or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › HIGH POWER a Review! Part 1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HIGH POWER a Review! Part 1 - Page 109

post #3241 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

This "HP is the best screen" stuff is over the top. (Yes, I own one). It's really silly to say it without really specific qualification.

It all depends on one's room, criteria etc.

I had a Carada BW and an HP High Power, same size. One wasn't "better" than the other. They each had strong and weaker points and it was hard to choose between them (although I ended up with neither, both were excellent).

We said for cost and depending on the room. I don't think anyone said otherwise, but given cost and all other factors, saying it is the best screen isn't far from the truth.
post #3242 of 3769
All,

I found a problem with using the "All Screen Gain" calculator to compute the gain of the Da-Lite high-power screen material. After exchanging PMs with the original spreadsheets author (FLBoy), I developed and posted a high-power (2.4 and 2.8 gain) only spreadsheet that should much more accurately match the published data for this material.

I posted the info about this new calculator here.

--Mark
post #3243 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Yes, but is he wrong? I think that's the important question. Nothing wrong with fanboys imparting good information.

Preachin' to the choir.

I just got a call tonight from a friend I had over on Saturday for a 3D demo. He just wanted to say how much he enjoyed it. I attribute much of the success of the demonstration to the HP 2.8, which gave the 3D the extra brightness it needed to really "pop." The HP is the perfect screen for 3D, for the same reasons it's always been a great screen for people who want or need extra brightness.
post #3244 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

We said for cost and depending on the room. I don't think anyone said otherwise,

!
!
!
V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryg View Post

There is no substitute that I'm aware of for the High Power.

Set up properly, there is no better image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

but given cost and all other factors, saying it is the best screen isn't far from the truth.

"Best" meaning what?

I don't know how you can say that given that an image is a combination of the projector, the screen type, room interactions, personal criteria, and the specific goals of any particular system.

Some might say the very expensive new Stewart ST-100 screen, an almost perfect Lambertian diffuser with purportedly the lowest visible screen artifacting available is the "best" screen available. But of course it could easily look like crap in many rooms, compared with much cheaper screens.

It just doesn't make much sense, given the variety of issues involved, to be proclaiming "best" screens, is all I'm sayin'.
post #3245 of 3769
I bought a 160" HP model c pull down around the time that the 2.4 gain version was starting to sell and although I requested the 2.8 gain fabric I was never sure what I actually got. What it has is a seam(join) at exactly 6 feet from the bottom so that would make it the 2.8 version would it not?
post #3246 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
!
!
!
V

"Best" meaning what?
OK, but I think it's inherent and obvious to what he means. It's not like people don't read the many pages in this thread and see all viewpoints. I mean no worries here.
post #3247 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

!


"Best" meaning what?

If you're ok with the setup conditions, how would you call a screen that more then double your vpr lumens without artifacts ? more lumens, isn't that what everyone is asking for by new projectors ?
post #3248 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryg View Post

It is now automated.

STATISTICS

# of times Tryg has said in a PM "Read the review. The information you are asking about is contained in the review"

478 times

# of times Tryg has said in a PM or this thread "Set up properly, there is no better image".

1265 times

# of times Tryg has said in PM "buy the damn screen"

2498 times

Right on!
post #3249 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by nirvy111 View Post

I bought a 160" HP model c pull down around the time that the 2.4 gain version was starting to sell and although I requested the 2.8 gain fabric I was never sure what I actually got. What it has is a seam(join) at exactly 6 feet from the bottom so that would make it the 2.8 version would it not?

Yes, you have a 2.8, when I talked to DaLite they told me that the 2.8 models that are 159" at 2.8 gain had a seam and the 2.4 do not. So yours is certainly 2.8.
post #3250 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acta7 View Post

If you're ok with the setup conditions, how would you call a screen that more then double your vpr lumens without artifacts ? more lumens, isn't that what everyone is asking for by new projectors ?

I had excellent set up conditions with my HP screen, full light control, having the projector almost right at head height to get the full lumens etc. I found the viewing angle so restrictive that I could notice brightness changes on the screen even when I simply shifted in my chair. Most people don't notice...but I do. So even in great set up conditions I had issues with this screen.

But aside from that as to the brightness: It depends on individual criteria and the projector used. With my first projector (older Panasonic) I found the rise in black levels unacceptable. Bright scenes looked really good, many dark scenes looked like crap (washed out due to very grayish "blacks"). A neutral gain screen tended to reverse this issue: Bright scenes looked good, but not as spectacular as the HP, but dark scenes looked much more solid and convincing. So...no easy win for the HP.

Pure brightness is not on everyone's priority list. Take a projector like the JVC on which you can choose your own brightness setting (by adjusting the iris settings to let more or less light out). Note that people who own the JVC projector, and with a variety of different screens, often don't have the adjustable iris opened fully. They are more comfortable with a lower brightness. So brighter doesn't automatically mean "better" to everyone.

BTW, funny thing: A friend of mine who has a projection set up uses and HP screen. He's not a "videophile" at all. He simply did a bit of research on AVS before buying, saw people kept raving about this "HP" screen and bought one. When I went to check out the HP screen at his place I noticed his projector was ceiling mounted. I pointed out how that failed to take advantage of the HP's screen gain and that he was losing significant brightness from the viewing position. He was unaware of this. I said stand up and look how much brighter the image is, since that puts your head closer to the height of the projector. He did so and went "wow...you're right! I never noticed!" But after a while of testing standing vs sitting he said he actually preferred the darker image from the seated position. He felt the brighter image looked more washed out, especially in the space scenes of the Star Wars we were watching.

Which is just to reiterate: an increase in brightness does not automatically equate to "better" in every situation, for every person.

Also, most projectors don't have a user adjustable iris so making everything brighter will mean choosing between more convincing bright scenes vs more convincing darker scenes (generally speaking).

Now, I personally do enjoy a pretty bright image so I do like that aspect of the HP screens. I've raved numerous times about how amazing many movie images can look on the HP screen. Brightness tends to increase the perception of sharpness and dimensionality (in bright and "mixed" brightness scenes). I'm intrigued by the newer 2.4 gain material somewhat...wondering if it reduces the viewing angle issue enough for my comfort (probably not, but one can hope). But there are also "wows" to be had by the effects of darker screens as well (I love deep black levels), which of course come with their own set of issues.

So..it's never that simple.
post #3251 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

So..it's never that simple.

Honestly, I do understand your point. But heaven forbid they ever try to dump 4,000 lumen projectors (with current cr performance) on us unsuspecting slobs. That would NEVER do! Washed out images... yuck! My point... well... everyone knows my point. But I get yours too.
post #3252 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Which is just to reiterate: an increase in brightness does not automatically equate to "better" in every situation, for every person.

The biggest issue for most of us is we don't want to waste so much money on the screen, so for those of us paying around $250 to $300, how are we possibly going to find a screen besides the HP? The only ones I know about are the off-brands and the Elites, and I haven't been impressed so far even if you have the other issues of the HP.

For people spending more than this on a screen ($500+), then I'd hope they'd do their research. It's not our fault if someone sees a few posts and makes a rash decision without reading all the material.

There are plenty of posts about the viewing angle on the HP and other potential issues, so I still don't see the problem with people praising the screen.

And... with most setups and projectors the brightness can be reduced plenty enough to compensate for the HP increase. The only problem with the HP is sometimes getting to a best mode because of the added brightness, but this should not happen in most peoples setups. Brightness is relative and so are black levels. A huge number of people in here have white ceilings, and in that case the HP should improve not reduce black levels.

Of course ceiling mounting can be an issue with the HP, but our point is the price. We're getting an HP for sub $300, I mean come on.
post #3253 of 3769
R.Harkness is pretty much on the money. Last time around, I made my setup dedicated to a best black and brightness compromise I could find. This time around, I tend to use the PJ with the lights on more lately, long story, but I wanted brighter.

I tend to like an image with deep dark blacks....why I love plasma's over lcd. To me, blacks make the image.

But, I also hate a dim image and wanted "room to move" with dimming bulbs and with lights on.

It's a balancing act for sure.

Get two screens! Grey screen and a HP
post #3254 of 3769
So what is the issues with the HP we are all up in arms writing 6 paragraph post about??? There are 109 pages of info on this screen in this thread alone. Every screen is a compromise of one kind or another.. that is stated more than a few times in Tryg's reviews.. If people do not read the first post and understand the caveats then shame on them.. it has all been spelled out in black and white over and over. If you like inky blacks this may not be for your.. why would you buy the screen after this has been talked about hundreds of times? If you have a wide seating area or bounce around like a Mexican jumping bean while gaming, this is not the screen for you.. it has all be said..
And yes there are hundreds of raving fans that just love their HP and have upgraded to bigger screens only to rebuy the HP.. they can not all be wrong.. can they?

Now could someone answer the question mntwister asked about
"What does the seam look like on the 159" HP"
post #3255 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfmp3 View Post

R.Harkness is pretty much on the money. Last time around, I made my setup dedicated to a best black and brightness compromise I could find. This time around, I tend to use the PJ with the lights on more lately, long story, but I wanted brighter.

I tend to like an image with deep dark blacks....why I love plasma's over lcd. To me, blacks make the image.

But, I also hate a dim image and wanted "room to move" with dimming bulbs and with lights on.

It's a balancing act for sure.

Get two screens! Grey screen and a HP

Every room/person/situation is different, but for me and my room/situation, this screen is pretty much ideal in my setup. Having a projector with a 16 step iris makes the HP a VERY attractive option since you can customize brightness to your tastes pretty much. I am using the zoom method going between a 94" 1.78 image and ~126" 1.78 thrown image to fill my 2.35 screen. One thing I LOVE about the HP is that with my smaller 1.78 image, I have my projector at max throw and iris all the way down at -15 which gives me MAX contrast out of my JVC RS40, but least light output. Because of the great HP gain, the image is punchy and bright while getting the max on/off contrast out of my projector............I would not be able to do this with my ST130 as the image would be too dim for my tastes. For my bigger 2.35 image, I can just open the iris up about 6 clicks and get subjectively similar brightness to my smaller image.........in both setups, I have a LOT of room to grow as far as bulb aging.........AWESOME!
post #3256 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I have a LOT of room to grow as far as bulb aging.........AWESOME!

That's the big thing for me as well. Peace of mind. My scope image is based off a 133" diag 16x9 screen. About 52.5 sq feet of screen to light up. I started off at the lowest iris as well on my RS10 and very happy with the punch, and blacks, in my PQ. Two years later and my bulb is over 1000 hours and I am at middle iris with plenty of headroom still. Plus for two years I have had zero concern about wear on the bulb and dimming, as I knew I had this headroom. When LED's hit 900+ lumens, calibrated and in my budget, then I could see a better screen for my set up in an AT screen. That is still a few years down the road. But then if you consider 3d there is always a need.
post #3257 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

That's the big thing for me as well. Peace of mind. My scope image is based off a 133" diag 16x9 screen. About 52.5 sq feet of screen to light up. I started off at the lowest iris as well on my RS10 and very happy with the punch, and blacks, in my PQ. Two years later and my bulb is over 1000 hours and I am at middle iris with plenty of headroom still. Plus for two years I have had zero concern about wear on the bulb and dimming, as I knew I had this headroom. When LED's hit 900+ lumens, calibrated and in my budget, then I could see a better screen for my set up in an AT screen. That is still a few years down the road. But then if you consider 3d there is always a need.

I agree. When I first went to CIH with my 130, my RS1 had ~1800 hours on the bulb and while the image was bright enough for 2.35/40, I would have liked more lumens...........now with the HP, that wont be an issue

Was just checking out your HT and WOW! Nice work! I love how your 1.78 and 2.35/40 image have similar screen area. Very well done!
post #3258 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I agree. When I first went to CIH with my 130, my RS1 had ~1800 hours on the bulb and while the image was bright enough for 2.35/40, I would have liked more lumens...........now with the HP, that wont be an issue

Was just checking out your HT and WOW! Nice work! I love how your 1.78 and 2.35/40 image have similar screen area. Very well done!

Thanks!
post #3259 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Every room/person/situation is different, but for me and my room/situation, this screen is pretty much ideal in my setup. Having a projector with a 16 step iris makes the HP a VERY attractive option since you can customize brightness to your tastes pretty much. I am using the zoom method going between a 94" 1.78 image and ~126" 1.78 thrown image to fill my 2.35 screen. One thing I LOVE about the HP is that with my smaller 1.78 image, I have my projector at max throw and iris all the way down at -15 which gives me MAX contrast out of my JVC RS40, but least light output. Because of the great HP gain, the image is punchy and bright while getting the max on/off contrast out of my projector............I would not be able to do this with my ST130 as the image would be too dim for my tastes. For my bigger 2.35 image, I can just open the iris up about 6 clicks and get subjectively similar brightness to my smaller image.........in both setups, I have a LOT of room to grow as far as bulb aging.........AWESOME!

That's a HUGE plus for the HP screen with a JVC projector, and it's one of the reasons why I was so interested in the HP screen.
post #3260 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


Pure brightness is not on everyone's priority list. Take a projector like the JVC on which you can choose your own brightness setting (by adjusting the iris settings to let more or less light out). Note that people who own the JVC projector, and with a variety of different screens, often don't have the adjustable iris opened fully. They are more comfortable with a lower brightness. So brighter doesn't automatically mean "better" to everyone.

for every step of iris open they lose contrast !
the best contrast is obtained with high lamp /iris closed : Art from Cine4Home measured 100.000:1 on RS60 with high lamp / iris closed / long trow but unfortunately only with 250 lumens. With HP He could have still 100.000:1 but with kinda 700+ lumens (with the 2.8 ver.) and with a still excellent black of about 0,007 lumens !
post #3261 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acta7 View Post

for every step of iris open they lose contrast !

On/off contrast yes. But for every step of the iris you close you lose ANSI contrast. So..as always...trade offs. (I have the JVC projector and when I close down the IRIS I notice these trade offs).
post #3262 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acta7 View Post

for every step of iris open they lose contrast !
the best contrast is obtained with high lamp /iris closed : Art from Cine4Home measured 100.000:1 on RS60 with high lamp / iris closed / long trow but unfortunately only with 250 lumens. With HP He could have still 100.000:1 but with kinda 700+ lumens (with the 2.8 ver.) and with a still excellent black of about 0,007 lumens !

Exactly. I have the JVC RS40 mounted for optimum gain with the HP 2.8. With well over a hundred hours on the lamp, the iris is still closed down all the way for regular viewing. For my room and throw distance, I'm getting the maximum contrast possible from this projector, while still having plenty of brightness and a very low black level. I'm also getting a bright, satisfying 3D image.

My Panasonic AE4000 had a dynamic iris. I had to raise it up about 2 1/2 feet with the HP (to a high shelf mount), because the black level was too high when the projector was mounted closer to eye level on a pole. Up high, the HP's gain was far less, but the image quality was still excellent, and I had the option of putting the projector back on the pole as the lamp aged.
post #3263 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

On/off contrast yes. But for every step of the iris you close you lose ANSI contrast. So..as always...trade offs. (I have the JVC projector and when I close down the IRIS I notice these trade offs).

Yes but in fact we were talking about blacks and on-off contrast ( like the deep space scenes you mentioned ).
Anyway, since I've always tought that blacks keep excellent up to 0,05 lumens, you can still open some steps of iris if you want more balance from on-off and ansi and get even more light
post #3264 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Exactly. I have the JVC RS40 mounted for optimum gain with the HP 2.8. With well over a hundred hours on the lamp, the iris is still closed down all the way for regular viewing. For my room and throw distance, I'm getting the maximum contrast possible from this projector, while still having plenty of brightness and a very low black level. I'm also getting a bright, satisfying 3D image.

My Panasonic AE4000 had a dynamic iris. I had to raise it up about 2 1/2 feet with the HP (to a high shelf mount), because the black level was too high when the projector was mounted closer to eye level on a pole. Up high, the HP's gain was far less, but the image quality was still excellent, and I had the option of putting the projector back on the pole as the lamp aged.

I think Joseph makes a good point. I have a high-power, and I've noticed that it does tend to bring out some of the flaws in the projector (poor black level), or in the source material (macro-blocking is one that kind of sticks out to me now). I think this is really a factor of having a very bright image (the flaws aren't hidden in the darker material).

--Mark
post #3265 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMark View Post

(the flaws aren't hidden in the darker material).

if there are flaws in the video material I want to see them
post #3266 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acta7 View Post

if there are flaws in the video material I want to see them

Yeah, it is a 2-edged sword. You can try to hide the flaws, but then you hide good stuff too. You can try to see every last detail, and you will see the flaws. On balance, I really like my high-power; I hate Time-Warner.

--Mark
post #3267 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMark View Post
Yeah, it is a 2-edged sword. You can try to hide the flaws, but then you hide good stuff too. You can try to see every last detail, and you will see the flaws. On balance, I really like my high-power; I hate Time-Warner.

--Mark
You can just turn the contrast and sharpness down if you really want to hide something. On normally almost perfect blu-ray transfers I do not see anything different on the HP screen than any other screen except that the HP looks much better to me, actually I see less texture than all the other screens I've used, so in that sense it looks way clearer.

I'm sure a lot of you guys are comparing this thing to $800 to $2,500 screens, but I mean the fact that an HP manual B series screen can even hang with screens that expensive (or even look almost as good) for 1/5th the cost is saying something.

You can buy a JVC HD250 and a Manual B 106" for less than an Epson 8700ub paired with a higher cost screen, and I promise you the HD250 will look better if your room is perfectly light controlled, even with the cheaper HP than some black diamond or some more expensive screen with the Epson. The HP comes pretty close to nirvana for the price.
post #3268 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

You can just turn the contrast and sharpness down if you really want to hide something. On normally almost perfect blu-ray transfers I do not see anything different on the HP screen than any other screen except that the HP looks much better to me, actually I see less texture than all the other screens I've used, so in that sense it looks way clearer.

I'm sure a lot of you guys are comparing this thing to $800 to $2,500 screens, but I mean the fact that an HP manual B series screen can even hang with screens that expensive (or even look almost as good) for 1/5th the cost is saying something.

You can buy a JVC HD250 and a Manual B 106" for less than an Epson 8700ub paired with a higher cost screen, and I promise you the HD250 will look better if your room is perfectly light controlled, even with the cheaper HP than some black diamond or some more expensive screen with the Epson. The HP comes pretty close to nirvana for the price.

I cant think of another screen at any price I would take over my HP 2.8 at this point so I dont see price having much to do with it for a lot of us who like this screen. I have a much more expensive ST130 G3 screen that has been collecting dust since the HP got here. Not saying the HP is perfect because its not (I have found a few characteristic HP 2.8 material issues that I dont like compared to my 130, but they are minor in the grand scheme of things), but OVERALL, I dont know of a better screen for my room/tastes/projector.

Having said that, if we ever get projectors pumping out 2000+ calibrated lumens with the native contrast performance of the JVC units, I would probably go back to my 130 since I would not need/want the extra gain of the HP at that point, but that wont be happening any time soon.
post #3269 of 3769
I guess I can no longer discuss the HP screen, received an infraction from the moderator of the forums.

The infraction was for disussing non-MSRP prices on the screen.
I never mentioned the vendor, and it's only a small dollar item. Everyone posts non-MSRP about projectors all the time in here so I didn't think it was enforced, I can't say how many times I've seen someone post "I found this PJ for under $xxxx" or I paid "$xxxx for my JVC".
post #3270 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I guess I can no longer discuss the HP screen, received an infraction from the moderator of the forums.

The infraction was for disussing non-MSRP prices on the screen.
I never mentioned the vendor, and it's only a small dollar item. Everyone posts non-MSRP about projectors all the time in here so I didn't think it was enforced, I can't say how many times I've seen someone post "I found this PJ for under $xxxx" or I paid "$xxxx for my JVC".

Rules are rules, but you can certainly discuss the screen

....sounds to me like maybe someone complained about it.

In other news, I got my screen up, enjoying it so far.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Screens
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › HIGH POWER a Review! Part 1