Projector Mini-Shootout Thread - Page 650 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 4954Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #19471 of 19500 Old 09-25-2019, 10:20 AM
Pip
Advanced Member
 
Pip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

....His story was that the issue was in the "glass beads" used to make the screen. They were of a particular design and only available through a single source. When that source dried up, DaLite tried to obtain the material through other means. They found something they thought would work and resumed production. However, the resulting product could not meet QC specs. They struggled to "fix" it, but could not solve the problems. After a while, they just gave up.......

The market for HP screens was not large enough to solve the production problems....

...People would pay a premium for a HP screen (at least here at AVS).
...Now, low cost imports....are providing excellent quality offerings at a fraction of the "old guard" pricing. Lastly, FP brightness... Lasers, LED, etc. are changing the paradigm and driving consumers to low gain screens.
Sadly, HP Screens have seen their day.
Thank you. Of all the explanations I've heard relayed from Dalite reps, this is the most comprehensive.

I would still push back on a couple of points:

Regarding the glass beads:

I suppose it's a possibility that a single glass bead source dried up, but glass beads continue to be manufactured. And whatever that source was, it was also a factory with machines, not a dwarf at the bottom of the Rhine. (We old folks have glass beaded slide projector screens from the 1950s.)

You refer to the change Dalite made going from the 2.8 to the 2.4 and all the QC problems that entailed. (BTW after Dalite gave up, Elunevsion continued to sell the 2.4 until last year.) It is true that the 2.4 is a QC nightmare, but the big difference between the two screens is not the glass beads, but rather the materials under, and on top of the glass beads. These materials are very different from the 2.8. The glass beads seem to be very similar.

I somewhat resist the idea that Dalite's market for HP screens wasn't sufficient to meet production costs. I don't think Dalite had any idea what they had in the 2.8. While they were selling it, it was their cheapest screen material. It was also their most durable, their most cleanable, their most ambient light rejecting, impervious to wrinkles, incapable of hot spotting, required no tab tensioning... all of this in addition to being the single brightest screen on the market.

In spite of this, until they switched to the 2.4 (with all it's QC problems), Dalite would actually refuse to sell you this screen for home theater. If you wanted to order from them directly, they would happily sell you one of their 1.1 or 1.3 materials, or one of those awful gray screens which no longer exist, but if you wanted the 2.8, you had to order through a third party as if you were getting an off-use drug. Dalite Home Theater division also prohibited their many custom installers and HT shops (back in the old days) from selling the 2.8.

I think the only thing that drove consumers away from the HP 2.8 was Dalite itself, and the HT shops of the time, who didn't want to sell the lowest cost screen material (less than 25% of what Dalite was charging for their "Home Theater" material). That was before forums such as this took off. Very few consumers had access to real information.

The thing that's now driving consumers toward low gain screens is lack of choice. There is no longer a decent retro-reflective screen anymore.

Sadly, I fear your conclusion is absolutely correct.

Thanks,

Pip
Pip is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #19472 of 19500 Old 09-25-2019, 02:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
talon95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,512
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 341 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Some other comments on high gain market demand.

- High gain screens have narrow viewing cones, so they do not work with some people's rooms if the room is fairly wide

- Retro reflective screens require the projector to be close to eye level which is an issue if you want to ceiling mount

- IMO there is an increasing demand now for higher gain screens due to UHD HDR working better with higher fl. This is a big one IMO and the sole reason I'm using my old 106" HP screen. I'd prefer a larger screen, but it works so much better for HDR that I decided to compromise. It also allows me to run in low lamp for HDR and still have very high brightness.

I would pay A LOT more for a new 130" HP screen than what they cost originally because of HDR.
talon95 is offline  
post #19473 of 19500 Old 09-25-2019, 04:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,520
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1063 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Hopefully, some screen maker is following this thread, or numerous others at AVS...
HP screens are a treasured comodity. We still use our 16x9 110" HP 2.8 almost every day. It has numerous smudges and squashed bugs. However, I just can't get myself to attempt a cleaning. I've read so many horror stories...
Fortunately, the minor imperfections are invisible when the screen is in use.

We waited litterally years to buy another HP 2.35:1 scope screen. I was working with a rep at The Final Click.com
He had a source inside Dalite who kept saying they were going to resume production. Sadly, that never happened. We finally gave up and went with an Elite scope screen (1.1 gain). Our Sharp Z30K is in low earth orbit, way over our heads. Yet, even so, the HP 2.8 is significantly brighter than the Elite CineWhite 1.1. Go figure.
I too would pay more for a new HP 2.8.
Sadly, it does not seem in the cards...
humbland is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #19474 of 19500 Old 09-25-2019, 06:58 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,517
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12543 Post(s)
Liked: 10160
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
To add to this, from my understanding the beads used for the 2.8 gain HP screen were used in another industry. Something happened to that other industry. DaLite was not a large enough buyer of these beads to justify manufacturing them. If only produced for DaLite, the cost would have greatly increased. It would be like having an automobile plant set up to only build three cars a year every year. DaLite tried to source other beads, but none of the other beads gave results that DaLite found acceptable.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #19475 of 19500 Old 09-25-2019, 09:35 PM
Pip
Advanced Member
 
Pip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
To add to this, from my understanding the beads used for the 2.8 gain HP screen were used in another industry. Something happened to that other industry. DaLite was not a large enough buyer of these beads to justify manufacturing them. If only produced for DaLite, the cost would have greatly increased. ... DaLite tried to source other beads, but none of the other beads gave results that DaLite found acceptable.
That is very interesting, and quite possible. However, once again, the big difference between the 2.4 (manufactured until last year) and the 2.8 was not the beads, but the substrate and superstrate. I own both. When comparing them side by side, the difference of the beads is invisible. The rest of the screen however....

Pip
Pip is offline  
post #19476 of 19500 Old 09-25-2019, 10:25 PM
Pip
Advanced Member
 
Pip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by talon95 View Post
- IMO there is an increasing demand now for higher gain screens due to UHD HDR working better with higher fl. This is a big one IMO and the sole reason I'm using my old 106" HP screen. I'd prefer a larger screen, but it works so much better for HDR that I decided to compromise. It also allows me to run in low lamp for HDR and still have very high brightness.

I would pay A LOT more for a new 130" HP screen than what they cost originally because of HDR.
Here, here. I think many of us are sticking with our HPs for similar reasons.

Your caveats, while true, can often be much ado about not much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by talon95 View Post
...

- High gain screens have narrow viewing cones, so they do not work with some people's rooms if the room is fairly wide
All things are relative. Narrow viewing cone only applies to gain, and narrow is in comparison to the gain of 2.8, not to a gain of 1 or 1.3. My room is 15x13 with a screen width of 9ft. I have directly compared the 2.8 and 2.4 to a 1.1 from my side walls at a distance of only 7ft from the screen. Even at those angles the HP is brighter than the 1.1 screen. One has to get very far off to the side before an HP 2.8 drops to a gain of 1. Any seat within, or even close to the sides of the screen will still have a brighter image from a High Power than a normal screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by talon95 View Post
- Retro reflective screens require the projector to be close to eye level which is an issue if you want to ceiling mount
Again this is a relative requirement. As I detailed: My projector is (ceiling) mounted at a height of 7 feet..... I have compared directly to a 1.1 screen. Even in this set up, from a position seated low on the couch, the high-power is much brighter than the 1.1 screen.

Unless your seating is far off to the sides, or your projector is many feet above your head, you will still wind up with a brighter image than any unity gain angular reflective screen.

You are correct that to get the most benefit from a High Power, one should keep viewing cone as small as possible, but even if your setup gets you only 10% of the benefit, you still are left a brighter image compared to a standard screen.

As you said so well: I think we would all "pay A LOT more" for a new one.

Pip
Pip is offline  
post #19477 of 19500 Old 09-26-2019, 12:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Bytehoven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,539
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1379 Post(s)
Liked: 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
To add to this, from my understanding the beads used for the 2.8 gain HP screen were used in another industry. Something happened to that other industry. DaLite was not a large enough buyer of these beads to justify manufacturing them. If only produced for DaLite, the cost would have greatly increased. It would be like having an automobile plant set up to only build three cars a year every year. DaLite tried to source other beads, but none of the other beads gave results that DaLite found acceptable.
Hmmmm... what industry I wonder?

Have you ever seen fracking sand? Very uniform size glass looking beads, which naturally kinda look like titanium powder. Maybe they could be a substitute, or coated to increase gain.

JVC DLA-X990 (RS640) - 128" 2.35 1.3 Gain Screen - Panasonic UB820 - ROKU Ultra - PS4 - XBone
7.1.4 Atmos - Denon X4300H + Denon 3806(LCR) - JBL Control 5 - BIC Sub - Dayton
Bytehoven is offline  
post #19478 of 19500 Old 09-26-2019, 06:22 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,517
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12543 Post(s)
Liked: 10160
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bytehoven View Post
Hmmmm... what industry I wonder?

Have you ever seen fracking sand? Very uniform size glass looking beads, which naturally kinda look like titanium powder. Maybe they could be a substitute, or coated to increase gain.
Do not know. Just relaying what I was told.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #19479 of 19500 Old 09-26-2019, 06:32 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,517
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12543 Post(s)
Liked: 10160
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pip View Post
Here, here. I think many of us are sticking with our HPs for similar reasons.

Your caveats, while true, can often be much ado about not much.



All things are relative. Narrow viewing cone only applies to gain, and narrow is in comparison to the gain of 2.8, not to a gain of 1 or 1.3. My room is 15x13 with a screen width of 9ft. I have directly compared the 2.8 and 2.4 to a 1.1 from my side walls at a distance of only 7ft from the screen. Even at those angles the HP is brighter than the 1.1 screen. One has to get very far off to the side before an HP 2.8 drops to a gain of 1. Any seat within, or even close to the sides of the screen will still have a brighter image from a High Power than a normal screen.



Again this is a relative requirement. As I detailed: My projector is (ceiling) mounted at a height of 7 feet..... I have compared directly to a 1.1 screen. Even in this set up, from a position seated low on the couch, the high-power is much brighter than the 1.1 screen.

Unless your seating is far off to the sides, or your projector is many feet above your head, you will still wind up with a brighter image than any unity gain angular reflective screen.

You are correct that to get the most benefit from a High Power, one should keep viewing cone as small as possible, but even if your setup gets you only 10% of the benefit, you still are left a brighter image compared to a standard screen.

As you said so well: I think we would all "pay A LOT more" for a new one.

Pip
I used a 2.8 gain HP screen for many years. I still have it, even though I do not use it. But your math is not correct. At 20 degrees off center, the gain drops from 2.8 to 1.0. So when you hold up a white 1.0 test card at 20 degrees off center, the screen and the card looks the same. At 30 degrees off center, the 1.0 test card still looks white, but the screen looks gray. At 20 degrees off center you are not even to the edge of the screen. When set up correctly the HP screen throws a nice bright image especially for the middle seat. But mounting the projector above the top of the image, drops the gain you get drastically. There is a thread on AVSF showing gain drop, based on mounting location. I will see if I can find it, but I have attached an article on the HP.
https://www.projectorcentral.com/da-...een_review.htm

The half angle for 2.8 gain HP is 15 degrees, if I recall. If you want to see what actual gain you are getting, use the calculator in this thread. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...alculator.html
The calculator measures the gain at mid height of the screen for left edge, center and right edge. If I moved my projector lens to top of my screen (106" diagonal 16:9) back when I used the 2.8 gain HP, my mid screen far left and far right gain would have been 1.30. Mid center gain would have been 1.31. To get the most out of an HP screen, the projector lens needs to be much closer to head height.

Back when I used my HP screen, the lens center of the projector was only 4" above center of the screen and lens center was only 10" above my head, so I was getting most of the gain from the HP that you can get and I was getting:

Mid screen left edge 1.75
Mid screen center 1.83
Mid screen right edge 1.75

Specs on the old 2.8 gain HP screen
SCREEN NAME: DA-LITE HIGH POWER (OLD)

SCREEN TYPE: RETRO REFLECTIVE

ON-AXIS GAIN: 2.8

MAX VIEWING ANGLE (ONE SIDE): 15 DEGREES (AT ONE-HALF THE ON-AXIS GAIN)*

GAIN AT MAX VIEWING ANGLE: 1.4

MIN OFF AXIS GAIN: 0.75

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: DA-LITE HP SCREEN GAIN GRAPH (Received Oct. 2007)

* Da-Lite’s website states the maximum viewing angle is 30 degrees, but the Da-Lite High Power Screen Gain Graph shows the half-gain point to be at 15 degrees to one side of the screen perpendicular. Their website appears to be using Definition Two for viewing angle--at least for this screen.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 09-26-2019 at 07:19 AM.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #19480 of 19500 Old 09-26-2019, 07:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,772
Mentioned: 534 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2638 Post(s)
Liked: 3574
Wasn't the viewing angle improved with the later 2.4 HP version?
madshi is offline  
post #19481 of 19500 Old 09-26-2019, 07:20 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,517
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12543 Post(s)
Liked: 10160
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Wasn't the viewing angle improved with the later 2.4 HP version?
Yes

Here are the parameters for the new 2.4 gain HP screen.

SCREEN NAME: DA-LITE HIGH POWER (NEW)

SCREEN TYPE: RETRO REFLECTIVE

ON-AXIS GAIN: 2.4

MAX VIEWING ANGLE (ONE SIDE): 30 DEGREES (AT ONE-HALF THE ON-AXIS GAIN)*

GAIN AT MAX VIEWING ANGLE: 1.2

MIN OFF AXIS GAIN: 0.9
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #19482 of 19500 Old 09-26-2019, 09:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 4,919
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 2940
My room isn't wide enough to notice a gain drop on my 2.4 screen, besides I have one seat in the room. One recliner in the darkest room on the forum.lol

Listening with Focal Elex headphones, Topping DSD Dac, SENCUN-audio tube preamp with tone control and Modded Little Dot hybrid tube amp with Voshkod 6ZH1P-EV tubes, Dual Discrete Op-Amp SS3602, and Alps Blue Velvet volume pot.

Watching in a room ensconced in velvet.
cardoski is offline  
post #19483 of 19500 Old 09-26-2019, 07:45 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
It's because the beads have to have a perfect spectral and clarity ratio, and be really small. The bead manufacturers do not rate the beads honestly. All the reasonably priced beads come from factories from overseas (mostly China or Taiwan), except a few MFR's that are making beads for scientific purposes - read incredibly expensive.

So it's virtually impossible to find decent beads, you literally have to try every bead MFR in the world by buying their product, most of them want $25 to $50 min orders (which adds up fast). I went through several hundred dollars of beads trying to pay someone to MFR an HP-like screen for me, the beads were all bad. Even if I had gotten past the bad beads, the issue was how to adhere them to the material (something that is very complicated without a specialized process). It's possible they magnetized them or used some type of pressing or pressure to just cause them to dig into the screen and adhere.

It may be possible to get good beads, but it's very difficult, as I tried and the MFR's always misrated them. i looked at different beads under a high powered microscope compared to the HP 2.4 beads.

So I doubt any of the off-brand screens are any good, but if anyone knows of any off-brand HP like screens that use high quality beads, let's hear it. Most of the cheap Chinese ones are using beads that are way too big and have inconsistent reflective properties.

The HP 2.4 screen did have a texture if you were sitting within 10' of 106", farther than that it gets harder and harder to see.
The texture was only noticeable on clouds, and most people wouldn't notice unless they had another screen to compare it to.
You need a valid frame of reference.

That said, as a frame of reference, the HP 2.4 screen was a VERY good screen, but my dropdown Draper and even BO Cloth screen both have less texture than the HP had. Never had any issues with sparklies, just a pixelated enhancing effect on clouds.

Even given the truth in the above, I'd still take the HP 2.4 or 2.8 over almost any other screen, brightness is KING.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 09-26-2019 at 08:24 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #19484 of 19500 Old 09-27-2019, 06:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RickAVManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked: 454
Hi guys,

I have a question for home theater projector fan. Wondering what is your preferred media player to play rip (iso, mkv, folder) from a NAS.

There is ton of option out there but all seem to have bugs and problems.

I try many myself, Dune,Zappiti,Zidoo, ect. But they all have problems that seem unfixable.

So I create this post to ask member what do you use?

Is there a player that can do the basic well?

Please share :-)
RickAVManiac is offline  
post #19485 of 19500 Old 09-27-2019, 06:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,882
Mentioned: 165 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5378 Post(s)
Liked: 5712
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickAVManiac View Post
Hi guys,

I have a question for home theater projector fan. Wondering what is your preferred media player to play rip (iso, mkv, folder) from a NAS.

There is ton of option out there but all seem to have bugs and problems.

I try many myself, Dune,Zappiti,Zidoo, ect. But they all have problems that seem unfixable.

So I create this post to ask member what do you use?

Is there a player that can do the basic well?

Please share :-)
I've had them all, there is only 1 left standing. unfortunately can't be discussed here pls send your email in PM.
RickAVManiac likes this.
zombie10k is offline  
post #19486 of 19500 Old 09-27-2019, 07:47 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,517
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12543 Post(s)
Liked: 10160
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
I've had them all, there is only 1 left standing. unfortunately can't be discussed here pls send your email in PM.
Really, you get in trouble for mentioning the name?
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #19487 of 19500 Old 09-27-2019, 07:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,882
Mentioned: 165 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5378 Post(s)
Liked: 5712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Really, you get in trouble for mentioning the name?
I don't know what you are talking about, please look into this light...

Spoiler!
Pip and Dreamliner like this.
zombie10k is offline  
post #19488 of 19500 Old 09-28-2019, 01:46 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Reminds me of the time I got in trouble for selling boot-legged Yak Cheese, people are really cracking down.

Still waiting for someone to mention a decent HP screen replacement (been waiting for 8 years).
Used to be able to get some in the used market, but I never found one that fit my specs (either too big or too small for what I needed), or some seller that thought his HP screen was made of diamonds instead of glass...

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 09-28-2019 at 01:49 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #19489 of 19500 Old 09-28-2019, 05:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,520
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1063 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
Reminds me of the time I got in trouble for selling boot-legged Yak Cheese, people are really cracking down.

Still waiting for someone to mention a decent HP screen replacement (been waiting for 8 years).
Used to be able to get some in the used market, but I never found one that fit my specs (either too big or too small for what I needed), or some seller that thought his HP screen was made of diamonds instead of glass...
+1 on coderguy's sentiments. FWIW, after waiting for years, we finally gave up and decided to order a second "scope" screen (Thanks Craig!). I ordered screen samples from most of the major players. As with many things, they were more similar than different. However, after extensive comparisons, the material we chose was coincidentally one of the least expensive (go figure).
The winner: Cinewhite from Elite Screens. It's 1.1 gain, but bright, even, and deploys well. We got a tensioned 125" 2.35:1 Cinetension2 electric drop. We've had it for years and no regrets.
If we ever replace our HP 2.8, it will be with this material.
Craig Peer likes this.
humbland is offline  
post #19490 of 19500 Old 09-29-2019, 03:18 AM
Senior Member
 
jj-34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 289
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post
+1 on coderguy's sentiments. FWIW, after waiting for years, we finally gave up and decided to order a second "scope" screen (Thanks Craig!). I ordered screen samples from most of the major players. As with many things, they were more similar than different. However, after extensive comparisons, the material we chose was coincidentally one of the least expensive (go figure).
The winner: Cinewhite from Elite Screens. It's 1.1 gain, but bright, even, and deploys well. We got a tensioned 125" 2.35:1 Cinetension2 electric drop. We've had it for years and no regrets.
If we ever replace our HP 2.8, it will be with this material.
The more I read about screens and the new for me HDR, the more I believe I am going to replace my 0.85 AT woven screen by a plain one and relocating my front speakers, after all in HT isn't picture quality above sound ?
jj-34 is online now  
post #19491 of 19500 Old 09-29-2019, 01:54 PM
Pip
Advanced Member
 
Pip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
....I went through several hundred dollars of beads trying to pay someone to MFR an HP-like screen for me, the beads were all bad....

It may be possible to get good beads, but it's very difficult, as I tried and the MFR's always misrated them. i looked at different beads under a high powered microscope compared to the HP 2.4 beads.


... I'd still take the HP 2.4 or 2.8 over almost any other screen, brightness is KING.
I guess that means it's time for me to unsubscribe from your DIY thread. I was holding out with the idea that you might still be toiling away in your garage living on Redbull and peanuts.

Thanks,

Pip
Pip is offline  
post #19492 of 19500 Old 09-29-2019, 02:44 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pip View Post
I guess that means it's time for me to unsubscribe from your DIY thread. I was holding out with the idea that you might still be toiling away in your garage living on Redbull and peanuts.

Thanks,

Pip
Unless I get a huge order for my Yak cheese, seems like were out of luck...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
The more I read about screens and the new for me HDR, the more I believe I am going to replace my 0.85 AT woven screen by a plain one and relocating my front speakers, after all in HT isn't picture quality above sound ?
Depends whatever you like. Both are important to the point of diminishing returns. Video is more important IMO, but sound also matters.
You can get pretty good HT sound with just cheap Sony Core speakers and a Denon receiver, but it certainly won't be reference level, however still better than some theaters I've heard.

I think the Dolby certified theaters probably (on average) have the best sound, so compare one of those theaters to an AMC (which often have cheesy sound, but not always), and that is about the same difference you'll achieve if you go "ALL OUT" or just go with a basic setup.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 09-29-2019 at 02:59 PM.
coderguy is offline  
post #19493 of 19500 Old 09-29-2019, 03:11 PM
Senior Member
 
jj-34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 289
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
Depends whatever you like. Both are important to the point of diminishing returns. Video is more important IMO, but sound also matters.
You can get pretty good HT sound with just cheap Sony Core speakers and a Denon receiver, but it certainly won't be reference level, however still better than some theaters I've heard.

I think the Dolby certified theaters probably (on average) have the best sound, so compare one of those theaters to an AMC (which often have cheesy sound, but not always), and that is about the same difference you'll achieve if you go "ALL OUT" or just go with a basic setup.
I did not mean to replace my speakers but to relocate them to the sides and bottom of a plain non AT screen vs as they are to-day behind my low gain AT woven screen, and I do not like perforated screens.
To favor 4K image quality against sound from behind the screen.
Bytehoven likes this.
jj-34 is online now  
post #19494 of 19500 Old 09-29-2019, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,083
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2455 Post(s)
Liked: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
I did not mean to replace my speakers but to relocate them to the sides and bottom of a plain non AT screen vs as they are to-day behind my low gain AT woven screen, and I do not like perforated screens.
To favor 4K image quality against sound from behind the screen.
Right, I was speaking in generalities, but I guess you'll have to test it yourself and see what you prefer.
Some speakers do better on the sides than others, not sure what tonal qualities make a room sound fuller regardless of speaker positioning, but you get my point.

The bigger issue is the upscale 4k disks, they need to be native, but I don't want to get into that 'heated discussion' again.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #19495 of 19500 Old 09-29-2019, 06:54 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,367
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6992 Post(s)
Liked: 8280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
The more I read about screens and the new for me HDR, the more I believe I am going to replace my 0.85 AT woven screen by a plain one and relocating my front speakers, after all in HT isn't picture quality above sound ?
It's always a compromise either way. I went the non AT screen with speakers to the sides. Works fine !
jj-34 likes this.

[email protected] JVC RS4500, Lumagen Radiance Pro, Panamorph Paladin DCR lens, Stewart Luxus Model A ElectriScreens - 128" diagonal 2.35:1 ST130 & 122" diagonal 16:9 Cima Neve, Denon X8500, Parasound A 52+ amp, Martin Logan Motion series 9.4 speakers, four SVS subs, Panasonic UB820, Oppo 203, PFP M1500 UPS
Craig Peer is offline  
post #19496 of 19500 Old 09-29-2019, 08:13 PM
Toe
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 16,740
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked: 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
The more I read about screens and the new for me HDR, the more I believe I am going to replace my 0.85 AT woven screen by a plain one and relocating my front speakers, after all in HT isn't picture quality above sound ?
Both are very important of course, but I've always been a sound first guy over PQ if I had to choose. Depends on who you ask though and some value one more over the other to some degree.
Toe is online now  
post #19497 of 19500 Old 09-30-2019, 07:37 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,517
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12543 Post(s)
Liked: 10160
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post
Both are very important of course, but I've always been a sound first guy over PQ if I had to choose. Depends on who you ask though and some value one more over the other to some degree.
Yep and it is also nice to have everything hidden.
Toe likes this.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #19498 of 19500 Old 09-30-2019, 08:05 AM
Toe
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 16,740
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2723 Post(s)
Liked: 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Yep and it is also nice to have everything hidden.
I do love that with AT setups! As much as I love my HP screen, if AT was a more practical option in my room, I would do it for all the advantages. I'd love to have my front three speakers all at the same height not just for movies, but I do quite a bit of multichannel music listening in my HT as well.

If I ever move and build a new theater, I would do AT.
Toe is online now  
post #19499 of 19500 Old 09-30-2019, 09:19 AM
Senior Member
 
jj-34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 289
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Yep and it is also nice to have everything hidden.
True, and also non AT widens the front stage, it's just that the woven screens have such a small gain in reality ( not the mfg's specs) and my room is not a completely dark one so I need the lumens.
To have a better gain there are the perforated screens but then I do not like the holes plus the fact that the speakers need about a foot more space behind, not such a problem with the LR towers (large) but the center being suspended over the TV set cannot be relocated further back.
My speakers are all of the same JBL Studio L Series, namely 2 x L890 (LR), 1 x LC2 (center), 2 x L820 (Surrounds) and 2 x L810 (Front height) plus 1 x Klipsch R-112SW (sub).
jj-34 is online now  
post #19500 of 19500 Old 09-30-2019, 09:26 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,517
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12543 Post(s)
Liked: 10160
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj-34 View Post
True, and also non AT widens the front stage, it's just that the woven screens have such a small gain in reality ( not the mfg's specs) and my room is not a completely dark one so I need the lumens.
To have a better gain there are the perforated screens but then I do not like the holes plus the fact that the speakers need about a foot more space behind, not such a problem with the LR towers (large) but the center being suspended over the TV set cannot be relocated further back.
My speakers are all of the same JBL Studio L Series, namely 2 x L890 (LR), 1 x LC2 (center), 2 x L820 (Surrounds) and 2 x L810 (Front height) plus 1 x Klipsch R-112SW (sub).
Nothing wrong with your decision, since it is just that, your decision. Even if it is wrong. Just kidding. If we all prefered the same thing, this forum would get pretty boring.
Pip likes this.
Mike Garrett is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Benq W7000 Home Projection System , Jvc Dla Rs55 Bundle , Jvc Dla Rs45 Home Theater Projector 1080p Hdmi , Epson V11h502020 Powerlite Home Cinema 3020e 2d And 3d 1080p Wireless Home Theater Projector , Sony Vpl Hw50es 3d Projector , Epson 5010 Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector , Epson Powerlite Home Cinema 3010 2d And 3d Projector V11h421020 , Panasonic Ptae8000u Hd Projector , Mitsubishi Hc7900dw Home Theater 3d Projector , Mitsubishi Hc8000dbl Dlp 3d Home Theater Projector With Spare Lamp 1300 Ansi 12 6 Lbs , Darbeevision Darblet Hdmi Video Processor , Epson 5020ub Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector

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