Seymour Glacier White vs. Stewart StudioTek 130 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
  • 1 Post By skylarlove1999
  • 1 Post By skylarlove1999
  • 1 Post By ht guy
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 06:10 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
ht guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 457
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Seymour Glacier White vs. Stewart StudioTek 130

JVC NX7/RS2000 + Panamorph DCR inbound.

Trying to decide between these two screens in a 130" width.

Bat cave (basement room with no windows.)

Appreciate any thoughts/comments.
ht guy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 06:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1318 Post(s)
Liked: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by ht guy View Post
JVC NX7/RS2000 + Panamorph DCR inbound.



Trying to decide between these two screens in a 130" width.



Bat cave (basement room with no windows.)



Appreciate any thoughts/comments.
I own the 120 inch version of seymour Glacier white , perfectly smooth, the latest incarnation of that material. I absolutely love it. I have not seen any artifacts, hotspotting or sparkles. I ordered a sample of the Stewart and I will say the screen sample seemed a little brighter. Whites were a little brighter and bright colors seemed to pop a little more. I don't know if that is true in real life since it was only a 12 inch sample. My guess is that it is. The Seymour screen was half the price for about 90% of the performance. Stewart now has the G4 version of the Studiotek 130 material and is supposed to be even better. I have a blacked out velvet bat cave as well.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
WOLVERNOLE likes this.
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #3 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 09:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,649
Mentioned: 156 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3953 Post(s)
Liked: 3124
I would suggest reading the AccuCal AV projection screen material report (link below). While Glacier White 1.3 gain isn't tested, the report shows Glacier White 1.1 scoring below StudioTek 100, which is rated best in class among low gain screen materials. StudioTek 130 is rated best in class among moderate gain screen materials.

accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf
Dave in Green is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 09:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1318 Post(s)
Liked: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I would suggest reading the AccuCal AV projection screen material report (link below). While Glacier White 1.3 gain isn't tested, the report shows Glacier White 1.1 scoring below StudioTek 100, which is rated best in class among low gain screen materials. StudioTek 130 is rated best in class among moderate gain screen materials.



accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf
Agreed the Studiotek 100 is the standard bearer for the industry. The OP may just be trying to gain a little more brightness for HDR content although the DCR lens should give you back about 38% brightness. I don't think you can go wrong with any of these 3 screens. The Elunevision reference 4k screen comes highly recommended as well.

https://hometheaterreview.com/elunev...reen-reviewed/

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #5 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 09:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,649
Mentioned: 156 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3953 Post(s)
Liked: 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylarlove1999 View Post
Agreed the Studiotek 100 is the standard bearer for the industry. The OP may just be trying to gain a little more brightness for HDR content although the DCR lens should give you back about 38% brightness. ...
My point was that just as StudioTek 100 is the industry standard bearer for 1.0 gain screens StudioTek 130 is the industry standard bearer for 1.3 gain screens. If the OP is willing to trade performance for cost savings then the less expensive options become more viable.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #6 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 09:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1318 Post(s)
Liked: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
My point was that just as StudioTek 100 is the industry standard bearer for 1.0 gain screens StudioTek 130 is the industry standard bearer for 1.3 gain screens. If the OP is willing to trade performance for cost savings then the less expensive options become more viable.
Understood. Ultimately most people do not have an unlimited budget so there is always a bit of trading performance for cost. Even when the budget is $100k+ there are still cost considerations, although less compromises at that point.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #7 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 10:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,649
Mentioned: 156 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3953 Post(s)
Liked: 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylarlove1999 View Post
Understood. Ultimately most people do not have an unlimited budget so there is always a bit of trading performance for cost. Even when the budget is $100k+ there are still cost considerations, although less compromises at that point.
Of course, everyone has their own sweet spot on the price/performance curve so all options should be on the table. In this case the OP has already invested ~$15,000 in projector/lens equipment which suggests a willingness to invest in higher end products. Total investment including screen will be in the $20,000 range so saving as much as $2,000 on the screen would represent about a 10% total system cost savings. Will be interesting to hear what the OP makes of all of this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #8 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 10:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1318 Post(s)
Liked: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
Of course, everyone has their own sweet spot on the price/performance curve so all options should be on the table. In this case the OP has already invested ~$15,000 in projector/lens equipment which suggests a willingness to invest in higher end products. Total investment including screen will be in the $20,000 range so saving as much as $2,000 on the screen would represent about a 10% total system cost savings. Will be interesting to hear what the OP makes of all of this.
Agreed. Personally in a blacked out room with the DTM firmware update and the DCR lens I would go with the STUDIOTEK 100. I think the OP will have plenty of lumens even with the filter in place for HDR.

I have seen the ST100 in person and it is amazing. I have not seen the Studiotek 130 in person but people who own them rave about them looking at you @Craig Peer

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Craig Peer likes this.
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #9 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 10:19 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,076
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7476 Post(s)
Liked: 9052
Quote:
Originally Posted by ht guy View Post
JVC NX7/RS2000 + Panamorph DCR inbound.

Trying to decide between these two screens in a 130" width.

Bat cave (basement room with no windows.)

Appreciate any thoughts/comments.
Get samples. Send me a PM or email if you want Stewart samples. Also, throw the Stewart Cima Neve into your short list.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #10 of 15 Old 12-31-2019, 11:58 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
ht guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 457
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Guys,

This is amazing.

Thank you so much.

I had put off upgrading the screen (as unnecessary extra spend) but decided we should try to get the most out of the NX7/DCR.

Sounds like the 100 or 130 would do well, with the 130 giving a bit more umph - and I'll look into the Cima as well as the Glacier White.

I'll def let you know what I decide.
Dave in Green likes this.

Last edited by ht guy; 12-31-2019 at 02:12 PM.
ht guy is offline  
post #11 of 15 Old 01-02-2020, 12:51 PM
Senior Member
 
avsBuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I would suggest reading the AccuCal AV projection screen material report (link below). While Glacier White 1.3 gain isn't tested, the report shows Glacier White 1.1 scoring below StudioTek 100, which is rated best in class among low gain screen materials. StudioTek 130 is rated best in class among moderate gain screen materials.

accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/accucal_front_projection_screen_report.pdf
Are there multiple versions of Glacier White PS material? I'm only aware of the 1.1 gain version.
In my room I had a chance to compare Glacier White to SF Cima material. Glacier White has a slight blue tint to it even after adjusting JVC screen setting. I guess that's where Glacier part of the name comes from. I don't know why Seymour chose to give it that tint, but Cima image looks warmer and more natural to my eyes. Cima material is brighter than Glacier White, especially in 3D and a little smoother.
avsBuddy is offline  
post #12 of 15 Old 01-02-2020, 12:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1318 Post(s)
Liked: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsBuddy View Post
Are there multiple versions of Glacier White PS material? I'm only aware of the 1.1 gain version.

In my room I had a chance to compare Glacier White to SF Cima material. Glacier White has a slight blue tint to it even after adjusting JVC screen setting. I guess that's where Glacier part of the name comes from. I don't know why Seymour chose to give it that tint, but Cima image looks warmer and more natural to my eyes. Cima material is brighter than Glacier White, especially in 3D and a little smoother.
Only one version of Glacier White. Stated gain by Seymour is 1.3. When Jeff compiled his screen report he compared all the similar gain screens to each other and gave his own relative value for gain, hence the adjusted 1.1 gain for Glacier White. I agree that Glacier White does have a slight tint of blue . ST130 and ST100 are the standard for their respective screen categories albeit at a significant price increase over Seymour. I am very pleased with my Seymour Glacier white ps screen.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #13 of 15 Old 01-02-2020, 01:24 PM
Senior Member
 
avsBuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 192 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Ah, you are correct, there is only one Glacier White. Seymour site lists Glacier White as non-AT screen with 1.3 "Benchmarked Gain" and 1.1 "Unbechmarked Gain". It doesn't explain what that means though.
avsBuddy is offline  
post #14 of 15 Old 01-02-2020, 01:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1318 Post(s)
Liked: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsBuddy View Post
Ah, you are correct, there is only one Glacier White. Seymour site lists Glacier White as non-AT screen with 1.3 "Benchmarked Gain" and 1.1 "Unbechmarked Gain". It doesn't explain what that means though.
It mean that they took their own gain measurements against other screen manufacturers and felt that they should use 1.3 gain as the value for their screen. Unbenchmarked means if you look purely at light coming back from the screen in terms of light reflection that is the number. Perhaps they took that number from Jeff's report and in order to explain the difference between what they reported and what Jeff measured, the marketing folks came up with the monikers , benchmarked and unbenchmarked. Other screen manufacturers have historically overstated their gain figures so I can understand why Seymour would feel it necessary to list a 1.3 gain as benchmarked against other screens. The real number is 1.1

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #15 of 15 Old 01-02-2020, 07:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,649
Mentioned: 156 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3953 Post(s)
Liked: 3124
I missed that the 1.1 and 1.3 are supposed to be unbenchmarked and benchmarked rather than two different screen materials. Seymour appears to be claiming that its 1.1 gain screen is equivalent to other claimed 1.3 gain screens. I suppose it depends on what you're benchmarking against. In the AccuCal measurements Glacier White 1.1 measured an actual 1.05 gain while StudioTek 100 1.0 measured an actual 1.02 gain and StudioTek 130 1.3 measured an actual 1.27 gain. So when benchmarked against the industry standard Stewart screens the Seymour benchmarked claim doesn't seem very convincing.
Dave in Green is offline  
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