or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › DIY Constant Height › The Really BIG Picture Show
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Really BIG Picture Show  

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
OK! Here's a worthy project.

I'm making a 226" 2.35:1 "Spray Painted Screen" w/Side Masking Curtains

Have a JVC RS-1 and am not afraid to use it.

Need "Good" Panamorphic Lens w/Motorized Slide Assembly.

Need Video Scaler suggestions.

Need good advice on components that would be best utilized for such a large screen, not "bargain suggestions"

The whole project centers around a 29' X 21' room w/24 Red Velvet re-upolstered Theater chairs.

I know I'm at the "Outer Limits" of the brightness to screen size ratiom and fortunately no Ambient light concerns will exist. Lighting will be plotted for effective illumination without washing the screen surface, but virtual Darkness will be the norm.

Waddya thin? Is it "Do-able"?
post #2 of 28
I think you are way beyond the outer limits of the projector's capabilites. I have seen the RS-1 on a 120" ST130 and it was just about perfect in brightness (in a dark blue room with deep blue carpets. I wouldn't suggest it for 200"+ ... but brightness aside it will look great.
post #3 of 28
The ISCO II or III fit the bill ... but considering that you'll need to be far back to use the ISCO II ... you'll be even more brightness shy.

I thought I read that the Panamorph UH380 had a decided lens shifting/bias when it was slid in ... and at 220" you'll be seeing a great deal of shift from 16:9 to 21:9.

I don't know too much about scalers ... thankfully my BenQ does it for me

Good luck with it ... I look forward to seeing your work!

edit - here's some info worth checking out - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=841531
post #4 of 28
Is that 226" diagonal? If it is, then you've got (assuming a bulb with a few hundred hours at high and a dash of luck):

400 lumens / 128.5 ft^2 = 3.11 ft/lamberts... it's CRT-riffic!

How about a 3x gain screen for 9 ftl?
post #5 of 28
Thread Starter 
The deed is done. A small adjustment downward to 180" x 82" was made. That's still over 200" , ain't it?

Brightness? Well I'd say a plainly viewable image seen in a room lit by 1000 watts means lumens returned in a light controlled room are gonna be more than exceptable And dey is fer shur.

The Paint Solution was CMRA's S-I-L-V-E-R, slightly adapted by me to further increase gain. It consists of the folllowng readily available ingrediants.

1/2 gallon Behr Faux Glaze

4 oz. Delta Ceramcoat Silver Metallic from Michael's Arts & Crafts
(Substituted for the darker Behr Silver Metallic)

20 oz. Filtered Water


The Wall was liberally primed with 3 rolled (1/4" Nap Rollers) coats of Kilz2.

The S-I-L-V-E-R was applied in 7 thin (Dusted) coats using the Wagner Control Spray electric HVLP Gun.

I'll post images later this evening of the complete process and Screenies in both dark and light conditions.

Even at 200" plus and with the Lamp's output on "Standard"the on screen image doesn't just "PoP", it sizzles!

........and the viewing cone is a full 179 degrees !!!!!

All using a 27' throw! (double )
Simply put, if this DIY paint application is properly spray painted onto a "smooth" bright flat white surface, one can dispense with statements of the RS-1's inability to deliver a stunning image at extreme screen sizes.

MississippiMan never did listen much ta dem 'ol Naysayers dat sez, "Ya can't do that". NoSir! 2.35:1 is much 'Mo Bedder' when it's "Wall to Wall"

Wait'l ya see the screenies! All ya all is gonna drop yer draw'rs and do do.

Now then, I still need a good Anamorphic lens and carriage (manual) solution to consider.
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
In trying to create a DIY Screen at the most extreme of sizes, I also had to face the lumen output limitations of the projector of choice, a JVC D-ILA RS-1 (AVS acquired)

Just how big is a 16' x 92" screen area?

Way big.

Let's put some clothes on it, shall we?

Here you see a complete covering of "Slurry thin" Drywall compound spread out with a 1/2" nap 9" roller to get a perfectly uniform underlying surface when sanded out. This was the first time I tried this "common sense" method, or rather had "Juan Carlos" do it, my 'Oh so Trusty and Erstwhile Companion from El Salvadore. A truly meticulous fellow who only real fault lie in his competing with me for the beer supply.

Juan Carlos, my fellow AVS'ers. Give him his propers for doing 90% of the surface preparation.

Here are the Goodies needed to make the S-I-L-V-E-R XG Mix

Next is a movie of mixing the S-I-L-V-E-R XG that also shows how thin the mix must be to spray it through a HVLP gun.

post #7 of 28
Thread Starter 
Here are sequenced photos showing appearance and surface texture in the 1st 3 coats of S-I-L-V-E-R HG in normal and Enhanced CR mode to show surface detail and Mica concentration

1st Coat

2nd Coat

3rd Coat

Finial (7th) Coat

post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 
Always keep in mind the major limitation of both varieties of S-I-L-V-ER. significantly poorer Ambient Light performance.

Now candidly speaking, that aspect had me ignoring S-I-L-V-ER for a while, both because like CMRA, I too knew of it's potential and caveats (CMRA doesn't buy into "ambient issues") and the lack of flexibility of S-I-L-V-E-R in ambient light combined with the difficulty of spraying 7-8 ultra fine coats made me less than enthusiastic. Even CMRA, in his first postings, said:

Originally Posted by CMRA View Post

"...It most likely won't be done right the first time."

Who among us DIY'ers want to hear that????? !!!!

But along came a Wagner and things changed quickly. All I had to do was to use the WCS a couple times and immediately the potential to spray just about anything came flooding into my mind. And among that flood was some flotsam called......S-I-L-V-E-R.

So now, even I can't deny the DIY masses with no Light Control issues the potential of S-I-L-V-ER in such applications.

So here my Friends is the proof that lies in the Pudding. And it's brought to you at 16' x 92" of splendid 2.35:1 Eye candy.

I'd go "Ape" for this Lady too.

Don't anybody pick your nose at S-I-L-V-E-R, lest all you come away with is greasy buggers.

And of course, for those who came late to the "Show' and have to crowd along the walls, theres still hope.

I have a bunch of shots taken when I compared S-I-L-V-E-R against straight primer, as well as a Silver Fire mix that also has the highest gain of any so far introduced. Even with that, in dark room performance, the S-I-L-V-E-R HG held it's own on all fronts, and clearly was the winner in the "Blazin' Whites" department.
heresy from the lips of one who hold the SF/BF concept near and dear to his heart and soul?

No way! I'm always for, and always have been supportive of whatever works best, and for dedicated Theaters, I'm sayin' it's back to the 'ol Mixin' Pots fer PB- & I. But don't dare doubt that when faced with such a challenge to "Go to the next Level" that newer and better things are in the offing. 'Cause they are. already. Nuff said fer now about that.

CMRA, I know you've said to me repeatedly, "Why fix it if it ain't broke?" I'm not sayin' that S-I-L-V-E-R in it's original form is busted with all this, but rather, consider this adaptation as the NO2 canister under S-I-L-V-E-R's hood.


And for all you RS-1 /HD1 owners, go ahead and defy convention. Go as big as your hearts' desire. Although only a few of you will match this size, be advised that there is obviously even more leeway available. So.....roll up your sleaves and get'er done! Be assured that if this DIY Screen application works this well aT 200+ inces, it will do just as splendidly at a mere 130-170 inches too.

Good Lord! What's gonna happen when we mate up the ISCO II to this PJ? More lumens "on screen"? Well, your all to be the first to know if that happens.
post #9 of 28
Looks nice... how far back does the audience sit? Also, what gain do you think that mix ended up being? I'm kind of surprised a Wagner did the job... most people I've heard from complain it tends to spit and splatter unevenly.
post #10 of 28
Thread Starter 
First of 3 rows starts at 16'

The Wagner Control Spray is a new, low cost Electric HVLP Gun. I have extensive experience with standard HVLP rigs (Got a 32 gal compressor and Ingersoll Rand 270g)

The S-I-L-V-E-R HG mix gets thinned with 33 % water, making it the consistency of thin Tomato soup. The Wagner CS is specifically designed for thin Lacquers and Stains, and it does actually do a great job of mixing an extensive volume of low pressure air with the paint..........if the aforementioned viscosity is observed.

With any DIY screen paint, all one needs to do is thin it enough with water (...not Flotrol) and it performs very, very good.

Gain? I must use an estimate. Your seeing the first example on earth. But my guess is 2.0 minimum. I'm sure a defining test is in the offing soon however, for there are several souls on DIY Screens with both the time, inclination, and equipment to perform such a task. I choose to guess low, for if higher, redemption, not reproach can be in the offing.
post #11 of 28
Is there any presence of hotspotting...and texture visibility from a 10 ft. close close range?
post #12 of 28
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Ximori View Post

Is there any presence of hotspotting...and texture visibility from a 10 ft. close close range?

None whatsoever on both counts. I think the Macros i posted clearly show the smoothness at 200x

I consider observing at 4' - 5' as being "Close-close", and at that range there is no observable texture.

As for Hot spotting, I'll say that for this application the balance between reflectivity and available Lumens seems to be almost perfect. What a 2000 lumen panny100u might do is another thing altogether, but my guess is that at this size, and the throw distance involved, such "Horsepower" would still be under control, especially at "Low Lamp" modes.
post #13 of 28
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post

The deed is done. A small adjustment downward to 180" x 82" was made. That's still over 200" , ain't it?

Nope! 197. Close enough.
post #14 of 28
Thread Starter 
Ok, but at least the photos show the image at the absolute maximum size the surface can handle, and that IS 192" x 92".

After the "soon to come" Electric Black Velvet side masking Curtain Panels come into play, as well as a manually drawn Top Masking BV Curtain, almost any configuration and size is achievable withing those maximum parameters.
post #15 of 28
MississippiMan that is a big ass screen Good job...

post #16 of 28
Originally Posted by wildfire99 View Post


400 lumens / 128.5 ft^2 = 3.11 ft/lamberts... it's CRT-riffic!

Nice slam against CRTs. But that is not even 1/3 of what a top end CRT will do on an 8 foot wide 1.3 gain screen.
post #17 of 28
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Person99 View Post

Nice slam against CRTs. But that is not even 1/3 of what a top end CRT will do on an 8 foot wide 1.3 gain screen.

Don't go by that conservative estimate as far as what has happened with tthis S-I-L-V-E-R application. And what you see happing is on a screen 16' wide. One can postulate that the figures quoted above are WAY low. But just the same I have to find a way to get accurate measurements done, because there is just too much leeway for those who rightly doubt the results to use against any statement made of any seeming equality or superiority.

But damn it! It's gotta be awwwwwful close though!
post #18 of 28
CRT or not, thats one hell of a picture
post #19 of 28
Thread Starter 
I think so too, and I've seen a few "bigguns" in my time. But don't think I wasn't just a little concerned. In fact I considered two other paint mixes, and made up two 41" x 96" 2.35:1 "little brothers" from those other paints to compare the S-I-L-V-E-R against. The difference was striking enough to warrant the immediate choice of the S-I-L-V-E-R .

In all of this, my main hope is to provide a valid option to those wanting the Really Big Picture, and who have come up against the limitations many have arbitrarily set up, or in the least, have figured that could not be surpassed.

But let's give a helping of propers to the RS-1 !!!! It is, after all, 1/2 of the equation.
post #20 of 28
never say never
post #21 of 28
Thread Starter 
In about two weeks I'm planning on revisiting this screen to play around with it and see just what other trouble I can get into.

I could use some help, so if anyone has any reasonable request as to any specific content, or comparison test, I'd do my best to oblige within the boundaries of practicality and what the RS-1 can provide.

Hey....anybody in the SF Bay area with the means to take a accurate Gain measurement? That is singulary the most requested item before me, but I do not have that capability. I can however take a few screen samples with me. The ST130 swath is perhaps the most important.
post #22 of 28
Lets keep the screen DIY formula details limited to the DIY screen forum. I do not want this turning into a second DIY screen forum. Thank you!
post #23 of 28
Thread Starter 
Thank you for your understanding, Alan. Will do!


Comments are still welcome and appreciated, as are seekers of advice but questions pertaining to the acqusition of materials, or construction of this or any other DIY Screen application should be directed to the appropriate and similarly named thread on the DIY Srceen Forum.
post #24 of 28
Thread Starter 
No further details, just a sweet smellin' little nudge for those who might need such assistance. For specific DIY advice however, don't post, please PM
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
Dare to go there. Make your Cinema experience as "almost" big as you want to. Almost any smooth substrate you can make into a 2.35:1 format....even Cloth....can be used. Walls are really cool though.
If you want to consider such...PM me...I'll be glad to advise/assist
post #26 of 28
That is huuuuuuge!!!! Awesome
post #27 of 28
Wow, very impressive. Well done.
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
....they're better'n Easter eggs!

And I appreciate the compliments. It was a more difficult task than normal. I'm only 5'9" and my arms are not "Gibbon-like". (...contrary to my detractor's claims.. ) Maintaining a consistency of the speed of movement/Spray pattern placement while traversing a 16' width walking sideways on a 2" x 12" plank, while holding a Spray Gun above your head's height takes more sub-conscious mental effort (doing many things at once...all precisely...) and physical effort (muscle control) than I'd care to muster on a regular basis. But I'm not a professional painter...so it can be done if one applies one's self.

Really though....the intended purpose of keeping this info current lies in the need to make people aware that "the accepted norm" is no longer Status Quo, and that performance limits unlike that we have all been accustomed to have changed. So better get used to it....it's all good.

The 2.35:1 aspect ratio demands that the width of the image be absolutely as wide as possible. This because the height of the image is tied to the width...obviously. People who want the "Big Picture" don't want just the "cinemascope" aspect, they also want impressive height.

2.35:1 often reduces height to a point that a important part of "screen presence" is lost on smaller examples.

So OK...we all know bigger is better...and quite do-able with todays High Resolution PJs. So two things have to be balanced out. Width of screen to Distance to seating. In the past, resolution and light uniformity had everything to do with determining how close you could sit before either you could see every little detail of SDE or image noise, and/or where the reflected light at the center of the screen would start to crisp your corneas.

Using a 1:1 ratio of Screen width to Seating distance has become a reality with 1080p Digital PJs that are able to deliver exceptionally sharp images that have native Contrast ratios exceeding 6000:1 Up the latter to 15,000:1 and things get all the "mo bedder".

Taking the Screen example in this thread, at 16' wide, when sitting at 16' from the screen, a total immersion in the screen's content occurs. Personally, I have no trouble with my eyes encompassing the width and breadth of the image, without moving my eyes or head. I have found this to be because of the uniformity of the light being received allowing me to relax and just "gaze" at the image, not "focus".

That is the key.

As Humans, each of our MMV. However, the reasons to NOT attempt closer Seating/Viewing Distance ratios do not include the image being "grainy" or "noisy", and with properly calibrated PJs, the potential for eye fatigue.

Unfortunately, some individuals cannot abide sitting so close to a moving image, because they cannot help but to follow the action with their eyes. This can result in a "dizziness" feeling when the brain is trying to encompass too much input coming from opposite directions. That is a personal "physical trait" that has nothing to do with how well the content is being presented . In fact, those are the people you see at the Cinemaplex who "prefer" to sit 2/3rd of the way back in the Theater.

For those individuals, 2.35:1 will always be constrained to being just a wider image that is markedly less tall than 16:9.

But for serious cinema advocates that aspire to 2.35:1 as a standard, size matters. As sizes go up, matching a screen's performance to the PJ becomes more problematical. What with this being a "DIY CIH" Thread, the intervention of a exceptional DIY Screen solution carries great significance.

Although I cannot discuss in length in this Thread the "How to's" of the making of such, we can discuss the "Whys", the "Why bother's, and the "What can be's". PM me for the "How to's" or ask for me to do the same in a single sentence on this Thread .

Taking the JVC (700 lumens) and showing that with a proper DIY Screen surface that it can reliably deliver an exceptional image at 16' wide flies in the face of accepted known practices (...thank goodness...) so there can be no question that anything under that standard (size) will present no issues.

A brief "DIY" Plug.

It should be strongly noted that S-I-L-V-E-R is not the sole contender for every viewing situation. Nothing is. But even as Mfg Screen makers purport to have "an answer" for the varied needs of PJ Owners, so does the DIY Screen Section. And as the example of this thread shows, don't let anyone tell you DIY Screens cannot provide performance and value that can exceed contemporary expectations. In fact, several examples of different "Hi Gain-High Contrast" DIY Paint applications are in the works and being "cleaned up & ironed out" that plainly outperform their Mfg. counterparts. In any instance where such a "DIY" consideration is feasible, it should definitely be considered. DIY can encompass every aspect of a Theater project if that is what the "Project Manager" desires. Knowing that nothing is left wanting by taking that route is the icing on the cake that makes having DIAY "Done It ALL Yourself" taste all the more sweeter.

DIY Plug over

What level of importance should placed on one being able to "Custom" optimize the balance between Screen performance, PJ specifications, viewing position? Only everything. Therein lies the results we all desire, but often do not either expect or receive. Time to put an end to all that nonsense, eh? Well, time's a-waistin' as far as choosing the DIY Screen part of DIY CIH. Ask....and ye can/shall receive the answer!

However, as I'm going along, I watch this thread closely for real advancements in converting 16:9 imagery to 2.35:1 at a truly "DIY" level of cost. I note that after the major players in Conversion Lenses first worked with the Forum to get some hardware out to 2.35:1 CIH HT advocates, once that was accomplished, the real quality Lens assemblies come in at a price point far above the average DIY'ers desire to spend. Yet it is the "Average" person whose satisfaction index soars high when they get something special at a price point they did not expect.

I'd like to see more options developed in the realm of taking existing Lenses and adapting them to affordable "manual Slides" that are less bulky. If we can get that accomplished...along with appropriate DIY 2.35:1 screen choices, the end results will be a very large troop of Happy Campers.


Easy 2.35:1 masking solution until you get to the CIH stage.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Constant Height
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › DIY Constant Height › The Really BIG Picture Show