My DIY Black Flame X1i Build - Review - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 47Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 160 Old 03-14-2016, 11:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
ch1sox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
You would be 100% wrong in this assumption. The small viewing cone is due to the angular reflective material being used NOT GAIN!!!! I suppose for some ignorance is bliss.. You make very VERY false claims here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
White has no place in judging a grey screen material despite what you may think you are wrong! gain is not relevant to color nor is gain relevant to off axis viewing only with certain materials can you even begin to make such accusations but without knowing all the properties of any given material it is irrelevant plain and simple. White screen has only 1 duty in an ALR screen and that is to show the AMBIENT LIGHT REJECTION properties nothing more nothing less.

So is Jeff Meier from AccuCal wrong as well? Just trying to have a conversation, don't need all the exclamation points and caps locked words...

He states in his screen report, "A value of 1.0 means the screen will reflect all of the light back to the viewer from the projector. A value of 2.0 means that you will see an image twice as bright as a piece of printer paper would look. This happens because the light from a 1.0 gain surface is reflected uniformly while that from a 2.0 screen is reflected more toward the viewer than the sides."
bud16415 likes this.
ch1sox is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 12:00 AM - Thread Starter
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 ch1sox View Post
So is Jeff Meier from AccuCal wrong as well?

He states in his screen report, "A value of 1.0 means the screen will reflect all of the light back to the viewer from the projector. A value of 2.0 means that you will see an image twice as bright as a piece of printer paper would look. This happens because the light from a 1.0 gain surface is reflected uniformly while that from a 2.0 screen is reflected more toward the viewer than the sides."
Please go on, what makes this fella's opinion so valuable over true observation and comparison? I can 100% guarentee it is off base and only relevant to metallic material this is all i will say regarding this but i promise your "yoda" is wrong But i guess who we choose to follow will vary based on how we feel about their process. Uncalibrated meters will be oh so perfect..... right? biased paid off reviews will be so reliable... i stand nothing to gain but lets assess the opinions of those who do....
NU_FTW is offline  
post #93 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 12:03 AM - Thread Starter
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
Foolish absolutely foolish, to try and tack anything down to a number as exponential as a screen material is just ludicrous. What does it take to gain your respect as "truth" that would tell me more of what you are seeking because apparently the scientific process is not important...
NU_FTW is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 12:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
ch1sox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
Please go on, what makes this fella's opinion so valuable over true observation and comparison? I can 100% guarentee it is off base and only relevant to metallic material this is all i will say regarding this but i promise your "yoda" is wrong But i guess who we choose to follow will vary based on how we feel about their process. Uncalibrated meters will be oh so perfect..... right? biased paid off reviews will be so reliable... i stand nothing to gain but lets assess the opinions of those who do....
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
Foolish absolutely foolish, to try and tack anything down to a number as exponential as a screen material is just ludicrous. What does it take to gain your respect as "truth" that would tell me more of what you are seeking because apparently the scientific process is not important...
There are hundreds of posts on this forum and tons of information online that indicates the higher gain you go above 1.0, usually the less viewing cone you get.
bud16415 likes this.
ch1sox is offline  
post #95 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 02:43 AM - Thread Starter
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 ch1sox View Post
There are hundreds of posts on this forum and tons of information online that indicates the higher gain you go above 1.0, usually the less viewing cone you get.
That would be an ignorant assumption to lump them all into one category. Way to look over the facts. Metallic angular reflective properties sure i see you being to lump those together but that is not the same as gain...gain does not equal metallic angular reflective properties that is extremely ill informed and off based to make such an assumption. I am not trying to be rude but truth sometimes hurts.

EVEN STILL with metallic paints/material how it is applied/deployed will make a huge difference!! gain does not equal viewing cone that is just ludicrous
NU_FTW is offline  
post #96 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 02:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,582
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2690 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen77 View Post
Yes.. I made sure that the ALR sample was shot perfectly on axis because I know how important that small factor can be ..while dealing with aggressive ALR materials.
You'll also need to make sure your position relative to the screen's position and angle as well as the projector is where the samples are throwing the absolute brightest point, just in case you didn't already.

I can however also admit that during my old comparison with the BD1.4 in person it didn't compare that well to plain white regarding brightness despite its relatively strong gain...there's a chance I messed up lining up the sweet-spot, but it's pretty easy to find on the BD so I doubt it.

A fun thing to take away is that even if the white sample tends to appear brighter, then matching it on-axis with an ALR screen/paint can still be a positive thing IF that much brightness is something you want.

It's also a more consistently bright comparison sample because it also doesn't dim toward the sides/edges like CarlsALR and BFx1 do, AND it's often the material that someone will be moving from when they get their first ALR screen..so it's a nice thing to get a feel for what changes many will be experiencing for the first time.
If your switch between a white and an ALR material/paint is throwing certain pitfalls you'll know many will also witness those same effects, so it can be a good way to prepare yourself with information to pass along AND traits in the screen you'll either need to warn folks about OR try to improve if possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
You would be 100% wrong in this assumption. The small viewing cone is due to the angular reflective material being used NOT GAIN!!!! I suppose for some ignorance is bliss.. You make very VERY false claims here.
Do you believe Retro-Reflective material or anything trying to mix the two generally has a wider viewing-cone?
Even the most sophisticated truly optical screens with controlled gain for multiple axis DO inherently suffer dimming in order to boost the on-axis gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
White has no place in judging a grey screen material despite what you may think you are wrong! White screen has only 1 duty in an ALR screen and that is to show the AMBIENT LIGHT REJECTION properties nothing more nothing less.
Could you take some shots of the BFx1 with a white sample hanging from string or held near the BFx1's center to show the ambient light rejection properties taking place in the BFx1's center something with a decent amount of brights and darks so people can see how BFx1's brights VS darks attenuation compares to the non-attenuated white?

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 online now  
post #97 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 03:11 AM - Thread Starter
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

It's also a more consistently bright comparison sample because it also doesn't dim toward the sides/edges like CarlsALR and BFx1 do, AND it's often the material that someone will be moving from when they get their first ALR screen..so it's a nice thing to get a feel for what changes many will be experiencing for the first time.
Where are you seeing any dimming in BF x1i??? if it is the other sample on this thread it is not a true sample of x1i and the poster will verify it was done wrong. to put x1i and carls in the same category other than being alr is misleading and telling of how you would like others to be mislead.

Quote:
Do you believe Retro-Reflective material or anything trying to mix the two generally has a wider viewing-cone?
not just a belief
I am not saying zero dimming but less than some of the other technologies deployed to mitigate the darker shades of grey used.


Quote:
Could you take some shots of the BFx1 with a white sample hanging from string or held near the BFx1's center to show the ambient light rejection properties taking place in the BFx1's center something with a decent amount of brights and darks so people can see how BFx1's brights VS darks attenuation compares to the non-attenuated white?
what about me saying i will be displaying the ALR properties and doing ALR tests in a week is so hard to understand even though i know you responded and said you looked forward to seeing it??? I will not use white as any example other than washout during ambient light tests plain and simple as that is the only relevant test that alr has with white screen material all else is just hogwash.

I will do tests that are truly tests i will not cater to those who want to compare this type of white to that type of white and to that screen to try and ascertain a "gain" number as that is not important whatsoever how it looks is important not an arbitrary number of light being reflected. you can have a black reflective surface horrible at colors but still sending back the same amount of light as being shined on it just shifted in color the amount of light does not change therefore the gain will not change therefore the test of white to grey is invalid by looking at "shades"
NU_FTW is offline  
post #98 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 03:55 AM
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
It's also a more consistently bright comparison sample because it also doesn't dim toward the sides/edges like CarlsALR and BFx1 do, AND it's often the material that someone will be moving from when they get their first ALR screen..so it's a nice thing to get a feel for what changes many will be experiencing for the first time.

this statement is really full it. smh. bd 1.4 is one of the worst offenders in both horizontal and vertical dimming in professional review after professional review. on the bd slate 1.2 has been shown to be worse.

Could you take some shots of the BFx1 with a white sample hanging from string or held near the BFx1's center to show the ambient light rejection properties taking place in the BFx1's center something with a decent amount of brights and darks so people can see how BFx1's brights VS darks attenuation compares to the non-attenuated white?

ah yes. back to THAT brand of science. hang any old piece of typing paper from a string in old way so you can visually make whatever inconsistent argument to twist your biased reasoning. but of course since stephen's screen sample showed... it is often much harder to tell which sample is the higher gain, and to your own admission that you couldn't find a way to make whites look brighter on the 1.4 than a white piece of paper... we are somehow then led to believe it would be any different if you could personally see a picture of x1 with a white piece of hanging paper from a string and YOU could then tell us the difference in both gain AND your undisputed knowledge of ambient light rejection.

Last edited by pb_maxxx; 03-15-2016 at 04:00 AM.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #99 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 04:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
ch1sox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post
It's also a more consistently bright comparison sample because it also doesn't dim toward the sides/edges like CarlsALR and BFx1 do, AND it's often the material that someone will be moving from when they get their first ALR screen..so it's a nice thing to get a feel for what changes many will be experiencing for the first time.

this statement is really full it. smh. bd 1.4 is one of the worst offenders in both horizontal and vertical dimming in professional review after professional review. on the bd slate 1.2 has been shown to be worse.

Could you take some shots of the BFx1 with a white sample hanging from string or held near the BFx1's center to show the ambient light rejection properties taking place in the BFx1's center something with a decent amount of brights and darks so people can see how BFx1's brights VS darks attenuation compares to the non-attenuated white?

ah yes. back to THAT brand of science. hang any old piece of typing paper from a string in old way so you can visually make whatever inconsistent argument to twist your biased reasoning. but of course since stephen's screen sample showed... it is often much harder to tell which sample is the higher gain, and to your own admission that you couldn't find a way to make whites look brighter on the 1.4 than a white piece of paper... we are somehow then led to believe it would be any different if you could personally see a picture of x1 with a white piece of hanging paper from a string and YOU could then tell us the difference in both gain AND your undisputed knowledge of ambient light rejection.
No, that's not what he said. He said to use the white sample which won't dim when moving to off axis viewing.
ch1sox is offline  
post #100 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 05:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,582
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2690 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Even forgetting measurements and just basing things on perception alone, if one ALR screen looks bright compared on-axis to matte-white in a dark room while another ALR screen looks dimmer compared on-axis to matte-white in a dark room, it certainly sounds like the first will be the brighter-looking, higher-gain screen.
If a third ALR screen looks as bright as the first ALR screen compared on-axis to a matte-white even with significant ambient light hitting them, then the third is likely even higher gain than the first two...assuming all three are roughly similar shades of grey since a much weaker light-fighter will gain more false brightness from ambient light just like the matte-white does.

If you don't have a nice matte-white sample to use, flat-white copy paper can work quite well as an easy and inexpensive alternative. If you DO have a good matte-white, there's little reason not to use it instead of paper.

I asked about the comparison with centered white because you didn't specify earlier if your upcoming comparison would feature either a centered sample or a matte-white.

If BFx1 fails to meet or exceed the brightness of plain matte-white on-axis, that's something potentially helpful to anyone looking to retain similar brightness as a white screen. It's not a super difficult goal for most screens or paints..even my 3.5:1SealGrey can match a matte-white on-axis and I'd expect BFx1 to be brighter than that.

So far only one person has taken the time to compare BFx1 to anything remotely white on-axis, so until they re-do their sample or someone else takes a moment to hang a white sample and take a picture, that's those will be the only pictures there are comparing the brightness and uniformity between those two for better or for worse.

I'm not sure why most BFx1 owners seem to shy away from this simple rough brightness comparison. I've been trying to continually show brightness comparisons with white since the start of my interest in ALR screens including my own mixes whether they were flattering or not so flattering because it can be helpful knowledge and I figured folks might want to know before buying paints.
I've seen other screen sellers on AVS likewise post pictures comparing their own products so folks could see how they compare and get a feel for which had better aspects that mattered most for their needs.

I'm glad for the comparisons so far and looking forward to more upcoming. I'm just trying to help you understand why the shots I'm asking specifically for are important to me and possibly important to others as well.

HA, who's rambling NOW?!

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 online now  
post #101 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 05:01 AM
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
just to clear for all parties involved.

every screen dims. even the most agreed upon stewart reference white screens dim.
the question is to what degree and curve.

it's been shown that rs-maxxmudd when it was made using liquitex was a brighter gain screen both on axis and off axis than a stewart reference white screen. both screen dimmed as you moved off axis. the rs-maxxmudd screen dimmed at a slight greater curve but even at 90 degrees off axis it's gain never dipped below the stewart. visually, rs-maxxmudd was the definitely the darker colored screen.

we have also shown that visually you can be fooled even with close up side by side comparisons of white and alr samples... in which we believed that a lighter/brighter sample had more gain when the opposite is true. so let's just put this whole white sample bit to rest as it is not a reference point.

most alr screens dim and reach their half gain at a very rapid rate. a 1.2 slate reaches it's half gain at just 23 degrees. in other words, the one center seat depending where you place your head gets between a .9 and 1.2 on axis. one seat to the left or right you get between .6 and .9 gain. one seat. for most people, this in of itself is not exceptable. and this being a 2500 dollar screen at 90 inches.

we can do better than this.

the fact of the matter is this. we here at this diy forum have developed alr screens that are more capable and consistent than those big name, high dollar manufacturers. but instead of celebrating each others overall accomplishments in that. we are too busy cutting each other down with our nit picky, my brand of science is better than your knowledge of science hogwash.

and to be honest... that's what needs to stop.

Last edited by pb_maxxx; 03-15-2016 at 05:10 AM.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #102 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 05:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,582
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2690 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post
just to clear for all parties involved.

every screen dims. even the most agreed upon stewart reference white screens dim.
the question is to what degree and curve.
Except that the Stewart reference white is both measured and visually shown to NOT dim, I otherwise agree with this wholeheartedly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post
it's been shown that rs-maxxmudd when it was made using liquitex was a brighter gain screen both on axis and off axis than a stewart reference white screen. both screen dimmed as you moved off axis. the rs-maxxmudd screen dimmed at a slight greater curve but even at 90 degrees off axis it's gain never dipped below the stewart. visually, rs-maxxmudd was the definitely the darker colored screen.
Actually that measurement wasn't against a Stewart reference white, it was a 0.85gain GreyHawk.
Also, the MaxxMudd dimmed below 1.0gain at 5degrees off-axis.
The measurement didn't go out to 90degrees, it went out to 50degrees I believe, but you're right that from 0-50degrees off-axis the MaxxMudd remained brighter than the 0.85 GreyHawk screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post
we have also shown that visually you can be fooled even with close up side by side comparisons of white and alr samples... in which we believed that a lighter/brighter sample had more gain when the opposite is true. so let's just put this whole white sample bit to rest as it is not a reference point.

the fact of the matter is this. we here at this diy forum have developed alr screens that are more capable and consistent than those big name, high dollar manufacturers. but instead of celebrating each others overall accomplishments in that. we are too busy cutting each other down with our nit picky, my brand of science is better than your knowledge of science hogwash.

and to be honest... that's what needs to stop.
It sounds like you want the nitpicking over science/belief systems to end, but in an earlier sentence declare comparison with a centered matte-white to be a science/belief unworthy of consideration or even curiosity.

I know you've mentioned having a BFx1 on-hand and you likely also own either a bright matte-white or a sheet of copy-paper. Since your screen is likely longer cured than NU_FTW's, would you be willing to take a couple comparison shots with a centered white sample on-axis on a BFx1 for me and anyone else wondering how their on-axis brightness compares?

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 online now  
post #103 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 11:22 AM - Thread Starter
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

So far only one person has taken the time to compare BFx1 to anything remotely white on-axis, so until they re-do their sample or someone else takes a moment to hang a white sample and take a picture, that's those will be the only pictures there are comparing the brightness and uniformity between those two for better or for worse.
Who has done this and where are these photos?
NU_FTW is offline  
post #104 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 08:58 PM
DIY Granddad (w/help)
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 22,252
Mentioned: 282 Post(s)
Tagged: 6 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3797 Post(s)
Liked: 1764
Send a message via Skype™ to MississippiMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post

It sounds like you want the nitpicking over science/belief systems to end, but in an earlier sentence declare comparison with a centered matte-white to be a science/belief unworthy of consideration or even curiosity.
No...I'd say he's pretty clear on it all. In an ambient light situation, comparing a White to a ALR surface is of no real value, as far as which will perform "ALR" duties best. I mean really.....

Now if the goal of the requester is to show the difference between the two in a Darkened room, as long as the PJ was calibrated to the Grey, one could use that to determine the overall performance of the ALR screen.

The only real reason the request keeps coming up for either On or Off Axis White vs Grey comparisons is attempt to show that somehow the Grey will look darker than the White. Well it will.....if the Grey has less than a 1.0 gain factor.

But really, because the OP dared to state that to him the screen does everything it's supposed to do, he's hit with all the same old tired requests, people trying to prove old arguments, others telling him to Go off and just watch his screen if he likes it so much, and doubting or disclaiming his own judgements, telling him that if it's not done to their own liking, then it has to be wrong.

I've been hit with that more than anyone else, but brush most of it aside because I let individuals who actually have made an attempt... a honest real effort to make up a full size screen and do it all by the book (my book ) post up about how / what they accomplished and as to if it was equal to, or surpassed their expectations.

NU_FTW, not only did that, he made the effort to test the differences between known ALR screen materials and the screen he just finished. He didn't use a white sample because White wasn't invited to testing between ALR surfaces. This much should be understood...that he realizes that white is not a ALR surface, it's white, and merely shows what a white can do. So it's use is / should be restricted to it's ideal environment. He's after some real ALR performance...not what a white will obviously fail at doing. That should be easy enough for anyone to understand. After all...when did anyone see a ALR screen Mfg ever put a white material anywhere within their screen's border, and then say anything other than; "See how much better our ALR screen is than the White material !!"

.......such a "Duh" claim is nothing but senseless hype, something that can only show good things about their Mfg Screen. Nor do you see images taken far off axis and compared directly to on-axis shots. But they are always quick to claim how well they can do such.

The real truth is that any projected point of light MUST eventually fade at the edges, and what really matters is if one can see that effect within the confines of the Screen's viewing area. If a PJ has known specs as far as light uniformity, then any more severe loss of either at the Screen must be tied to the Screen's own performance. Viewing cone performance limitations follow the same mandate because it's directly tied to whatever amount of light is being collected and directed / redirected off the Screen's surface at any given location except directly on-axis.

And the screen shots show nothing but great screen-wide reflection, and no perceptible dimming at all .....or at least so little dimming as to be inconsequential. OK...so that means the only thing left to do is to attempt to define exactly how much dimming there actually is....which also equates to how much light "isn't" being lost. And all that because someone believes that such small degrees of loss actually mean anything as far as judging as to if the application is worthy of note.

Now does knowing the precise amount of the dimming actually matter? No.
Will somebody still use the lack of such info to grab the opportunity to question the veracity of another person's posted observations? The answer is all to well known.

So...instead of some individuals looking at the results and at least trying to find common ground, they state that it's not enough...he didn't do this or that, and what he's stating he sees and takes pictures off is not accurate enough, or simply to insufficient to draw valid conclusions from.

All because he's not showing the difference between a White surface and a ALR surface. Again with the

"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 offline  
post #105 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 10:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,582
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2690 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Spoiler!

This sounds like a pair of paint salesman that don't want people to see how their product looks compared to a matte-white.
What's the harm? People will get an idea of how much white/brights attenuation is happening with BFx1 compared to an easy standard that holds more consistent gain..how is that a bad thing?

The current pictures of BFx1 compared with plain white and a centered CarlsALR show a solid gain and uniformity, but the paint was used in a non-ideal fashion. I'd like to see similar shots with a more ideal BFx1 as well to get an idea if there's much difference and how much.

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 online now  
post #106 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 10:15 PM - Thread Starter
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
Spoiler!

This sounds like a pair of paint salesman that don't want people to see how their product looks compared to a matte-white.
What's the harm? People will get an idea of how much white/brights attenuation is happening with BFx1 compared to an easy standard that holds more consistent gain..how is that a bad thing?

The current pictures of BFx1 compared with plain white and a centered CarlsALR show a solid gain and uniformity, but the paint was used in a non-ideal fashion. I'd like to see similar shots with a more ideal BFx1 as well to get an idea if there's much difference and how much.
NO SUCH PICTURE EXISTS!!! That is another reason to not fuel your lies! The person who provided that sample did so on a brown surface with only 3 coats of paint NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH!!! You like to slant things your way and i have noticed it you disrespect everything and everyone with the way you take everything out of context! there is NO REASON to compare to white if your concern between white and alr is the attenuation then stay with white you can compare white to grey grey to alr alr to alr but not white to alr it is just stupid! You keep holding tight to this picture that is not actually BF X1i because it was not on a white surface and the translucent paint was not applied in even enough layers if it had been on white. When you stop spouting off nonsense then maybe your opinions will hold more weight in these forums but all you do is LIE and mislead people into thinking your way is "as good" when it is NOT as good. I have refrained from mentioning this but you clearly want someone to hold your paint application that is oh so cheap to the highest acclaim but it is not on par with BF X1i it cannot be and i am sure when you take some of your pictures with your carls alr samples on the way in the mail this will be proven. I am not a subscriber to more expensive means better because i would have not gone with BF X1i if that were the case BF X1i is on par with 2-3000 dollar screens... your use of metallic material in such high quantities while might allow you to needlessly go to the extreme it also hurts your application causing hotspotting. When you start following a process and detail it to all who are reading such as lens to screen proper size of screen etc then perhaps things will change but you hide all the variables behind the curtain mr wizard of oz.
NU_FTW is offline  
post #107 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 10:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
ch1sox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
NO SUCH PICTURE EXISTS!!! That is another reason to not fuel your lies! The person who provided that sample did so on a brown surface with only 3 coats of paint NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH!!! You like to slant things your way and i have noticed it you disrespect everything and everyone with the way you take everything out of context! there is NO REASON to compare to white if your concern between white and alr is the attenuation then stay with white you can compare white to grey grey to alr alr to alr but not white to alr it is just stupid! You keep holding tight to this picture that is not actually BF X1i because it was not on a white surface and the translucent paint was not applied in even enough layers if it had been on white. When you stop spouting off nonsense then maybe your opinions will hold more weight in these forums but all you do is LIE and mislead people into thinking your way is "as good" when it is NOT as good. I have refrained from mentioning this but you clearly want someone to hold your paint application that is oh so cheap to the highest acclaim but it is not on par with BF X1i it cannot be and i am sure when you take some of your pictures with your carls alr samples on the way in the mail this will be proven. I am not a subscriber to more expensive means better because i would have not gone with BF X1i if that were the case BF X1i is on par with 2-3000 dollar screens... your use of metallic material in such high quantities while might allow you to needlessly go to the extreme it also hurts your application causing hotspotting. When you start following a process and detail it to all who are reading such as lens to screen proper size of screen etc then perhaps things will change but you hide all the variables behind the curtain mr wizard of oz.
When buying a screen it's good for potential buyers to know the gain and half gain angle. I can tell you I'd personally like to know what the half gain angle is. If you're unwilling to use a matte white 1.0 gain sample, can you use the next closest thing from these samples? These all have nearly 180 degree viewing so it'd be nice to compare along with other samples you might be getting:

DNP 08-85
DarkStar 9
Microlite
ch1sox is offline  
post #108 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 10:48 PM - Thread Starter
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 ch1sox View Post
When buying a screen it's good for potential buyers to know the gain and half gain angle. I can tell you I'd personally like to know what the half gain angle is. If you're unwilling to use a matte white 1.0 gain sample, can you use the next closest thing from these samples? These all have nearly 180 degree viewing so it'd be nice to compare along with other samples you might be getting:

DNP 08-55
DarkStar 9
Microlite

Firstly i am not a seller of this paint. I have no dog in this one. Secondly how would you begin to determine from a white sample what you should be seeing? Third i took off axis pictures under all the same conditions with a static image one can compare the on axis shorts to the extreme off axis shots. I will not provide any sample(white) that someone would attempt to make up fake numbers about that is just shady to even think about. As for the 3 materials i am not sure how/where to get the samples easily/cheap.

Last edited by NU_FTW; 03-15-2016 at 10:57 PM.
NU_FTW is offline  
post #109 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 10:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Gregory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 370
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 12
NU_FTW,

I have a similar room as yours, a living room with a flat white ceiling and cream colored wall papered walls. I too, am leaning towards BF X1I.

I'm interested in how much the ceiling and walls light up due to reflections off of the BF X1I screen. Much off the room's surfaces light up with a plain white BOC screen, especially the first 4 - 5 feet. Does the BF screen significantly reduce this? Any experience comparing a white screen to BF in this regard?

Thanks,
Greg
Gregory is offline  
post #110 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 11:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
ch1sox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
Firstly i am not a seller of this paint. I have no dog in this one. Secondly how would you begin to determine from a white sample what you should be seeing? Third i took off axis pictures under all the same conditions with a static image one can compare the on axis shorts to the extreme off axis shots. I will not provide any sample(white) that someone would attempt to make up fake numbers about that is just shady to even think about. As for the 3 materials i am not sure how/where to get the samples easily/cheap.
Because the 1.0 matte white will have nearly 180 degree viewing cone. It will help show how much whatever screen or paint your using will or won't dim when viewing off axis. It won't give us the exact half gain angle scientifically, but will at least give an idea until the creators of the paint, @MississippiMan, can provide the information.
ch1sox is offline  
post #111 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 11:15 PM - Thread Starter
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 Gregory View Post
NU_FTW,

I have a similar room as yours, a living room with a flat white ceiling and cream colored wall papered walls. I too, am leaning towards BF X1I.

I'm interested in how much the ceiling and walls light up due to reflections off of the BF X1I screen. Much off the room's surfaces light up with a plain white BOC screen, especially the first 4 - 5 feet. Does the BF screen significantly reduce this? Any experience comparing a white screen to BF in this regard?

Thanks,
Greg
When i was building this screen i projected for 1-2 days on the white screen it created its own ambient light to an extent to washout the screen with its own ambient light from the screen. Getting BF X1i made a huge difference in black levels and in my opinion does not deteriorate whites as much as it helps blacks I would say the amount of light being shined onto the surrounding areas seems like less or maybe it just affects the screen less.
NU_FTW is offline  
post #112 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 11:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ftoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,582
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2690 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
NO SUCH PICTURE EXISTS!!! That is another reason to not fuel your lies! The person who provided that sample did so on a brown surface with only 3 coats of paint NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH!!! You like to slant things your way and i have noticed it you disrespect everything and everyone with the way you take everything out of context! there is NO REASON to compare to white if your concern between white and alr is the attenuation then stay with white you can compare white to grey grey to alr alr to alr but not white to alr it is just stupid! You keep holding tight to this picture that is not actually BF X1i because it was not on a white surface and the translucent paint was not applied in even enough layers if it had been on white. When you stop spouting off nonsense then maybe your opinions will hold more weight in these forums but all you do is LIE and mislead people into thinking your way is "as good" when it is NOT as good. I have refrained from mentioning this but you clearly want someone to hold your paint application that is oh so cheap to the highest acclaim but it is not on par with BF X1i it cannot be and i am sure when you take some of your pictures with your carls alr samples on the way in the mail this will be proven. I am not a subscriber to more expensive means better because i would have not gone with BF X1i if that were the case BF X1i is on par with 2-3000 dollar screens... your use of metallic material in such high quantities while might allow you to needlessly go to the extreme it also hurts your application causing hotspotting. When you start following a process and detail it to all who are reading such as lens to screen proper size of screen etc then perhaps things will change but you hide all the variables behind the curtain mr wizard of oz.
I did make sure to state how the only current example is using the paint in a way that isn't recommended...though it IS an interesting similarity to the BFx1 thinly applied onto dark-colored spandex which PB_maxxx has talked about.

People are free to choose as much or as little metallic as they want depending on their gain wants/needs. I agree less is usually better when possible.

I do try to make sure and mention the projector in use, its throw and the approximate ftL for the screen-size so others can get an idea of what size their particular projector can reach the same ftL with, and if I don't mention it folks can ask too..I forget things sometimes.

I do hope to have fun with the Carl's sample pack as you've recommended it and it's a really good idea with a great price.
I'm also hoping to setup a controlled Ambient Light source so future pictures/comparisons can be offered with different, known incoming light angles...this should be a neat feature for showing folks the difference they may expect depending on the location/s of their light troubles and how it works with different screens.
I'd prefer to NOT be a wizard and instead offer as much potentially useful information as inexpensively and recreationally possible.

I'll still be looking forward to your future comparison shots even if you choose not to include matte-white.

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 online now  
post #113 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 11:17 PM - Thread Starter
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 ch1sox View Post
Because the 1.0 matte white will have nearly 180 degree viewing cone. It will help show how much whatever screen or paint your using will or won't dim when viewing off axis. It won't give us the exact half gain angle scientifically, but will at least give an idea until the creators of the paint, @MississippiMan, can provide the information.
How can you begin to determine that with WHITE????? you say it is because of the viewing angle but that is still illogical to be using against an ALR screen such as this. All that will do is give rise to people making up arbitrary numbers and lies they claim to be factual. I am trying my best to stay unbiased in this matter and putting white introduces a bias that just doesnt make sense.
NU_FTW is offline  
post #114 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 11:27 PM - Thread Starter
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
I did make sure to state how the only current example is using the paint in a way that isn't recommended...though it IS an interesting similarity to the BFx1 thinly applied onto dark-colored spandex which PB_maxxx has talked about.

People are free to choose as much or as little metallic as they want depending on their gain wants/needs. I agree less is usually better when possible.

I do try to make sure and mention the projector in use, its throw and the approximate ftL for the screen-size so others can get an idea of what size their particular projector can reach the same ftL with, and if I don't mention it folks can ask too..I forget things sometimes.

I do hope to have fun with the Carl's sample pack as you've recommended it and it's a really good idea with a great price.
I'm also hoping to setup a controlled Ambient Light source so future pictures/comparisons can be offered with different, known incoming light angles...this should be a neat feature for showing folks the difference they may expect depending on the location/s of their light troubles and how it works with different screens.
I'd prefer to NOT be a wizard and instead offer as much potentially useful information as inexpensively and recreationally possible.

I'll still be looking forward to your future comparison shots even if you choose not to include matte-white.

I would prefer facts and not conjecture. You said it was paint used in non ideal manner, it was improperly sprayed and to a substrate the paint was not inteded for making it null and void so mentioning the pictures at all is not factual and slants things. If you want to keep things to a civil debate please refrain from taking things out of context and make sure your facts are facts. I could tell immediately something was not right about that sample which is why i asked about it in the first place. having seen tons and tons of my own pictures 25% of what i took if that even made it to the forums.

I would prefer to keep things being real and no fake numbers that is the entire reasoning for using Carls ALR and not any other of the samples. Control and the availability of the material. Odd yours is taking so long my 2nd set will be here tomorrow ES CineGrey 5D is taking forever. I would love to compare more samples to it may help nail things down/fine tune the comparisons so to speak and give others reference points that are more telling than white.

I am not trying to attack you ftoast but sometimes you come across as trying to disprove things rather than to actually inspect/analyze/understand Try to not be so biased toward your own application. I will continue to try and remain as unbiased as possible. If i can get ahold of more and more alr samples for cheap/easy i will do so if someone can tell me how to do so for cheap i will do comparisons to this as well. It would be nice if i could get ahold of some of the samples that were recently reviewed in the ALR Screens review, i wish they had some of the cheaper materials like the CineGrey5D and Carls ALR would make the cheap samples i have an even better reference point.
NU_FTW is offline  
post #115 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 11:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
ch1sox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by NU_FTW View Post
How can you begin to determine that with WHITE????? you say it is because of the viewing angle but that is still illogical to be using against an ALR screen such as this. All that will do is give rise to people making up arbitrary numbers and lies they claim to be factual. I am trying my best to stay unbiased in this matter and putting white introduces a bias that just doesnt make sense.
It's just to see if your screen drops in brightness very much or not off axis compared to the sample...it's brightness we're talking about here, nothing more. And if that's an issue, do it with all lights off if you don't like the white sample.
ch1sox is offline  
post #116 of 160 Old 03-15-2016, 11:40 PM - Thread Starter
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 ch1sox View Post
It's just to see if your screen drops in brightness very much or not off axis compared to the sample...it's brightness we're talking about here, nothing more. And if that's an issue, do it with all lights off if you don't like the white sample.
That will not work, this is not a dedicated theater the white would pickup ambient light in the dark off the walls and ceiling as i have stated numerous times. White on ALR is not a test for gain or even viewing angle off axis gain. When i do more of the ALR testing i will compare on and off axis of the screen to the other materials this will give an idea of what to expect without someone assigning random numbers pulled out of their rear. Not going to do white to actually try and compare brighness other than when i have the room flooded with ambient light to demonstrate how the white screen would look by comparison.
NU_FTW is offline  
post #117 of 160 Old 03-16-2016, 03:11 AM
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
ch1sox,

the real question is are you tuning your screen to brightness or are you tuning it to correctness. i would hope anyone who turns up the brightness of their projector or their tv would also turn around and recalibrate it. i could show in scene after scene that the brighter screen is simply incorrect, has less black levels, decreased black level detail, blooming whites, insufficient saturation, and incorrect hues. but the white screen was 'brighter'.

what most people don't realize is that in order for a color to be it's purest saturation and hue, visible light must be present, and the matter must both ABSORB and reflect light. problem is, white is very poor at ABSORBING anything and is really a poor medium for proper color saturation... hence we are relegated to dedicated bat caves to achieve a viewable screen. it's also the reason fine artists do not use white backgrounds to begin painting on.

projector central has shown and measured in their last 2 extensive ALR reviews... that even in a darkened room, their reference white screen could not compete in contrast with ANY of the ALR screens. not one.

steven has shown and we've all pretty much agreed that even a close up picture of white vs 1.4 gain screen...most would have assumed the white was the higher gain. i would go on to say that if you looked closely at stephen's picks...the non white side ALSO has greater depth and detail.

so if you can't visually determine gain with a white sample and you can't determine with a white a sample what the brightness is SUPPOSED to be... then why are we continuing to badger it's use when it's really for the most part an irrelevant visual meter.

as for the 3 screens you mentioned, they have by industry standard a very wide viewing cone for ALR screens. all three reach their half gain at 85 degress off-axis horizontally... which means that left to right they dim at a very gradual manner...so that a step left or right and you would not visually pick up on the difference. so a parallax which is 1.2 on-axis is .6 when a couple feet from the wall.

however, all three of these screen have a very exacting projector placement as they also the worst offenders of VERTICAL dimming. the parallax has a vertical half cone at 13 degrees! therefore if you sit up or lean back in your movie chair, or dip or hold your head up, you'd get any from 1.2 to .6 within a couple of feet, which is easily noticable and for some this too would unacceptable.

Last edited by pb_maxxx; 03-16-2016 at 03:21 AM.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #118 of 160 Old 03-16-2016, 03:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
ch1sox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb_maxxx View Post
ch1sox,

the real question is are you tuning your screen to brightness or are you tuning it to correctness. i would hope anyone who turns up the brightness of their projector or their tv would also turn around and recalibrate it. i could show in scene after scene that the brighter screen is simply incorrect, has less black levels, decreased black level detail, blooming whites, insufficient saturation, and incorrect hues. but the white screen was 'brighter'.

what most people don't realize is that in order for a color to be it's purest saturation and hue, visible light must be present, and the matter must both ABSORB and reflect light. problem is, white is very poor at ABSORBING anything and is really a poor medium for proper color saturation... hence we are relegated to dedicated bat caves to achieve a viewable screen. it's also the reason fine artists do not use white backgrounds to begin painting on.

projector central has shown and measured in their last 2 extensive ALR reviews... that even in a darkened room, their reference white screen could not compete in contrast with ANY of the ALR screens. not one.

steven has shown and we've all pretty much agreed that even a close up picture of white vs 1.4 gain screen...most would have assumed the white was the higher gain. i would go on to say that if you looked closely at stephen's picks...the non white side ALSO has greater depth and detail.

so if you can't visually determine gain with a white sample and you can't determine with a white a sample what the brightness is SUPPOSED to be... then why are we continuing to badger it's use when it's really for the most part an irrelevant visual meter.

as for the 3 screens you mentioned, they have by industry standard a very wide viewing cone for ALR screens. all three reach their half gain at 85 degress off-axis horizontally... which means that left to right they dim at a very gradual manner...so that a step left or right and you would not visually pick up on the difference. so a parallax which is 1.2 on-axis is .6 when a couple feet from the wall.

however, all three of these screen have a very exacting projector placement as they also the worst offenders of VERTICAL dimming. the parallax has a vertical half cone at 13 degrees! therefore if you sit up or lean back in your movie chair, or dip or hold your head up, you'd get any from 1.2 to .6 within a couple of feet, which is easily noticable and for some this too would unacceptable.
I have not once said to use a white sample to figure out the gain. I'm trying to figure out what the off axis viewing might look like. Unless it's compared to another sample with a 180 degree viewing cone (matte 1.0 or any other 180 degree viewing cone sample), it's too difficult to know how it performs off axis. That, or it could be compared to numerous samples of various half gain measurements to see where it might be.
ch1sox is offline  
post #119 of 160 Old 03-16-2016, 04:12 AM
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
i don't know NU_FTW. i've never spoken to him vis PM or email. i don't know where he lives, nor have i ever spoken to him by phone.

so i won't tell what to do or tell him to change is mind on his review. but i do believe he's made it clear that he intends to test several ALR materials from several home theater screen companies. so that others can get a real world sense of where our DIY community falls in line with respect to on and off-axis viewing cones vs commercial applications.

...this should be interesting. and like everyone else, i'll be waiting and listening.
pb_maxxx is offline  
post #120 of 160 Old 03-16-2016, 11:00 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,697
Mentioned: 249 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12675 Post(s)
Liked: 10305
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftoast View Post
In a dark room the plain white screen won't have significant light contamination adding false brightness, so the gain comparison isn't badly skewed.
As long as the ALR screen has decent color-accuracy the coloring comparison in a dark room will not be a problem either.

The above photo isn't hard to judge because of different ALR levels, it's difficult to judge because one sample is colder and the other is warmer..if both were nicely neutral the gain comparison would be much easier.

If an ALR screen isn't as bright on-axis as a plain matte-white sample in a dark room, then that ALR screen is almost surely below 1.0gain.
Correct. Gain is gain. It does not matter if the material is dark and the optical properties give it a higher reflectance. An example of that is Stewart's FireHawk material. It starts off with a very dark base that is .49 gain. Then enough optical coatings are applied to bring it up to 1.1 gain. While the actual gain is not that high, the increase in gain from the base is huge and like most all screens that have a large increase in gain, requires a longer throw distance to avoid hotspotting, even though it is in actually a fairly low gain screen. It also means a reduced viewing cone, which is typical of a screen that has greatly increased gain from it's base.
Ericglo likes this.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 03-16-2016 at 11:23 AM.
Mike Garrett is online now  
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