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 118

post #3511 of 3769
I saw this adjustable mount. I want to use it for jvc RS40 projector.

http://www.thefinalclick.com/Chief-K...e_p_88994.html

It is adjustable for 3-5 foot. Since my ceiling is 9 feet high and my eyes at 4 feet heigh, I will set at 5 feet. Occasionally, I will move it up.

Do you think it is difficult to move? I guess I need to change lense shift and zoom every time I move. Any comments?

Is anybody using this mount?
post #3512 of 3769
hey guys, I'm considering a High Power and I thought I'd ask a few questions. I'm thinking about pairing a 150" screen with either a:

- Sharp XV-Z17000 3D projector (1600 lumens)
- BenQ W6000 projector (2500 lumens)

It will be a ceiling mount at 15'-17'. I have what might be a large amount of uncontrollable ambient light (windows) that may impact the brightness of the room depending on the time of day.

1.) Can the Sharp @ 1600 lumens + the High Power screen manage with a fair amount of ambient light?

2.) Is the High Power okay for 3D projectors? I see Da-Lite also sells "3D Virtural Grey", but am not sure if I should be looking at that instead since I'm interesting in setting this up with a 3D projector.

Thanks for any insight, guys.
post #3513 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajreynol View Post

hey guys, I'm considering a High Power and I thought I'd ask a few questions. I'm thinking about pairing a 150" screen with either a:

- Sharp XV-Z17000 3D projector (1600 lumens)
- BenQ W6000 projector (2500 lumens)

It will be a ceiling mount at 15'-17'. I have what might be a large amount of uncontrollable ambient light (windows) that may impact the brightness of the room depending on the time of day.

1.) Can the Sharp @ 1600 lumens + the High Power screen manage with a fair amount of ambient light?

2.) Is the High Power okay for 3D projectors? I see Da-Lite also sells "3D Virtural Grey", but am not sure if I should be looking at that instead since I'm interesting in setting this up with a 3D projector.

Thanks for any insight, guys.

You are not going to get any benefit from the HP screen if you mount your projector on the ceiling. Please read the first post of this thread and keep in mind the new HP is not as bright as the old which was around when this tread was started.
post #3514 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

You are not going to get any benefit from the HP screen if you mount your projector on the ceiling. Please read the first post of this thread and keep in mind the new HP is not as bright as the old which was around when this tread was started.

understood. ty.
post #3515 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajreynol View Post

1.) Can the Sharp @ 1600 lumens + the High Power screen manage with a fair amount of ambient light?

2.) Is the High Power okay for 3D projectors? I see Da-Lite also sells "3D Virtural Grey", but am not sure if I should be looking at that instead since I'm interesting in setting this up with a 3D projector.

1) In my experience - no. The HP does not reject ambient light any better than a normal white screen. It gets a bit brighter, but if you have any ambient light hitting the screen it will wash out the image to a large degree.

I can have an overhead light aimed at the sofa and still get a decent picture except in the darkest scenes (but that's also true for a normal white screen). However, any light that will be directed towards the screen, no matter the angle of incidence, will wash out the image making it more or less unwatchable.

2) Depends. Not for projectors using passive glasses and polarization to separate the left and right images. For shutter glasses - yes, it will work just fine and give you a welcomed boost in brightness. The sharp uses shutter glasses and with this projector it would be pointless to get the Virtual Grey screen. It will actually degrade picture quality with hotspotting (non uniformity), color shifts and sparklies. This screen is only recommended when retention of polarization is needed.
post #3516 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post
1) In my experience - no. The HP does not reject ambient light any better than a normal white screen. It gets a bit brighter, but if you have any ambient light hitting the screen it will wash out the image to a large degree.

I can have an overhead light aimed at the sofa and still get a decent picture except in the darkest scenes (but that's also true for a normal white screen). However, any light that will be directed towards the screen, no matter the angle of incidence, will wash out the image making it more or less unwatchable.

2) Depends. Not for projectors using passive glasses and polarization to separate the left and right images. For shutter glasses - yes, it will work just fine and give you a welcomed boost in brightness. The sharp uses shutter glasses and with this projector it would be pointless to get the Virtual Grey screen. It will actually degrade picture quality with hotspotting (non uniformity), color shifts and sparklies. This screen is only recommended when retention of polarization is needed.
While I agree that ambient light is a bad idea for a projection environment, to say that the HP is unwatchable with any light directed at the screen is not true in my experience. With halogen track lights aimed from the ceiling onto my HP, and the whole track lighting system up to a moderate level, the image in my theater is very "watchable." Not ideal, certainly, but not horrible, either. That's for things like baseball, news, or other shows where image quality might be secondary to the need to keep lights up a bit. I don't like to do it, but it's a lot better than "plain white" screens, which usually do wash out with any ambient light. As long as the light is not coming from behind the projector, I suspect many people would be happy with the HP image in a lighter room. That said, taking the time to make my home theater room dark was the single best step I've taken to improve it. However, some people just can't do that, and the HP can be a good choice for them, if they understand how it works. Rejecting ambient light is something it does better than a lot of screens.
post #3517 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

You are not going to get any benefit from the HP screen if you mount your projector on the ceiling. Please read the first post of this thread and keep in mind the new HP is not as bright as the old which was around when this tread was started.

I have mine ceiling mounted, but it was tough finding a peerless mount that dropped far enough down.

Its a little over a foot above eye level, i get quite a bit of gain off of it. The calculator i think gave me 2.2-2.3

At times i sometimes think its to bright but then as the bulb dims it works great.
post #3518 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

While I agree that ambient light is a bad idea for a projection environment, to say that the HP is unwatchable with any light directed at the screen is not true in my experience. With halogen track lights aimed from the ceiling onto my HP, and the whole track lighting system up to a moderate level, the image in my theater is very "watchable." Not ideal, certainly, but not horrible, either. That's for things like baseball, news, or other shows where image quality might be secondary to the need to keep lights up a bit. I don't like to do it, but it's a lot better than "plain white" screens, which usually do wash out with any ambient light. As long as the light is not coming from behind the projector, I suspect many people would be happy with the HP image in a lighter room. That said, taking the time to make my home theater room dark was the single best step I've taken to improve it. However, some people just can't do that, and the HP can be a good choice for them, if they understand how it works. Rejecting ambient light is something it does better than a lot of screens.

I don't know if you have the 2.4 or 2.8 version but my experience doesn't mirror yours. My 2.4 HP doesn't reject ambient light at all no matter where the light is coming from. As can be seen by the pictures I have experimented putting a piece of paper on the screen with lights coming from the side (very far to the side) and the paper and the screen have virtually the same brightness from my seating position.

The first picture shows a flashlight directed towards the screen and paper in a dark environment, seen from my central seating position.

The second picture shows how the light us situated in comparison to the screen.
LL
LL
post #3519 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

I don't know if you have the 2.4 or 2.8 version but my experience doesn't mirror yours. My 2.4 HP doesn't reject ambient light at all no matter where the light is coming from. As can be seen by the pictures I have experimented putting a piece of paper on the screen with lights coming from the side (very far to the side) and the paper and the screen have virtually the same brightness from my seating position.

The first picture shows a flashlight directed towards the screen and paper in a dark environment, seen from my central seating position.

The second picture shows how the light us situated in comparison to the screen.

I have the 2.8, but it should make little difference. A retro-reflective screen like the HP gets its gain by "collecting" light and returning more of it back toward the light source than off to the sides. That's why it dims as you walk out of the cone. A bright light hitting the screen at an angle (from the side or the ceiling) will reflect more of the light back toward that source, and therefore away from the viewer's eyes. The result is less washout.

It's easy enough to test. Take a flashlight off to the side and shine it on the HP as you stand there. See how much light is reflected back. Now leave the light there but move away from the flashlight. The further you move from the light source, the dimmer that light source will appear on screen. If the HP didn't work this way, it wouldn't give you any gain, and it wouldn't reject ambient light the way it does.
post #3520 of 3769
I think your experiment does show how the "ambient light rejection" of the HP functions. Consider that the paper represents maybe just under 1.0 gain. If the HP has side-light gain of close to 1.0 gain and light from the projector providing a 2.2-2.6 gain, it's a huge improvement in the ratio of unwanted light to projector-provided light.

A 1.1-1.3 gain retroreflective screen would be lighting up a similar amount from side-lighting, but wouldn't be near as bright from the projected light, so you have the ability to have an improved contrast ratio with side-lighting using a retro-reflective material like the HP.

It's not a panacea of course, but try the same experiment while showing projected material, and take pics from your seating area. The HP may wash out the blacks to a similar amount to that of the paper, but the brighter parts of the image will be substantially brighter on the HP, which in effect preserves more of the contrast ratio.

So maybe "ambient light rejection" is not the proper term, but the ratio between the brightness of direct-reflected light versus side-reflected light is substantial with the HP material.

I still much prefer and strongly recommend that ANY projected material be used in a totally darkened environment.
post #3521 of 3769
Joseph,

I agree that it sends more light back to the source from the side. However, it sends enough light toward the seating position that the difference compared to a 1.0 gain screen really is negligible to the naked eye. It might be slightly less bright, but you would only really see it in a direct comparison if then! The thing is the screen both acts as a retroreflector and as disperser of light. It has both a normal white substrate and retro reflective beads. It will disperse light from the sides very effectively.

Test it yourself with a piece of paper and you would see that your screen is not darker than the paper from your seat no matter where the light is coming from! There is in principle no ambient light rejection.

What I'm trying to say is what Dave wrote. You get a slightly higher contrast ratio than a normal white screen, but it's not from light rejection or lower black levels but from the increased brightness at your seating position due to the gain.

Compare it to a Firehawk and it's not even close. The Firehawk using the same test as I did with the HP would show as really dark grey in the light from the flashlight compared to the paper, whereas the image brightness from the projector would be more or less equal. Leading to a vastly superior contrast ratio.
post #3522 of 3769
The fact is that the 2.4 does not do much better than matte white in a ambient light environment, that was the first clue I had not received the 2.8 way back when they first started shipping 2.4
2.8 does a great job in ambient light if you are within the viewing cone. 2.4 just can not do as good a job since the micro beads are fewer and of mixed size. Contrast is not good, but the screen is bright and sports or news can be watched just fine. I search craigs list every day for large 2.8 HP that I can put away for a future fixed frame DIY project when I get a bigger house.
post #3523 of 3769
The only advantage that the 2.4 seems to have is a touch better blacks and less visible texture. The larger viewing cone might help some, but I'm not sure it really does. I do like the screen. But, for rejecting ambient lights, well, it doesn't. I have pot lights, 3 across front of screen ( like the effect it gives when light hits the screen when not using PJ, adds an element to the room and makes the nice screen standout). But with my older m2500 I never found a need to turn off every light so bad. I have a rope light under my riser....I don't turn it on any more, washes out screen, I have a night light that comes on and it points away from screen but still I have to unplug it or blacks are washed out. Now, don't get me wrong, with even the pot lights on and especially now with a 8700 Epson, even on the lowest ECO mode I can watch the thing with the lights on full. But any light on in the room whatsoever kills contrast and image quality. My m2500 never had this issue. Now with the lights off - the 8700 looks fantastic.
post #3524 of 3769
This thread is just way too confusing now that they've introduced an entirely different product and gave it the same name. I'm just very happy that I have two 2.8 screens and don't need to worry about how the 2.4 performs. All I can say is that my 2.8 does a remarkable job of rejecting ambient light from the sides. My old matte white screens would be entirely unwatchable with ambient light while my 2.8 HP screens are very watchable. Obviously there is contrast washout, but the rejection difference between matte white and the 2.8 are night and day to my eyes.
post #3525 of 3769
yeah I agree, this thread is a mess now. Not our fault, blame Dalite
post #3526 of 3769
I asked the mods to close this thread since 2.8 is gone and the review is no longer valid.. I guess there are so many 2.8s out there they figure it should be left open..
post #3527 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

I asked the mods to close this thread since 2.8 is gone and the review is no longer valid.. I guess there are so many 2.8s out there they figure it should be left open..

Can't say I'd like to see that happen. Maybe DaLite will see the light and resurrect the 2.8 screen. And there are still a lot of them out there.
post #3528 of 3769
Just leave this open and start a new thread "High power 2.4 owners etc. topic"
post #3529 of 3769
What would be nice is if Dalite would send Tryg a new 2.4 and let him do a review comparing it to the old.. Na that would be counter productive for Dalite!
post #3530 of 3769
Both versions of HP reject light hitting it at an angle. The 2.8 version gain signature provides less gain than a typical matte white it at angles greater than approximately 17 degrees, the 2.4 at about 20 degrees (top of my head).

Here's my one minute extremely complex test (please don't try this at home) with a few photos taken with my theater door open allowing daylight from the adjacent room to hit the screen. The light is approaching the screen at an angle of about 31.5 degrees. The screen is a matte white with a gain of about 1. Excuse the tape job of the 2.8 (top) and 2.4 screens as I quickly pulled them off a board and didn't change the tape.

It's clear that when viewing the screens straight on and from the the location opposite from the light source both screens are reflecting less light to those locations than the matte white screen. One photo is taken from the light entry point showing the relative max gains of screens.
LL
LL
LL
post #3531 of 3769
Seems like da-lite have a new High Contrast High Power screen which is More grey and has 2.4 gain. Dammit, just ordered the standard High Power 2.4 grrrrrr
post #3532 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by avswilier View Post

Seems like da-lite have a new High Contrast High Power screen which is More grey and has 2.4 gain. Dammit, just ordered the standard High Power 2.4 grrrrrr

This is VERY interesting! Same gain as the (new) regular HP (2.4) but with an even narrower viewing cone (20 deg compared to 30).

We really do need for Tryg to put this through his evaluation procedure and let us all hear.
post #3533 of 3769
Now THIS is interesting!
post #3534 of 3769
new product?
post #3535 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianlun View Post
new product?
Yes!

PS Sounds like it might be the old 2.8 HP with a gray over layer
post #3536 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post
Yes!

PS Sounds like it might be the old 2.8 HP with a gray over layer
Hmmm... I wonder what the advantage of a gray over-layer might be? Surely they are not going back to the dis-proven "gray makes better cr" marketing spiel.
post #3537 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post
Hmmm... I wonder what the advantage of a gray over-layer might be? Surely they are not going back to the dis-proven "gray makes better cr" marketing spiel.

Well, a gray screen substrate certainly can help in preserving contrast in non-batcave rooms, which means most rooms. (Not that there aren't trade offs of course).
post #3538 of 3769
Quote:
Originally Posted by avswilier
Seems like da-lite have a new High Contrast High Power screen which is More grey and has 2.4 gain. Dammit, just ordered the standard High Power 2.4 grrrrrr
Well don't I just feel shafted by Dalite once again. I specifically asked their manager if a new screen was on the way as I would have returned my 2.4 if so...and here we are.
post #3539 of 3769
Seems like no one has yet seen this new HC/HP screen. Look forward to hearing from those that do see it.
post #3540 of 3769
A gray screen can improve ansi contrast in a reflection prone room (most all) similar to making the room darker by reducing the amount of light bouncing around the room and back to the screen. By reducing the viewing cone of the HP to 40 degrees, possibly due to the gray substrate, the screen will be more effective at killing light hitting the screen from reflection originating from outside of this cone than the regular HP. My photos above show the screens ability to reduce the effects of ambient light coming from outside the viewing cone, I suspect this attribute will be improved substantially with a grey HP likely similar to the difference between the 2.8 and 2.4 perhaps more. Any method employed which reduces ambient light effects on ansi contrast will improve image fidelity.

A white screen effects on light bouncing around a room is similar to a racquet ball, a gray screen more akin to a squash ball.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Screens
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Screens › HIGH POWER a Review! Part 1