as white, or are they a little dirty? Are the colors accurate? Are they vivid? How do the two compare when color bars are shown? Is the viewing cone similar? I look forward to seeing your pics which can answer these questions.

Thanks again for all of your contributions!!!
post #43 of 1426
BTW, any idea what kind of gain you're seeing with these screens?
post #44 of 1426
Unsubstantiated claims and argumentative responses have been removed.

Now, let's get back on topic.

Garry
AVS Moderator
post #45 of 1426
Boys relax. I am not disagreeing with the fact that MM and pb helped alot of people.

But, please read what MM wrote and tell me he ain't blowing smoke?? The best gray screen bar none? Are you kidding me? Have you seen any data to back that up? Have you seen any comparison shots of other gray screens? We just got a bunch of shots of a white screen against a gray screen in ambient light. How come no off axis shots like I requested? How come no other gray screen to compare against like I asked? Or how come no dark shot like wet1 requested. No paint chip on my shoulder, just want some facts, not BS.

Many people have asked for screen shots or data. They continue to skirt around these questions and then come on here with very leading, inciteful statements. If they just provided the information, all would be well. However, no information and then some pretty hefty statements, you're just asking for trouble here.

So bittrix, if you think my statements are unfair, untrue and uncalled for, then I would think MM's statements are also untrue, unfair and uncalled for.

wet1, please do a search on threads I have started and you can read up about the CG series of mixes. Not alot of people tried them, but those who did, really liked them. Check out the CGIII thread that I asked to be closed down because of behaviour like this.
post #46 of 1426
Sorry Garry. I'll stay on topic and try not to respond in an argumentative manner.
post #47 of 1426
Thread Starter 
wet1,

here's some flesh tones for you... (boc screen is inset)



post #48 of 1426
Still no off axis shots? I did ask nicely, didn't I??
post #49 of 1426
Thanks for posting those pb! I'll have to check those out on my monitor at home tonight... as I stated above, my monitor at work is absolute garbage for anything other than reading text.

I did get a chance to take a good look at your Beast photo last night. I'm impressed with what I'm seeing, but with the blue makeup, it's difficult to see how accurate everything is. I can't wait to see these latest pics tonight on my monitor as they look like they'll be much more informative.

From what I can tell so far, it appears there's very little degradation to the picture under low lighting and an obvious improvement with ambient light pressent... exactly what I'm looking for. It seems there's a noticeable increase in gain over the BOC (on axis). I still haven't heard any gain numbers, but based on my crappy monitor it appears to be around ~1.5, am I in the right ballpark?

My next concern is off axis viewing. I do have seating at about 40* to the screen so this is very much a concern for me. I realize these are probably file pics you have posted from your computer, but if you could supply some off axis shots of the same frame (with BOC) on axis and off, it would be very much appreciated.

BTW, can I assume these pics you've posted are of the darker SF and not the 'Lite' or 'Superlite' versions? If this is the case, similar pics of the Superlite would be very much appreciated!

Thanks again!
post #50 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wet1 View Post

Thanks for posting those pb! I'll have to check those out on my monitor at home tonight... as I stated above, my monitor at work is absolute garbage for anything other than reading text.

I did get a chance to take a good look at your Beast photo last night. I'm impressed with what I'm seeing, but with the blue makeup, it's difficult to see how accurate everything is. I can't wait to see these latest pics tonight on my monitor as they look like they'll be much more informative.

From what I can tell so far, it appears there's very little degradation to the picture under low lighting and an obvious improvement with ambient light pressent... exactly what I'm looking for. It seems there's a noticeable increase in gain over the BOC (on axis). I still haven't heard any gain numbers, but based on my crappy monitor it appears to be around ~1.5, am I in the right ballpark?

My next concern is off axis viewing. I do have seating at about 40* to the screen so this is very much a concern for me. I realize these are probably file pics you have posted from your computer, but if you could supply some off axis shots of the same frame (with BOC) on axis and off, it would be very much appreciated.

BTW, can I assume these pics you've posted are of the darker SF and not the 'Lite' or 'Superlite' versions? If this is the case, similar pics of the Superlite would be very much appreciated!

Thanks again!

The best definitive answers to both the above requests can be found in the thread I mentioned above and I will link again below.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=713810

Wet1 is absolutely right in his assumption of improved gain IMO.

The major contributing elements in this paint mix are not to far removed from the paint Tiddler tested in the above link. And as such I feel react the same way.

This paint along with the others of its type are very good at doing what they are designed to do. They are slight gray in color, that enhances their ambient performance, thru the use of clear poly and metallic they become both more efficient and at the same time more directionally gain dependent. Also not a bad thing depending on your room seating conditions and projectors output. And now in this latest version PB has made additional color correction tweaks in the form of the (color component) mixture that can then be proportionally blended into the mix.

All good stuff IMO

If there is a down side to this type paint it would be in the skill involved in applying it over some of the simpler flatter non metallic paints. This was pointed out as of late by one member after extensive testing and practice painting with metallic paints felt his skill level still wasn't high enough to risk trying metallic on his roll down project.

These are my thoughts on how this type paints work. They are just my opinions and I could be wrong.
post #51 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post

wet1,

here's some flesh tones for you... (boc screen is inset)



Another thing to keep in mind when viewing a screen shot like the one above I quoted is calibration and not even color calibration but just simply brightness calibration. Assuming that one of the major differences in the two screen surfaces above is gain the BOC a white .8 and the SF a 1.5 gray, keeping in mind I just guessed at both numbers.

If the lumens were cranked up to a point that the BOC was a relative brightness as what we see the SF at in the picture we would then perceive the screen quality totally different. We would then be saying the BOC is a nice bright richly colored image and the SF has a too bright washed out black look.

That's the reason simply showing a white reference panel in a screen shot is not the answer to all questions. If when we put the 1.0 gain white in the picture we then calibrated to it and took a set of pictures on and off axis then we calibrated to the screen and repeated the screen shots, those of us with inquiring minds would go Wow this is a great example of a very efficient screen raised to a gain that has a slightly silver gray appearance to the naked eye under low levels, it also seems to be gray neutral and gives great performance under some low to med ambient light. We could then assume some viewing cone and also the amount of FL we could expect to get if we ether had a lower lumen projector or hopes of a very large screen.
post #52 of 1426
The thumbnail below I loaded into photo shop and applied a value of 75 to brightness it comes in at a value of 50 on a scale of 0 to 100 as a means of comparison. I know this is not the same thing as calibrating the projector to a lower gain screen but I did it as a point of reference to illustrate my comment in the above post.

post #53 of 1426
Thread Starter 
wet1, my personal screen (in these pics) is a superlite one... and the same screen as the above one without an image.

right now i'm at work so i'll have to disappoint anyone else's requests until this evening...
post #54 of 1426
Pete: Just for clarification, are the pictures in posts 42, 53, and 59 all of the same screen and boc?

Garry
post #55 of 1426
Thread Starter 
yes that's correct. the screen and boc in post #42 were used for all of the on-axis and off-axis skin tone pics that were taken last night while watching ppv on the dish network last night... during the feedings of my twins... and generally ticking off my wife because of the constant freeze, take pics from the front, take pics from the side and freeze again...
post #56 of 1426
PB

I'm assuming you are projecting to the coated side of the BOC as apposed to the cloth side. And it's interesting you noticed the viewing cone of BOC.

Your SF looks to stand up well to off angle viewing and what seems to be happening is that even though the BOC is lower gain / darker in the front position it drops off as fast if not faster than the SF. Says good things about SF but really points out BOC is great for stopping light coming thru a window but not so good as a screen material. When I first played with BOC I had enough lumens to light it up and I actually liked the image on the cloth side better.
post #57 of 1426
PB,

Thanks for taking some of the requested pics, I look forward to getting home tonight to take a better look at them!
post #58 of 1426
Is it just moi, or does the BOC cloth do a better job with black levels? Also, in the slightly off axis shots in post 59, IMO, the BO cloth looks better. Blacks are blacker. Also, the flesh tones in post 53 look more lifelike to me. Obviously, the SF has more gain and looks brighter. But the skin colourations are "warmer" with the BOC and "cooler" on the SF. Don't know if this is what it looks like in real life. Obviously, no ambient light. In the case of ambient light, the SF would have better black level retention.
post #59 of 1426
I mixed up a batch of this last night (light) and can easily see why some people have had trouble rolling this mix. Far too much metallics in it to roll worth a sh!t. Keep in mind I have been in the painting biz for nearly 20 years and have rolled about 5000 gallons of paint in my hay day, and I found this mix a bitch to work with.
The screen is fairly shiney, and a medium/soft grey, with a hint of possible blueness.
As for the image (only a day old).
Black levels - nothing special at all. I think that the large amount of metallics causes a lot of harm to the black levels. It also cause a lot of screen door in the bright scenes.
Whites - way too much screen door enhancement on very bright white scenes.
Colors - colors had excellent pop, this is where the metallics work thier best.

Personally, I prefer a flatter finish screen with a lot less metallics in it, especially in dark room viewing. Even in ambient light i found the metallics in this mix causing problems.
post #60 of 1426
Quote:
Originally Posted by benven View Post

Is it just moi, or does the BOC cloth do a better job with black levels? Also, in the slightly off axis shots in post 59, IMO, the BO cloth looks better. Blacks are blacker. Also, the flesh tones in post 53 look more lifelike to me. Obviously, the SF has more gain and looks brighter. But the skin colourations are "warmer" with the BOC and "cooler" on the SF. Don't know if this is what it looks like in real life. Obviously, no ambient light. In the case of ambient light, the SF would have better black level retention.

I always take pix with a grain of salt. However I'd have to agree with you on this. I thought the BOC looked better in all of the dark shots.

mech
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