Xyscreen comparison review - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 37Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 147 Old 09-29-2018, 10:55 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Xyscreen comparison review

Hi all,


I recently compared different fabric types from the relatively unnown manufacturer xyscreens from China. I wrote a review for the dutch home theater forum, perhaps this review interests you guys as well, so I took the liberty to translate and post here.

Don't really know if there is a place for user reviews around here, if I posted in a wrong place, please let me know.

I don't have any benefits or professional connections with the factory. The following impressions are stricktly my own.

Quite a long review, sorry for the long-read
nielvm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 147 Old 09-29-2018, 10:55 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Recently I became acquainted with the company xyscreen from China. They have a whole army of canvas types in their store that you can buy directly from the factory.

I contacted them because it seemed interesting to me to review these fabrics. The contact via email went very smoothly, I usually had a response after fifteen minutes. It was therefore no problem to get samples for a review, only the shipping costs would be for my account. Unfortunately, these amounted to around 60 dollars. A bit pricey to write a review just out of interest.

So I asked for the cost of a whole sreen. The cheapest screen fabric costs only about 8 dollars per m². For the transparent cloths you pay somewhere between 20 and 30 dollars per m², their most expensive cloth (soundmax 5HG) costs about 86dollar per m². For my situation (2.40: 1 screen of 2.8m x 1.2m) this came at about $ 100 + $ 80 shipping. I then took a leap and ordered a soundmax 4k cloth for my screen. This canvas has a specified gain of 1.1. Because I had noticed in a previous tests that the suppliers were rather generous with the gain values, I asked about this. It was admitted that this could deviate to at least 0.97. In my case this means about 20% more light, quite interesting.

I also asked, if I still paid the shipment, to send different samples. Always interesting to view other types of canvas.

Yesterday the cloths were delivered neatly in a very sturdy cardboard tube. As far as communication with the company and the delivery (term) are concerned, I can only be positive. Always a reassurance when it comes to such distances.

The method of testing is the same as when I compared different types of canvas to a forum companion. The canvases are stuck one by one with some painting tape and the greyscale is calibrated. Then I check which light output is achieved compared to my existing fabric. In my next calculations, I assume that:

A kingpin screen has a gain of 1.0
My screen has a gain of about 0.8 (tested in previous comparison)

In addition to the gain, other aspects such as the sharpness, the presence of sparkle or moire and other things (negative) are also looked at. I also mention whether the canvas can also be used for 8k projection. I do not know how XYscreen determines the latter, but I'll give it anyway.

The measurements are carried out with an Epson TW9300 projecting 2.8 meters wide from 4.5 meters. The current milliskin measures about 16.5 ftl on this.


Tube for shipping


Different samples


Test method

Soundmax 4k

I also ordered this canvas in the format of my screen as this was the most interesting cloth in terms of specifications. It has a specified gain of 1.1 and could also be used for 8k projectors due to the fine weave of the fabric. I find this a not unimportant fact. Since you do not replace your screen or canvas every year (oops, 2nd time this year ...), this has to be very future-proof.


Measurements:
21.5 ft
Gain value approximately 1.1

Review

A sturdy, non-stretched cloth that is the only woven fabric. I am very pleased that this is the canvas that I have ordered in large. Since this canvas has a higher gain compared to my current one, I have tried to measure the difference in black value. With my current canvas I measure 0,003ftl at 0% white, with the soundmax 4k I get the same settings at 0,0038ftl. However, if I adjust the manual iris of the projector to 16.5ftl (current cloth, iris -17), I measure 0.0025ftl.

It should also be noted that the greyscale calibrates much more easily than the milliskin. The latter is actually not designed for projection, but sure, given its price, very nice.

Sharpness and other things are very difficult to compare on a small piece of cloth. Further impressions will follow according to the whole canvas.


Soundmax 4k left part of the face, milliskin right

Impressions full canvas
Hanging the cloth tight is quite a task as the canvas is quite heavy and rigid. Have just asked the question if it can be ironed slightly. When projected everything seems super-thight, but when the spotlights go above the screen, you see some wrinkles.
Light output has remained unchanged

Overall very neat image, the extra brightness is really noticeable. Even HDR films are already presentable in cinema mode (color filter on the TW9300 that takes light away, but creates a broader range of colors).

The canvas is still slightly translucent, so that the framework of the frame can be seen in very exceptional cases. Make sure the wall behind the screen is dark.

Soundmax 5

This canvas has a specified gain of 1.2 and has miniscule perforated openings (0.5mm) in the fabric to let the sound through. In contrast to the soundmax 4K, the manufacturer indicates that this fabric is not suitable for projection higher than 4K.

Measurements:

22.5ftl
Gain value approximately 1.15

Review

In terms of gain value negligible with the soundmax 4k. However, the holes are much larger than the woven structure of the 4k. Also make sure that you use the right side with this cloth, the wrong side shines quite a bit. The soundmax 5 is a lot more expensive than the 4k and personally I think the 4k even better.


Black crystal / black crystal HG / black crystal acoustically transparent

The ALR (ambient light rejection) screens from XYscreen. Although I project in a darkened dedicated space and therefore do not benefit from such a screen, it seemed interesting to me to request these frabrics as a sample. The given gain is 0.8 / 2.0 and 0.75 respectively.

Review
I had to get acquainted with the canvases to write something sensible about it. I had started putting up the canvas just like the others and measuring it, but it did not work that well. The results are very much dependent on the angle in which you set up the meter. Putting the meter at right angles to the screen is not so easy because you are in the shade of the meter, or you really have to measure in the corners of your screen. And do you measure such a cloth with or without ambient light? Not easy.

With the other canvases the emphasis was mainly on the gain, or how much light the screen radiates on a test pattern of 100% white. This I also wanted to check with the black crystal, but turned out to be very disappointing. After much thought, this seemed to me to be a wrong approach.
When you project with ambient light, you notice that the colors and the black regions are immediately laundered. The brightest regions generally remain reasonably good. To judge these ALR substances, it seems to me fairer to see how well the darker regions are displayed with ambient light instead of. to focus on the clear regions.

Generally speaking, I can say that the ALR canvases do what they serve: to counteract ambient light. You clearly notice that the contrast stays upright in ambient light, when it collapses like a pudding at the soundmax4k. There is very little difference in projection with or without ambient light. Quite handy if you have a space where you sometimes suffer from ambient light, but sometimes also completely obscured.
Important detail: the cloths will only block the ambient light that is incident at an angle on the screen. In my case there are 9 spots in a cove built around the screen. This can filter out the canvases well. However, if you are in a room where the sun is shining in the same direction as the projector ... Now, no cloth will be able to withstand this.

If you look at the gain value of the cloths (at sight, reasons above), the standard black crystal is clearly a bit darker than the soundmax4k. The absolute black is clearly a lot lower, but the absolute white is that too. In comparison with the soundmax4k, white clouds are rather gray. If there is no comparison, you obviously have less problems with this (just as with black values). If you do not project too large and have a light output "too much", this cloth can be a nice addition to get deeper black.

The acoustically transparent black crystal is identical to the "normal" black crystal, but is perforated and therefore the gain is still a tad lower.

With the high gain black crystal it becomes really interesting. In a darkened room the image is very close to the soundmax4k. Since the latter has a gain of about 1.1, it is a mystery to me how to get 2.0 for the HG black crystal, but ... we focused on the image and not on the numbers.
When the ambient light comes on, the canvas retains its beautiful image, with the only side effect a very slight appearance in higher regions. From the above canvases I would choose the high gain version for a situation with ambient light. However, unlike the acoustic substances, I can not compare with other brands.


Black crystal left, HG version right. (darkened environment)
HG black crystal very similar to soundmax4


Idem, with ambient light


Darkened room


With ambient light.
Look especially at the color of the sky. That washes away on the soundmax4k cloth, stays neatly on the (HG) black crystal



Black crystal: deeper black, less bright white

Last edited by nielvm; 09-30-2018 at 12:07 AM.
nielvm is offline  
post #3 of 147 Old 09-29-2018, 11:13 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Will correct some grammar and picture links soon...

Excuse me for my non-native English
nielvm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 147 Old 09-29-2018, 11:33 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
In a previous test, I calculated the gain of other accoustically transparant screens:

Seymour AV centerstage XD 0,97 gain
Elitescreen UHD 0,92 gain
Milliskin 17,1 0,79 gain
Seymour centerstage 0,79 gain
Dreamscreen 0,73 gain
Elitescreen 1080p3 0,69 gain
nielvm is offline  
post #5 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 12:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Lygren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 437
Nice, but when testing for light reflection values you would need to use a light blocking black backing on each sample as you would otherwise measure the combined reflection of the fabric in the back and front you wish to find the value off of. You might have done so, but from your pictures it seems as if you perhaps are not?
Wookii likes this.

Proudly Representing DreamScreen.no // ScreenAcoustics.com // AT screens & more!
Founder AVforum.no // Norway´s leading AV community since 2002
Lygren is offline  
post #6 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 01:03 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lygren View Post
Nice, but when testing for light reflection values you would need to use a light blocking black backing on each sample as you would otherwise measure the combined reflection of the fabric in the back and front you wish to find the value off of. You might have done so, but from your pictures it seems as if you perhaps are not?
I first tested the soundmax 4k with a black backing compared to directly on the existing milliskin. Since there was no significant difference, I tested all the other fabrics directly on the milliskin.

Also, after I had attached the whole soundmax 4k screen on my frame, the ftl readings remained the same.

In therms of absolute gain values, you're right that the values might be a bit off, but the comparison between the fabrics should be correct. Also, because I have no idea what gain 1.0 would be, I assumed that kingpin had a gain of 1.0. All the other gains are calculated on this assumption.

Last edited by nielvm; 09-30-2018 at 01:13 AM.
nielvm is offline  
post #7 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 01:42 AM
Senior Member
 
Lygren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
I first tested the soundmax 4k with a black backing compared to directly on the existing milliskin. Since there was no significant difference, I tested all the other fabrics directly on the milliskin.

Also, after I had attached the whole soundmax 4k screen on my frame, the ftl readings remained the same.

In therms of absolute gain values, you're right that the values might be a bit off, but the comparison between the fabrics should be correct. Also, because I have no idea what gain 1.0 would be, I assumed that kingpin had a gain of 1.0. All the other gains are calculated on this assumption.
OK, there is certainly a potential significant impact depending on the perforation level of the fabric tested not adding a black backing I´m afraid... Perhaps the initial "soundmax" fabric is quite solid? Anyhows, I would recommend that you add a backing if you do want to use the figures as a basis of deciding on a fabric.

Proudly Representing DreamScreen.no // ScreenAcoustics.com // AT screens & more!
Founder AVforum.no // Norway´s leading AV community since 2002
Lygren is offline  
post #8 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 01:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Lygren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lygren View Post
OK, there is certainly a potential significant impact depending on the perforation level of the fabric tested not adding a black backing I´m afraid... Perhaps the initial "soundmax" fabric is quite solid? Anyhows, I would recommend that you add a backing if you do want to use the figures as a basis of deciding on a fabric.
As for the Kingpin fabric, if it does use one of those semi-shiny PVC fabrics those Chinese manufacturers often tend to favour, the gain might be a bit higher than 1.0. You should try to get ahold of a Stewart Studiotek 100 sample as a reference if possible, one of the very few PVC based fabrics out there actually depicting gain just about 100% accurate...

Proudly Representing DreamScreen.no // ScreenAcoustics.com // AT screens & more!
Founder AVforum.no // Norway´s leading AV community since 2002
Lygren is offline  
post #9 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 03:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borneo Island
Posts: 3,039
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1308 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Any moire?
Skylinestar is offline  
post #10 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 04:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DavidK442's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 1,661
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 725
Have you compared the SoundMax4K to your sample of XD? Less texture/more texture/about the same?

The picture of SoundMax4K on the manufacturer's website looks similar to a sunshade material that has been used for many years as an acoustically transparent screen.
It is a product from Phifer called Sheerweave 4500 and is available here in North America from a DIY screen supplier named Carl's Place.
https://www.carlofet.com/projector-s...-material.html

Would be interesting to know the degree of sound blockage with these fabrics. You don't happen to have a $150 UMIK-1 calibrated mic do you?

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at these samples. Always interesting to see what is available for DIY screen materials.

There was a great projection screen comparison report that came out a couple years ago. Covers many of the regular manufacturers, but not the newer companies of course.
https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content...een_report.pdf

By the way, your English is much better than on the XYSCREEN website.
DavidK442 is offline  
post #11 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 04:58 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
No moire, no...

Can’t compare to the fabric you are referring to, don’t know that one.

We have tested all the samples for their accoustically transparant behavior with an umic microphone There really wasn’t that big a difference...
nielvm is offline  
post #12 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 06:50 AM
Senior Member
 
MJ DOOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: COOK COUNTY, IL
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Great thread, I actually got a sample of the .8 gain Black Crystal coming tomorrow. Did you notice any hot spotting with the HG BC?

I unfold the scroll, plant seeds to stampede the globe
When I'm deceased, by then the beast arise like yeast
to conquer peace leaving savages to roam in the streets.
MJ DOOM is online now  
post #13 of 147 Old 09-30-2018, 07:13 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Hot spotting is difficult to see with a small piece of fabric.

Personally I would prefer the HG over the regular Black crystal. Very nice fabric, only a minor bit of sparkle in the brightest regions. The regular Black crystal was too dark imo...
nielvm is offline  
post #14 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 06:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Great review, many, many thanks. Couldn't have arrived at a better time as I was about this weekend to request some samples myself - apparently it has to be the Dark Crystal HG judging by its gain of 2.0 and the very graphic images you posted.


Thus far I've read conflicting stories whether such an ALR fabric could qualify as a substitute for the legendary Da-Lite High Power 2.8.
I'm currently not aware of an HP 2.8 owner who conducted such a comparison, so I decided to volunteer myself.


Unless I missed that, I didn't read how you positioned your Epson front projector. Did you take images at projector lens level or further up or down (HP 2.8 was retro-reflective, yielding optimal results if projector lens and eyes are more or less on the same level!)


I've heard stories that the Dark Crystal is also somewhat retro-reflective so positioning the front projector optimally could perhaps yield, further, better results.


I'd guess that the Dark Crystal fabrics are winners for rooms filled with ambient lights, but performance in a ambient light controlled room or even "batcave" next to a High Power 2.8 or an adequate substitute of similar making should be very interesting, IMHO.


IIRC the fabric is currently and exclusively only available for fixed frame solutions which isn't great news for users of electric or manual screens. Need to ask the manufacturer whether they got an enforced basic layer solution in the pipeline to meet the requirements for electric and manual screen applications.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is online now  
post #15 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 06:56 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Hi,


Thank you, happy to read that the review is appreciated.

My Epson is almost centered to the screen (left-right as well as up-down).
The black crystal fabrics as shown in the pictures are hence a bit to the right and slightly upwards to the lens.

I don’t quite understand what you mean with retro-reflective? I assume light that travels through the fabric and reflects the wall behind?
The black crystal fabrics are completely black at the back side. No light shines through…

The HG black crystal really interested me. Even though the supposed gain of 2.0 is highly exaggerated i.m.o., the fabric really deepens the blacks without significantly pulling down the absolute whites.
The “regular” black crystal also deepens the blacks even further, but the whites suffer too much for this. I could live with the HG black crystal in my 100% light controlled room. The only downside is noticed was a bit of “sparkle” in the highest regions.

It really surprises me to see that other fabrics with a negative gain like the dreamscreen v6.0 also pull down the absolute whites (completely normal, gain <1.0), but in return they don’t offer deeper blacks. In short: your contrast ratio is reduced. Of all the fabrics I have collected, this one is by far the most expensive one. To be honest, I think it’s the worst – sorry.
nielvm is offline  
post #16 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 09:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
I don’t quite understand what you mean with retro-reflective? I assume light that travels through the fabric and reflects the wall behind?

No, retro-reflective means that the screen throws the projector light in the same angle back it came in which enables the viewer in the central spot to get the brightest picture output from the front projector: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...l#post56790258


From what I've read these ALR screens are supposedly mostly retro-reflective by nature. Traditional retro-reflective screens used glass beads with an average gain of 2.4. The High Power 2.8 used smaller glass-beads that were protected by a protective surface layer and had none of the side effects often encountered with these traditional 2.4 screens.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is online now  
post #17 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 09:35 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Ow okay...

Be carefull with those really high-gain fabrics. Was usefull in the days that projectors didn't have that much output, but I wouldn't use them with the recent projectors, certainly not in SDR...
nielvm is offline  
post #18 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 09:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Lygren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
Hi,


Thank you, happy to read that the review is appreciated.

My Epson is almost centered to the screen (left-right as well as up-down).
The black crystal fabrics as shown in the pictures are hence a bit to the right and slightly upwards to the lens.

I don’t quite understand what you mean with retro-reflective? I assume light that travels through the fabric and reflects the wall behind?
The black crystal fabrics are completely black at the back side. No light shines through…

The HG black crystal really interested me. Even though the supposed gain of 2.0 is highly exaggerated i.m.o., the fabric really deepens the blacks without significantly pulling down the absolute whites.
The “regular” black crystal also deepens the blacks even further, but the whites suffer too much for this. I could live with the HG black crystal in my 100% light controlled room. The only downside is noticed was a bit of “sparkle” in the highest regions.

It really surprises me to see that other fabrics with a negative gain like the dreamscreen v6.0 also pull down the absolute whites (completely normal, gain <1.0), but in return they don’t offer deeper blacks. In short: your contrast ratio is reduced. Of all the fabrics I have collected, this one is by far the most expensive one. To be honest, I think it’s the worst – sorry.
I guess there is no screen to rule them all... Comparing the UltraWeave V6 to an ALR and/or hi-gain PVC based screen would certainly have it looking somewhat "bleak" in direct comparison if you place them side-by-side. The UltraWeave is a "neutral" gain (balancing in the AT coefficient using a unique approach we have also patented), non-speckled, very high sharpness, highly AT fabric, which is suited for rooms and setups where light reflection is taken well care of and there is a sufficient amount of light available from the projector.

Compared to other woven or knitted AT fabrics, the gain of the V6 is quite good though, so that measurement you have provided at 0.73 is lower than I have ever heard people measuring out to (and below our own official measurements, using Stewart Studiotek 100 as the benchmark), not sure why, but that black backing included with the V6 and not with the others might be it...

ALR certainly has its mission as well, same does high gain screens, but this is not without a cost in other departments. To Each His own!

One input I do have to give you; when you state that there is "no significant difference" on various AT characteristics and this including perforated vinyl I would have to admit I am somewhat surprised. How did you measure this out? A micro perforated vinyl screen has a drop of about 5-15dB, depending of the type of vinyl, which is certainly significant in my book at least...

Proudly Representing DreamScreen.no // ScreenAcoustics.com // AT screens & more!
Founder AVforum.no // Norway´s leading AV community since 2002

Last edited by Lygren; 10-01-2018 at 10:24 AM.
Lygren is offline  
post #19 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 10:32 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
I wasn't comparing the V6 to the ALR fabrics. I meant that with the ALR fabrics you get something for the lower gain, which is a lot deeper blacks. The overall contrast shifts sort of speak.
With the V6 the lower gain didn't result in deeper blacks, thus resulting in a lower contrast ratio.

As said, all the measurements I made were compared to kingping as 1.0. If kingpin is slightly higher than 1.0 (as you stated), the ultraweave will be closer to .8 (and all the other given gains will be slightly higher)

The accoustic measurements were made with a friend. Mic at listening position, output at 75db, someone stretching the sample fabric as close to the loudspeaker as possible. I don't have the measurements at hand atm, but we both found the differences to be futile.

Last edited by nielvm; 10-01-2018 at 11:59 AM.
nielvm is offline  
post #20 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 12:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Lygren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
I wasn't comparing the ALR to the V6 to the ALR fabrics. I meant that with the ALR fabrics you get something for the lower gain, which is a lot deeper blacks. The overall contrast shifts sort of speak.
With the V6 the lower gain didn't result in deeper blacks, thus resulting in a lower contrast ratio.

As said, all the measurements I made were compared to kingping as 1.0. If kingpin is slightly higher than 1.0 (as you stated), the ultraweave will be closer to .8 (and all the other given gains will be slightly higher)

The accoustic measurements were made with a friend. Mic at listening position, output at 75db, someone stretching the sample fabric as close to the loudspeaker as possible. I don't have the measurements at hand atm, but we both found the differences to be futile.
As for the screen "producing blacks"; the gamma should remain exactly as produced by the projector. Perhaps your comparison of the ALR screens with some ambient light / (re)reflection in the room made you come to the conclusion, but regardless, a screen is not supposed to alternate the gamma of which the projector produces.

As for measuring AT, it´s really really hard... What we do is that we place each fabric piece into a properly insulated box, whereas the fabric sample is blocking the entire passage from where the audio sweep is produced to where the blockage is measured and we also need to use a fixed position for the microphone as even some mm deviation will alternative the measurements completely. Also, you should do sweeps with different dB´s and see how they react - for example a 60dB, 70dB, 80dB and 90dB sweep. Also, it might be a good idea to bear in mind a -3dB is actually twice the acoustical energy being blocked off...

Proudly Representing DreamScreen.no // ScreenAcoustics.com // AT screens & more!
Founder AVforum.no // Norway´s leading AV community since 2002
Lygren is offline  
post #21 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 12:24 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Completely agree that the accoustic measurement was a bit rudimentary.
Only my center is behind the screen and I didn't notice much difference in sound reproduction. Re-measured it all with audyssey and here again, I don't see that the center has to be cranked up all of a sudden. For my taste the AT isn't a problem at all, no doubt there are other people with higher demands out there :-)

Since the ALR fabrics are dark grey on their own, they can pull down the deepest blacks, that has nothing to do with the room in my opinion. On the last picture you can see that the black sky/space is a lot darker on the ALR, but the white is also a bit less bright. That's what I mean with this fabric. The contrast of your image "shifts" a bit. I don't think gamma is the right word for this. Gamma is the "pace" at which the image lightens up between 0% and 100% white, but it doesn't tell you anything about your 0% and 100% white.

When I compared the soundmax4 with the other fabrics, I measured 100% white to calculate the gain, but I also looked what 0% white (black) was doing. I was disappointed to see that the lower gain fabrics didn't produce deeper blacks (of notice) - with the exception of the grey ALR fabrics.
nielvm is offline  
post #22 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 12:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Lygren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
Completely agree that the accoustic measurement was a bit rudimentary.
Only my center is behind the screen and I didn't notice much difference in sound reproduction. Re-measured it all with audyssey and here again, I don't see that the center has to be cranked up all of a sudden. For my taste the AT isn't a problem at all, no doubt there are other people with higher demands out there :-)

Since the ALR fabrics are dark grey on their own, they can pull down the deepest blacks, that has nothing to do with the room in my opinion. On the last picture you can see that the black sky/space is a lot darker on the ALR, but the white is also a bit less bright. That's what I mean with this fabric. The contrast of your image "shifts" a bit. I don't think gamma is the right word for this. Gamma is the "pace" at which the image lightens up between 0% and 100% white, but it doesn't tell you anything about your 0% and 100% white.

When I compared the soundmax4 with the other fabrics, I measured 100% white to calculate the gain, but I also looked what 0% white (black) was doing. I was disappointed to see that the lower gain fabrics didn't produce deeper blacks (of notice) - with the exception of the grey ALR fabrics.
As for the lower end measurement issue, my guess would be perhaps your meter not being sufficiently accurate at the lower end? What meter are you using?

Proudly Representing DreamScreen.no // ScreenAcoustics.com // AT screens & more!
Founder AVforum.no // Norway´s leading AV community since 2002
Lygren is offline  
post #23 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 03:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
Ow okay...

Be carefull with those really high-gain fabrics. Was usefull in the days that projectors didn't have that much output, but I wouldn't use them with the recent projectors, certainly not in SDR...

Quite the contrary, especially if you are looking for more HDR peak brghtness. My screen reference is Da-Lite's High Power 2.8 and what I see on my screen (experience would more be like it) are images that rival large flat screens. The projected image is devoid of any hot spots or surface features, especially with my 3D it looks like an untainted window into another world and colors are truly vibrant and lifelike without looking exaggerated or fake.


Should you have the opportunity to travel to Berlin (and to bring some ALR screen samples along) you are cordially invited.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is online now  
post #24 of 147 Old 10-01-2018, 09:19 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Umik microphone was used...

@Frank714 : thanks for the invite, but I'm not planning anything like that soon.
For HDR I can understand the use of a higher gain screen. Is the da-lite really 2.8, has that been measured?
nielvm is offline  
post #25 of 147 Old 10-03-2018, 05:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
Don Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Stewart Filmscreen Corporation. USA
Posts: 617
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Hi Nielum,


I do not think it is fair to the commercial screen companies, (meaning only the companies of the samples you tested) and then publish the test results when your testing method is flawed. Thousands of people read these forums and many of them take the postings here as literal fact. That said, you mentioned you used a commercial screen that has a "manufactures stated gain" of 1.0 as your baseline to measure gains of other samples. So your test results are only as good as the accuracy of the so called 1.0 gain that you are using for calibration of your light measuring device. Getting accurate screen gains does require the proper lab equipment. You need a certified reflectance standard with a true gain value of 1.0 to calibrate your measuring equipment. (See attached photo) Secondary, your light source, the projector in your case, needs to be plugged into a a voltage regulator that maintains a constant voltage to the lamp. The voltage we receive from the electric power grid fluctuates up and down. Therefore, with no voltage regulator, lamp brightness output can vary quite a bit from one moment to another and can definitely flaw your test results. Anyway, I believe your intentions are all good, but I take measuring light and screens quite seriously so I am just posting an opinion here.


Best Regards,
Don
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Lab sample..jpg
Views:	138
Size:	477.2 KB
ID:	2463552  

Manufactures of Precision Professional Projection Screens.
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Company.
UL GREENGUARD Certified For Environmentally Friendly Products.
http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/

Last edited by Don Stewart; 10-03-2018 at 05:30 PM.
Don Stewart is offline  
post #26 of 147 Old 10-03-2018, 11:08 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Hi,

Thank you for your imput.

You are absolutely right that the absolute gain values could be a bit off, I think I already acknowledged this in the review and in the answers. The meaning of this review isn't to determine the exact gain value, but rather to compare the diferent fabrics to one another. The difference between the fabrics in light reflection I posted seem to me to be quite accurate. I think the comparison or ranking of the tested fabrics are more important than the exact gain value.
Don Stewart likes this.
nielvm is offline  
post #27 of 147 Old 10-04-2018, 06:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,861
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3552 Post(s)
Liked: 2734
Like user reviews, amateur comparison testing is welcome because it contributes to the wider body of data that helps consumers form opinions and make purchase decisions. It's important to consider each piece of data in its proper perspective. For example, educated consumers tend to take individual reports with a grain of salt with the understanding that amateurs typically lack the training and resources to conduct proper scientific testing.
Craig Peer likes this.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #28 of 147 Old 10-04-2018, 08:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borneo Island
Posts: 3,039
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1308 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Good to see that China screens are not left behind, yet with ultra low price.
Skylinestar is offline  
post #29 of 147 Old 10-08-2018, 03:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,363
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
thanks for the invite, but I'm not planning anything like that soon.
That's alright, my invitation has no time limit, so whenever you have the chance, feel free to send me a PM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
For HDR I can understand the use of a higher gain screen. Is the da-lite really 2.8, has that been measured?
In the particular case of the discontinued Da-Lite High Power 2.8 I have to rely on their catalogue information and the actual performance (attached).

What you get is a projected image with the clarity and brightness of a large flat screen (and without any annoying surface reflections that usually came with most flat screens ). Annoyed with the dark images of 3D front projetion (beause of the shutter glasses) I re-activated my old Da-Lite Slimline Electrol screen with the High Power 2.8 and was quite excited as the 3D images (viewed through the shutter glasses) now had the same brightness as the 2D front projected images on my gain 1.0 screen.


However, I catch myself more often than before to also watch 2D program content on my small HP 2.8 screen but wouldn't mind a larger screen image area.


The only setback is that the front projector has to be table mounted (the projection lens has to be close to eye level), but with low fan noise front projectors nowadays that's a lesser problem, IMHO, than in previous decades.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Da-Lite product catalogue page 3   (1993) with HP 2.8 screen structure graphic.jpg
Views:	95
Size:	1.27 MB
ID:	2465464   Click image for larger version

Name:	Da-Lite High Power 2.8 sample on  1.0 gain standard screen.jpg
Views:	114
Size:	154.7 KB
ID:	2465466  

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde

Last edited by Frank714; 10-08-2018 at 03:39 AM.
Frank714 is online now  
post #30 of 147 Old 10-08-2018, 06:56 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,423
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by nielvm View Post
Hi,


Thank you, happy to read that the review is appreciated.

My Epson is almost centered to the screen (left-right as well as up-down).
The black crystal fabrics as shown in the pictures are hence a bit to the right and slightly upwards to the lens.

I don’t quite understand what you mean with retro-reflective? I assume light that travels through the fabric and reflects the wall behind?
The black crystal fabrics are completely black at the back side. No light shines through…

The HG black crystal really interested me. Even though the supposed gain of 2.0 is highly exaggerated i.m.o., the fabric really deepens the blacks without significantly pulling down the absolute whites.
The “regular” black crystal also deepens the blacks even further, but the whites suffer too much for this. I could live with the HG black crystal in my 100% light controlled room. The only downside is noticed was a bit of “sparkle” in the highest regions.

It really surprises me to see that other fabrics with a negative gain like the dreamscreen v6.0 also pull down the absolute whites (completely normal, gain <1.0), but in return they don’t offer deeper blacks. In short: your contrast ratio is reduced. Of all the fabrics I have collected, this one is by far the most expensive one. To be honest, I think it’s the worst – sorry.

A screen is a passive device and can not change a projector's on/off contrast ratio.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Screens

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