Carl's Ambient Light Rejecting? - Page 5 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 54Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 10:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
it would be much harder to show the amount of dimming going on not to mention you never said the orientation of the pj i would imagine since you are doing this so small it is not ceiling mounted either. You will be putting more light in a confined space so it wont be representative of what one could expect with the angle from the projector to the edge of the screen being much greater...
The amount of dimming will show about the same as long as you don't over-expose the shot from the added ftL. The camera's exaggeration of uniformity differences is a problem at any size/brightness, but the comparison between those four pictures is still telling..the top three show significantly better uniformity than the last.

The angle of the projector to the screen's edge is determined by the throw-ratio, not the distance/size.
Think of it like trigonometry and a triangle that you know all three angles for but don't know a leg-length..the angles will stay consistent despite the size being completely variable.

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 10:47 AM
Senior Member
 
NU_FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
The amount of dimming will show about the same as long as you don't over-expose the shot from the added ftL. The camera's exaggeration of uniformity differences is a problem at any size/brightness, but the comparison between those four pictures is still telling..the top three show significantly better uniformity than the last.

The angle of the projector to the screen's edge is determined by the throw-ratio, not the distance/size.
Think of it like trigonometry and a triangle that you know all three angles for but don't know a leg-length..the angles will stay consistent despite the size being completely variable.
How do you figure any of that to be true??????
NU_FTW is offline  
post #123 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 11:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
How do you figure any of that to be true??????
Because an inexpensive digital camera is significantly more limited by its single-scene dynamic range than it is by it ability to properly expose high lumens pictures.
...because I'm trusting middle-school/high-school math.?

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #124 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 11:03 AM
Senior Member
 
NU_FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
Because an inexpensive digital camera is significantly more limited by its single-scene dynamic range than it is by it ability to properly expose high lumens pictures.
...because I'm trusting middle-school/high-school math.?
Why then does it show significant dimming on a much larger screen than it would at such a close range of what 1.5 feet away if that??? Not a real test just random stupidity.

Light being applied in much more surface area to the edge of the screen not greater/less angle but the distance from the lens on center to the edge of the screen is much greater Sure if you want someone to watch a projector on 8.5x11" screen your samples are valid for that size of screen and that size only. No wonder people stop arguing with you.... there is no point because you believe whatever you want to take half of this fact half of that fact and pull everything out of context making none of it valid.. I give up... you "win" happy? LOL

Last edited by NU_FTW; 03-17-2016 at 11:11 AM.
NU_FTW is offline  
post #125 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 11:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
Why then does it show significant dimming on a much larger screen than it would at such a close range of what 1.5 feet away if that??? Not a real test just random stupidity.

Light being applied in much more surface area to the edge of the screen not greater/less angle but the distance from the lens on center to the edge of the screen is much greater Sure if you want someone to watch a projector on 8.5x11" screen your samples are valid for that size of screen and that size only. No wonder people stop arguing with you.... there is no point because you believe whatever you want to take half of this fact half of that fact and pull everything out of context making none of it valid.. I give up... you "win" happy? LOL
Where did you see it showing more dimming on a full-size screen compared to my sample-fills?
If anything I figured those four sample shots showed equal or more side/corner dimming compared to the full-size screenshots here...I think I'm misunderstanding you.

I've been convinced and taught things by people arguing/correcting/teaching me previously. Maybe I spent too much time playing with samples when I should've been sleeping and have now become extra dense.? :/

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #126 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 12:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Figured I'd setup the filled-sample next to the white full-size screen and grab a picture of the adorable "mini-me" action.



Here's a quick comparison of the wrong/back-side of CarlsALR beside CarlsSilver material, both samples in the portrait orientation. There's a very limited space where the ALR is about as bright as the Silver, but that's still pretty neat..plus the ALR doesn't look glittery.
Note, the Silver appears more visibly glittery because of the extremely close distance these shots are taken from. At a more normal distance the ALR still appears much cleaner, but the Silver isn't nearly this bad either.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CAM01893.jpg
Views:	1991
Size:	309.3 KB
ID:	1320689   Click image for larger version

Name:	CAM01887.jpg
Views:	1981
Size:	277.4 KB
ID:	1320697  

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #127 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 12:31 PM
Senior Member
 
NU_FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 20
arbitrary random number time if material a has a half gain axis of 40 degrees lets just say because i do not care to do math at the moment but lets say that equats to 20% of the screen from any where within that axis is dim (more than likely more but lets not argue that) a 8.5x11 has a surface area of 93.5 square inches. that means that only 18.7 square inches of those 93.5 will be more pronounced as dim that is less than remember the % is random and the off axis half gain is random just for the sake of demonstration. It will be much much harder to see that dimming taking place even within the viewing cone than would be if on my screen for example has 6696.25 square inches that means that 1339.25 will be dim even within the viewing cone. That is a drastic difference and makes it easier to see what is going on where my sample(8.5x11) represents 1.3% of a this screen and if i were to put it in all corners it would at once it would start to paint a picture much more telling than can be seen here. Sure you may be able to provide the greater than viewing cone dimming but within in the stated range it would be much harder to show people what they will be getting. I watch a lot of tv on my screen news etc where left to right is top to bottom will have content i pay attention to not just the center of the screen that makes this an important test in my preference range. My biggest gripe is that some of what you do will mislead people who might not know any better will see that 8.5x11 and say THAT IS FANTASTIC then get it and be upset with their purchase, if they are mounting as i did it would be impractical to return as i have stapled cut to fit my frame etc.

Just got the CineGrey5D BTW and so far ICKY!!! worse corner dimming than carls alr i have not turned it sideways backwards etc yet and the people stapled a piece of cardboard label to the thing!
NU_FTW is offline  
post #128 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 02:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Projected light doesn't significantly dim because of the distance (unless the room is exceptionally foggy/smoky, it dim because of aperture settings during adjusted optical zooming..the distance itself has very little effect.

A change in brightness/uniformity across a small surface or stretched to fill a larger surface being viewed at a greater distance to where it fills the same field-of-view will appear equally visible..not more or less.

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #129 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 02:22 PM
Senior Member
 
NU_FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
Projected light doesn't significantly dim because of the distance (unless the room is exceptionally foggy/smoky, it dim because of aperture settings during adjusted optical zooming..the distance itself has very little effect.

A change in brightness/uniformity across a small surface or stretched to fill a larger surface being viewed at a greater distance to where it fills the same field-of-view will appear equally visible..not more or less.
I think you are missing my point here. A there will be less lumens per square inch of the screen as a whole on a larger screen, b the size of the dim portions will be larger on the larger screen even though the percentage does not change
NU_FTW is offline  
post #130 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 03:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
I think you are missing my point here. A there will be less lumens per square inch of the screen as a whole on a larger screen, b the size of the dim portions will be larger on the larger screen even though the percentage does not change
A. Uniformity/non-uniformity doesn't become more/less visible with more or less light hitting the screen (as long as levels stay within something like <2ftL and under 150ftL or some crazy high number), BUT even despite that, my small sample image was tamed down to be pretty close to the same levels as the full-screen image...just in case.

B. Because the percentage doesn't change (aka, the dim/bright area keep the same amount of area in relation to each other) and because the field-of-view can easily be adjusted to fit the same amount within your vision, the gradient from dark/light/dark will be equally visible either way.

That all said, I still don't think those four pictures look as good as most of the full-size CarlsALR screenshots here, and they were posted to compare against each other for obvious uniformity differences more than anything else.

Are you mostly saying those four pictures appear more uniform than you believe a full-size CarlsALR screen would?

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #131 of 294 Old 03-17-2016, 03:24 PM
Senior Member
 
NU_FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
A. Uniformity/non-uniformity doesn't become more/less visible with more or less light hitting the screen (as long as levels stay within something like <2ftL and under 150ftL or some crazy high number), BUT even despite that, my small sample image was tamed down to be pretty close to the same levels as the full-screen image...just in case.

B. Because the percentage doesn't change (aka, the dim/bright area keep the same amount of area in relation to each other) and because the field-of-view can easily be adjusted to fit the same amount within your vision, the gradient from dark/light/dark will be equally visible either way.

That all said, I still don't think those four pictures look as good as most of the full-size CarlsALR screenshots here, and they were posted to compare against each other for obvious uniformity differences more than anything else.

Are you mostly saying those four pictures appear more uniform than you believe a full-size CarlsALR screen would?

a projector has x lumens to display it does not change the number of lumens being put out based on size i would imagine the less bright the more apparent it will be to the eye that the corners are dimming more. in all honesty those samples you took look as i would suspect with horrible hotspotting in the middle and more and more dimming away from the very center. Just my opinion that the two will not be equal with the same projector on a much larger scale on a full size screen of it. I would suspect it would look worse.
NU_FTW is offline  
post #132 of 294 Old 03-23-2016, 12:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
aerodynamics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Just wanted to post my observations comparing the Carls vs Cinegrey 5D material samples using a HC1200. I took pics but will post them after I do more testing.

In my environment, both materials work really well with daylight present. The color of the material itself is very close with the Cinegrey having more texture. Black levels are the same between the two. There was a definite drop off in off axis performance with both. I would say the Cinegrey has a more narrow cone but both are still watchable off axis. That is good news for me since I do some viewing from the kitchen whenever I'm cooking or doing dishes. The most obvious difference is the higher gain and contrast of the Cinegrey. Its whites are much closer to the white copy paper I had next to it than the Carl's. Whites on the Carls material looks dingy grey. But honestly its hard to make any assessment with the samples taking up such a small portion of the image. I worry that the higher gain of the 5D will translate into hotspotting on a full size screen. When watching a very bright scene, the 5D looks like 3M reflective tape. But again, not sure how it looks full size.

Based on the small samples only, I like the 5D more for its contrast and pop but something tells me I really need to see them full size to make a decision.
Ftoast likes this.
aerodynamics is offline  
post #133 of 294 Old 03-23-2016, 01:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerodynamics View Post
I worry that the higher gain of the 5D will translate into hotspotting on a full size screen. When watching a very bright scene, the 5D looks like 3M reflective tape. But again, not sure how it looks full size.
On the positive side, your hc1200 starts with a 1.45 or 1.5:1 throw-ratio (or longer depending on your setup), so you're likely withing a range where even a somewhat uniformity-picky viewer wouldn't be bothered by the uniformity/hot-spotting/warmspotting.
Is the 5D texture visible from seating-distance?

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #134 of 294 Old 03-23-2016, 07:05 AM
DIY Granddad (w/help)
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 22,127
Mentioned: 269 Post(s)
Tagged: 6 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3715 Post(s)
Liked: 1714
Send a message via Skype™ to MississippiMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerodynamics View Post

Based on the small samples only, I like the 5D more for its contrast and pop but something tells me I really need to see them full size to make a decision.
Off course that would be best, but certainly not very practical for most individuals.

The real issues to concern yourself with will only become apparent when viewing a Full size screen.

I've said it, and it's been noted many times on "Screens" that samples are NOT intended to judge performance, despite their frequent use for such. They can at best only be a approximate reference...and that is still problematical. To be even basically effective, a sample of 20" x 16" up to 2' x 2' is needed...not 12" x 8" Items like Viewing Cone and Hot Spotting / Edge dimming can only be effectively observed when the viewer can compare the Center of the image field with the Edges.

Perhaps the only way to make any reasonable assertion with a small sample is to scale down a image field to relate to the actual size of the sample ( 1" = 1' ), and decrease viewing distance proportionately, but that is seldom done. Done otherwise, tests for Viewing angle can only provide a rough approximation. Hot Spotting even more so.

So many make decisions on samples alone, and any somewhat close study of posted comments show that once the full size screen material is up....oops, "If I only would have known...."

The only real determinations that Samples can provide is Color - Texture - Straight on Viewing Gain. Also, consider this; if Screen Mfg didn't offer Samples, many would not even consider their wares for purchase.

The only "almost" certain way to judge performance short of a personal full size viewing is to post up a request for Users to relate as much of their own observations as possible, and then hope for a response. Ignore Sales hype, advertisements...and yeah....tests done with smallish samples.

Of course all the above will raise the hackles of those whose use of Samples to test one application against another is near & dear to their objectivity...or lack thereof. And that is not to say they know the samples are so deficient for such usage, and use them anyway...only that determinations and judgements that come from the use of Samples are held up to too high esteem and are at best only very rough approximations.

"They said it couldn't be done. Well, we sure showed 'em otherwise!"
HAS Advanced Audio and Imaging Solutions...Audio Transducers & Projection Screen Coatings
MississippiMan is online now  
post #135 of 294 Old 03-23-2016, 10:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
aerodynamics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
On the positive side, your hc1200 starts with a 1.45 or 1.5:1 throw-ratio (or longer depending on your setup), so you're likely withing a range where even a somewhat uniformity-picky viewer wouldn't be bothered by the uniformity/hot-spotting/warmspotting.
Is the 5D texture visible from seating-distance?
From my distance of 9' the texture wasn't noticeable.

What was noticeable was the reflectivity I mentioned. Is this what is commonly referred to as sparkling?

If brightness is an issue, would I be able to tame it using a ND2 filter and gain deeper blacks in the process?
aerodynamics is offline  
post #136 of 294 Old 03-23-2016, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerodynamics View Post
From my distance of 9' the texture wasn't noticeable.

What was noticeable was the reflectivity I mentioned. Is this what is commonly referred to as sparkling?

If brightness is an issue, would I be able to tame it using a ND2 filter and gain deeper blacks in the process?
Sparkling is something I attribute as a more "glittery" look..like a collection of noticeably brighter pin-pricks of light/reflection against a somewhat darker-looking background.
If you aren't really seeing texture or a sparkling/glittery look, I'd probably describe what you're seeing as "sheen/gloss"..which is usually only noticable on a small sample if there's also at least a slight bit of texture (which from the sound of things there is).

I imagine an NDfilter would work great for taming brightness and gaining deeper blacks for as long as you need to while still keeping the option for additional brightness open.

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #137 of 294 Old 03-23-2016, 12:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
aerodynamics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post
Perhaps the only way to make any reasonable assertion with a small sample is to scale down a image field to relate to the actual size of the sample ( 1" = 1' ), and decrease viewing distance proportionately, but that is seldom done.
Thanks I will try this and post pics tonight or tomorrow. I recall @Ftoast demonstrated a similiar test recently so I'll check that thread out again for reference.

Fortunately I've tempered expectations for my next screen due to my non-ideal room and lack of desire to treat it and also the possibility of moving later this year. For now, these budget ALR screens are a very acceptable solution until I am ready to dive into a more thought out setup.
aerodynamics is offline  
post #138 of 294 Old 03-23-2016, 12:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
aerodynamics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
I imagine an NDfilter would work great for taming brightness and gaining deeper blacks for as long as you need to while still keeping the option for additional brightness open.
Great. I was hoping the combination of a bright PJ and ALR screen would afford me the headroom to go that route.
aerodynamics is offline  
post #139 of 294 Old 03-23-2016, 09:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
aerodynamics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 129
More 5D vs Carl's ALR observations. Unfortunately I don't have pics since a paused screenshot from my iPhone was capturing RBE. I will try and be descriptive as possible. If you have any questions please ask.

I scaled down the image to fit the samples by moving the projector in real close, about 22". Not sure if this is the methodology MM meant but nonetheless, I did get a sense of what each screen looks like "full size."

I didn't notice any hotspotting with either material on axis, surely due to the PJ being so close. For the same reason, I couldn't gauge off axis performance with either material being that the image was pretty bright and there was very little drop off when viewed from the side.

Black levels are deeper with the Carl's but the entire image overall is just a touch dimmer than the 5D. In dark scenes, I feel the Carl's material is borderline crushing blacks and some dark shadow detail is lost.

After this experiment, my opinion hasn't changed and I still like the 5D material better. It does show more sparkling and texture (I know what you mean now, Ftoast) than the Carl's but I can't really say it bothers me. And they were less noticeable at normal throw distances so it would probably take a really bright projector (I would imagine something like an Epson 1440 at full blast would do it). The whites on the 5D are brighter due to higher gain. Black levels are not quite as deep as Carl's but very close, the difference is negligible. But where the 5D excels, in my opinion, is contrast, detail and overall more pop to the image. Mid-tones, wrinkles in skin, fabric detail, surface texture are more easily discernable with the 5D.

This is not to bag on the Carls material. I think they are both great ALR options and any differences between the two are very close. If I was forced to use one material without ever seeing the other, I'd be happy. That being said, the detail and pop of the 5D, while not dramatic, is noticeable.

My testing is far from scientific, maybe even flawed to the point that you can say the effort is moot. But at the very least they were both compared under the same conditions and showed the same positives and flaws as they would have full size, albeit a bit exaggerated. Both performed very well with lights on from the kitchen and dining room to the right of the screen, even at normal throw/size. That's all I needed to see to know that they will work for my application. Are they the pinnacle of performance? No, but they both produce a good, very watchable image in not-so-ideal rooms. In my testing, the 5D did just a little bit better.
Ftoast likes this.

Last edited by aerodynamics; 03-23-2016 at 09:52 PM.
aerodynamics is offline  
post #140 of 294 Old 03-24-2016, 03:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,576
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2688 Post(s)
Liked: 877
So far all the posting full-screen users are saying similar things about not seeing any noticeable hotspotting even while using significantly shorter throw-ratio projectors which highlight uniformity/hotspot issues by exaggerating the difference between the brightest and dimmest points because of the more conical/less cylindrical angle their light hits the screen...and seeing how your throw-ratio is longer and well within the typical recommendation for either material AND you're liking what you see zoomed in small/close, it sounds like you're in good shape with either material.
You've also done well to test if the more textured 5D is something you can actually see at your normal size/distance, and come out safely from that (something else samples like this are good for).
Between your longer throw-ratio giving you more leeway and your preference for the visible brightness boost (and slight contrast retention boost it includes), it sounds like the 5D makes a great choice.

Thanks for the helpful information for anyone else that might have the same questions between these..it's great to hear how they stack up to each other, especially considering the 5D Designer Cut Series (material only, similar to carlsALR) which is sold through a few places at a trim-able 135"-diagonal for around $180 which puts the 5D and CarlsALR right in each others' backyard.

By the way, I hear you about the difficulty of getting a decent picture of the filled sample. Even using my little p300 pico I had to dim it way down to stop the camera from catching the DLP color cycling..especially when trying the same thing with the Carl's Silver.

Easy $25 DIY black (or any color) ALR paint +$40-$50sprayer screen mix smooth/clean and very easy to learn spraying with little/no mess.
Simple $25-40 DIY black/dark-grey ambient-light rejecting screen, grab two things from a local store..mix..roll..done.
Quick <$250 dedicated black-fabric theater room "A store that sells blinds can help your picture more than a store that sells projectors many times." -bud16415
Ftoast is offline  
post #141 of 294 Old 03-24-2016, 07:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
aerodynamics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Some photos of an approx. 100" projected image from 10ft. You can see the ambient light I'm dealing with from the windows which isn't as bad as it seems. The wall I'm projecting onto - where the screen will go - is in the shade all day regardless of the light outside. There are also flourescent lights from the kitchen to the right of the screen.

The first 6 pics show on/off axis performance. The really bright pic is a scene of Bond leaping a building with the sky in the background which shows the difference in gain between the materials. The last 3 pics show differences in black levels.

Materials are: 5D (L), Carls ALR (R), white copy paper (bottom).
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871415821.jpg
Views:	817
Size:	81.1 KB
ID:	1335690   Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871434852.jpg
Views:	646
Size:	92.1 KB
ID:	1335698   Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871455070.jpg
Views:	720
Size:	108.5 KB
ID:	1335706   Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871484755.jpg
Views:	577
Size:	100.9 KB
ID:	1335714   Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871512366.jpg
Views:	699
Size:	58.4 KB
ID:	1335722  

Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871530568.jpg
Views:	555
Size:	82.9 KB
ID:	1335730   Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871548192.jpg
Views:	603
Size:	84.7 KB
ID:	1335738   Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871574245.jpg
Views:	596
Size:	97.3 KB
ID:	1335746   Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871593312.jpg
Views:	589
Size:	105.9 KB
ID:	1335754   Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1458871627494.jpg
Views:	601
Size:	110.8 KB
ID:	1335770  

Ftoast likes this.
aerodynamics is offline  
post #142 of 294 Old 03-24-2016, 09:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
pb_maxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,564
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 58
given what i see from the pics...
i'd definitely lean towards carl's alr as the better product.
while 5D may have a ever so slight gain advantage, it also comes with a cost..
carl's shows a more noticable black level increase than white level loss to the 5D and ends up with the contrast advantage even on-axis. any white level increase 5D may have, i'm sure is lost after 10 degress off-axis with carl's being the better performer off-axis vs 5D.

and lastly, in at least 3 of the pics the 5D was clearly hotspotting and componded with issue of texture/graininess... the clear winner here is carl's alr.

another reason why peak gain made little difference other than introduce several unwanted caveats ...just so 5D could have the slimmest of gain advantage...but for less than 20 of a 180 degree of viewing. So for 160+ of 180 degrees, carl's is the better performer.
mishari84 likes this.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #143 of 294 Old 03-31-2016, 08:31 PM
Member
 
Emperor IX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
How much should you be stretching the material around the frame? I purchased the 135 inch cut and would like to make a 131 inch frame (roughly 65x115,whereas the material is only 67x118), but that's only giving me about 3 inches of slack all around which doesn't seem like enough to mount properly. Im open to stapling on the fronr if the felt tape will look nice on top (wouldn't want it to look bumpy).

How much many inches do you get while stretching it? Is 131 doable? If so, what size boards would you recommend?
Emperor IX is offline  
post #144 of 294 Old 04-08-2016, 02:56 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Emperor IX,

You probably already received your material by now, but I stapled and hung my screen last night and it did not stretch very much, only enough to get the slack out. Hopefully you made it work, but I would guess that the 135" material would not be enough to really get around the screen and get it stapled. Good luck!
Ajw89 is offline  
post #145 of 294 Old 04-08-2016, 10:48 PM
Member
 
Emperor IX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajw89 View Post
Emperor IX,

You probably already received your material by now, but I stapled and hung my screen last night and it did not stretch very much, only enough to get the slack out. Hopefully you made it work, but I would guess that the 135" material would not be enough to really get around the screen and get it stapled. Good luck!
I actually got it together a couple of days ago! Given how much I spammed the forums for advice, I should probably update with pictures. But yeah, I ended up with 132 inch viewable area, didn't have a whole lot extra either.

Now I'm trying to think of a way to rig up a second white 2.35 to 1 screen. I tried binder clipping it to the big frame but there isn't enough tension on the top =(
LondonBenji likes this.
Emperor IX is offline  
post #146 of 294 Old 05-11-2016, 02:20 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Would like to warn customers before you purchase from Carls. I would stay away from this company. I ordered for the 79 inch x 59 inch with a delivery charge of 125$ (to Qatar) by fedex. The product I received was only 56 inch width. I did write to them and they sent me another one. The second one was only 56 inches wide. I did write to the company but they stated that both the shipments may have been tampered. They wanted me to send it back to them for an inspection before deciding if it was tampered. Once they have received it, they may refund if they do not find any evidence of tampering. I would have to pay for this shipment. I think its silly to think that 2 different courier companies - fedex and ups would have tampered with the screens. I am now left with 2 screen material 56 inches wide and CARL the man himself refusing to refund me unless I sent the package back to him. I paid more for the delivery charges as opposed to the product itself!!!!
So guys if you are willing to purchase this product especially from abroad, think twice. A nightmare to get a refund!!!
geejo is offline  
post #147 of 294 Old 06-02-2016, 03:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
LondonBenji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 119
@Matts4313
@bobbyc
@morel
@diytheaterguy
@sharpshiell
@Ajw89
@Emperor IX

I hope you don't mind me tagging you all but I'm was wondering what all your thoughts are on Carl's ALR since (at least some of you) have had it for a while now? I can't decide between the Carl's ALR or the 5D while you might not be able to make a good comparison of the two I was wondering if you could comment on some of the concerns that were raised about Carl's ALR with regards to whites looking dull, hot spotting (I don't think this is going to be an issue for most) and how good it actually is in rejecting ambient light and off axis performance.

Emperor, I'm particularly interested in your build since you are using a similar screen size to me but I'm concerned about a lack of material to staple around the edges. I actually need two screens (one 130" diagonal and one 120" diagonal) so I was going to order 11-12' of the 116" roll for around $275 TOTAL.

With the 120" screen it will be just fine but the 130" screen it apparently measures 13.375" wide which leaves me ~2.625" or 1.3125" either side left over and I'm concerned that's not going to be enough...

The Cinegrey 5D seems to be out of stock most places but I noticed someone posted this link (http://www.focusedtechnology.com/eli...inegrey5d.html) which suggests they do have it in stock (are they trustworthy?) and that the 135" screen has 120" wide worth of material available which would make me feel more comfortable...
LondonBenji is offline  
post #148 of 294 Old 06-11-2016, 03:18 AM
Member
 
lgreis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Can anyone make a video and put it on youtube with the performance of carl´s ALR in ambient light and lights off for us to see?
Thanks
lgreis is offline  
post #149 of 294 Old 07-25-2016, 03:35 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by impulse View Post
Left to right. Silver screen, ALR, Flexigray.

I have a Flexiwhite portable screen that hangs in front of my TV.

Testing was done with an uncalibrated Mits. HD1000U. To be upgraded tonight with BenQ HT2050.

Thoughts?
Hello, may I ask what did you used for making black frame of your projector screen. thanks.
riverwin78 is offline  
post #150 of 294 Old 07-25-2016, 04:11 PM
Member
 
impulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Green Bay WI
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverwin78 View Post
Hello, may I ask what did you used for making black frame of your projector screen. thanks.
The screen border is 1/4" hardboard ripped down to 1 1/4" and covered with black velvet from joann's fabric. I used an air stapler to attach it. I used 2-sided carpet tape to adhere the velvet to the strips of hardboard. If I did it again I would buy the velvet tape from Carl's Place. It's expense but worth it. When you cut velvet it falls apart and becomes a mess and gets under the tape where you don't want it. It was a pain. Just get the Carl's stuff. The hardboard works well but you can buy 3/8" trim at HD, Menards, Lowes if you want to make it easier on yourself.
impulse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply DIY Screen Section

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off