The official SeymourAV center stage screen thread! - Page 52

Originally Posted by gsearles

Anyone with online access read it and care to share a synopsis of the review?

Originally Posted by Bulldogger

http://www.screenexcellence.com/uplo...ur-highres.pdf Widescreen Review's evaluation.

Originally Posted by Larry M

Thanks

That was a roller coaster of a read...I'm buying it, I'm not buying it, I'm buying it, I'm not buying it, I'm probably buying it

My projector should be here Monday so I'll project on the samples Chris was kind enough to have to me extremely quickly I might add unlike SoMe X company who hasn't even responded to me after multiple attempts to just get a sample

Chris, do you recommend I put a black backing on the material as I project a test image?

Originally Posted by chriscmore

You can also download the pdf from the US site here. It might be faster:
http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/press.asp

Definitely put something black behind the samples to evaluate them. That way you don't get light bounce-back which can create false artifacts.

Cheers,
Chris

Originally Posted by secondhander

Hey Chris,

I built my DIY screen on the weekend, it turned out awesome, I have a very minor wrinkle in one corner (my own fault) I can easily fix but other than that I'm super happy with the screen material. I did some tests with the panny 4K and it's just brilliant. I posted a step by step of the weekends work with pics in my build thread. Took us quite a while to do and not as good as your DIY PDF file of instructions, but I got 'er done. Wrapping corners is hard stuff.

Cheers & thanks again

Originally Posted by Mopar_Mudder

Be ready to have to retension it again about 6 mounth or some. Mine was good and tight when I made it, then down to road it had some wrinkle either do to screen stretch or wood shrink, probably both. After restretching it has been good.

Originally Posted by turls


...the biggest thing I got out of the article was additional confirmation of what I've heard that gain numbers on weave screens are inflated. I think the reviewer ended up with about .7.

Originally Posted by mv038856

Hi Chris,

the review for the 4K material mentions two possible drawbacks of woven screen materials. One is the gain that might not be as high as advertized (or at least not comparable to figures of not-AT screens) and the light leakage within the screen material. I was wondering, how Center Stage XD measures in these categories?

I currently use a DA-Lite screen with DA-MAT High Contrast material which is specified with a gain of 0.85. I was hoping that with your screen material, I could boost brightness simply through its 1.2 gain. This, plus placing my projector (a JVC RS60) at max. zoom (going from a 2:1 to 1.4:1 projection ratio) and using a recently acquired ISCO III L lens should allow me to go from my 80" wide 16:9 screen to a 130" cinemascope curved screen with a Center Stage XD material, so I thought. In my calculations, I even ended up with a higher brightness on the bigger then AT screen taking higher gain, max. zoom and the anamorphic lens into acount. I therefore even considered using an even bigger screen. Since I enjoy 3D projection, light output clearly is an important factor. So, what's the non-AT-comparable gain of a Center Stage XD?

Assuming that the surface of a woven material might never be 100% plane, the idea that some light might be reflected sideways appears to be reasonable. Did you ever get feedback regarding that effect from a customer?

I do have a sample of the CSXD material, but I wouldn't know how I could measure its gain myself. When I taped the sample to my current screen some time ago, I didn't notice any sideways light leakage within the fabric.

Cheers!

Markus

Originally Posted by Mopar_Mudder

If Chris could come up with a 2.0 AT screen he could be a millionare

Originally Posted by chriscmore

Benchmarked against the Starbright 7, we're already past that at 2.3.

You want that in an unbenchmarked rating? Eek, not sure if you'd like to look at mirrors, but anything's possible.

Cheers,
Chris

Originally Posted by Larry M

I watched your YT video from 2011 Cedia and you mentioned the masking panels are both AT and non AT. The one you displayed was non AT, what does the AT one look like? Does the color vary from the screen frame material?

Originally Posted by chriscmore

Yes the AT material is a black woven material. In a lit up room it's much less black than the non-AT velvet we put on the leading edge to absorb the overscan pixels. In a dark room, it looks completely black.

Pictures are on this page:
http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp

Cheers,
Chris

Originally Posted by Larry M

Thanks Chris

If my speakers are between the masking panels, does it matter if I don't go with the AT version?

Originally Posted by chriscmore

Hi Markus -

I've measured the ANSI contrast ratio on a checkerboard pattern and the Center Stage XD was 99% of the reference solid target. Generally cross-pixel light interaction is a function of the thread coating and weave structure. The XD benefits by being both coated with vinyl and featuring a fairly flat weave.

When I measured SR their CP2 was about 92% ANSI of reference. While it benefits from a coated thread, they have a thicker multi-dimensional weave that can cause diffusion.

The Enlightor-4K has uncoated threads but an exceptionally flat weave surface. We've never had anyone detect an issue like in the review. It's possible that there were optical, lens, or panel issues that were more visible on our 4K screen versus his other screen on hand. Every screen will highlight or downplay various aspects of the projector's flavor and the room, which is why there are so many choices.

You can evaluate it for yourself by playing white credits on a black background.

Gain ratings aren't just all over the place with AT materials. In fact, look around at measurements of non-AT materials. Glancing through Jeff's chart, I see -27%, -28% and -59% of published ratings. I don't see a rating for the Da-Mat high contrast material, so I can't say what the comparitive difference would be between the XD and it. I'd recommend putting it up on your screen with something dark behind it, project on and let us know what you see.

Not taking benchmarks into consideration, the XD will measure in the .95 to 1.05 range. Benchmarks say it is 13-19% brighter than 1.1, and 15% brighter than 1.16. Benchmarked against the HP it is a 1.24 and against the Starbright 7 it is a 2.3.

Since you have a screen to compare it to, zoom it to about 97.5" wide for a 16:9 ratio 3D and with the sample up see if it's brighter or not and if that's a problem. If you need a 24x24, they are only $20.

I wouldn't pay much attention to FtL targets, as they vary wildly to all the equipment and personal preferences. Show me a system spec'd for a stackup of all the worst case issues such as bulb aging, and at the top of the range, and I'll show you a guy taking ibuprofen and wearing sunglasses.

Cheers,
Chris

Originally Posted by mv038856

Hi Chris,

thanks for the reply!

I dug a little in one of my drawers and found my Spyder3 color sensor. Using the ColorHCFR software, I did some measurements with my Da-Lite DA-MAT HighContrast and the 20"x20" CenterStageXD sample I had acquired some time ago.

I don't know if the way I did the comparison is valid, but that's how I did it...

I ran the primary and secondary color measurements on both screen surfaces. ColorHCFR shows for every color the ftL, among other things. While I couldn't interpret the absolute ftL values, the relative ftL values looked interesting. The ftL values vary between colors (white of course being the 'color' with the highest value), the brightest having a ftL value more than 11 times that of the darkest (blue). What was surprising to me was that the ftL values of the CenterStageXD were at least twice as high, compared to the corresponding color ftLs from my DA-MAT HighContrast screen.

If I translate that into a relative gain rating between the two surfaces, the CenterStageXD would get a 1.6 (!) gain rating, compared to the brightness of the now officially 0.8 rated DA-MAT HighContrast surface.

Is my thinking correct here? Is ftL a linear scale? When I received the sample, I only used it on film material. Now that I projected test patterns on it, the increase in brightness is much more apparent.

Twice the brightness would mean, I can double the screen surface. All other factors (e.g. zoom factor) fixed, I could go from my 80"x45" 16:9 screen to a 112"x63" 16:9 screen (3600 sqinch to 7056 sqinch) without loosing brightness. If I went for a C130 or C140 with 54.9" resp. 59.1" screen height, I would expect a 16:9 image to be 10 to 20% brighter (5350 resp. 6200 sqinch). Using a high quality anamorpic lens, like my ISCO IIIL, I should be able to get most of the light energy "stretched" into the cinemascope format. Since the C130s/C140s cinemascope screen surface exceeds the 7200 sqinch (twice my current screen surface of 3600 sqinch), the brightness would be lower. Since I have to reduce the throw ratio anyway (the room simply isn't long enough...), going from a throw ratio of 1.8 to 1.4 should increase brightness by another 20%, making screen surfaces of up to 8640 sqinch as bright as my current screen. Therefore, a C130 with its 7740 sqinch screen surface should be safe, even a C140 with 8970 sqinch should not be recognizably darker. Again, is my thinking here correct?

Thanks!

Markus

Originally Posted by NORLL

This question might have been ask earlier, but I could not find it on the forums;

What is the difference, if any, between the Seymour AV Center Stage XD material and the Enlightor 4K used in the Seymour Screen Excellence? Is it the same material under different brand names?

Originally Posted by Larry M

Very different materials

I have both samples in my under construction theater.

From a touch/feel/see perspective the XD is a vinyl like material with visible weaves and pattern in a bright white color. The EN4K is a soft fabric material with no visible weave but does have an odd pattern and is an off white color (gray tint when compared to the XD)

When projected on (RS45) the XD is considerebly brighter. There is a clear difference in brightness between the 2. I can't say one is sharper than the other. On bright white scenes the XD was a bit overpowering and if you're looking for it, you can see the weave at about 15ft. Under regular scenes I could not see the weave pattern on the XD until I was 3-5 ft away if at all. The EN4K under bright scenes was not overpowering nor could you see the pattern up close or at seating distance.

Originally Posted by Ericglo

I am going to have to disagree with that. My eyes aren't 20/20 anymore and I can see the weave at IIRC 8 ft. If I get a chance, then I would like to retest, but that is what I remember. The EN4k is essentially a solid screen. Steve Smith and I thought we were looking at a solid screen when we walked up to it at Cedia. I think until Cris told us we didn't know that it was AT. The EN4K and the SMX 4k screens are the first AT screens that I have seen that I would not have any problem using instead of a solid screen.

Originally Posted by Brad Horstkotte

Just a thought - when you measured, was the CenterStage material in front of your (non-AT) screen? If so, that could make it appear brighter than it is (weave holes are reflecting light back that they ordinarily wouldn't).

Originally Posted by chriscmore

Hi Markus -
Lastly, viewing angle is for most folks a more important aspect than luminance. You're talking a wide range here, from your current 80" wide 1.78 to a possible 140" wide scope image. Maybe hanging up a couple sheets or temporary surfaces and running a quick range of content will have you narrow down what you want.

Cheers,
Chris

Originally Posted by Ericglo

I am going to have to disagree with that. My eyes aren't 20/20 anymore and I can see the weave at IIRC 8 ft. If I get a chance, then I would like to retest, but that is what I remember. The EN4k is essentially a solid screen. Steve Smith and I thought we were looking at a solid screen when we walked up to it at Cedia. I think until Cris told us we didn't know that it was AT. The EN4K and the SMX 4k screens are the first AT screens that I have seen that I would not have any problem using instead of a solid screen.