Future proof $50k projector - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 13Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 104 Old 03-17-2020, 11:05 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ece2k2 View Post
Understood, thanks. 200"w 2.35:1 screen with CH235 masks on the sides would result in a 173.6" diagonal 16:9 image. So the second set of masks need to be custom made I guess - as Seymour AV website lists only a 170" diagonal CW178 top/bottom masks which won't fit my requirement. Please let me know if constant image area screen with 4 way masking panels would be a better bet for me.



Also, please let me know if I need to look at any other brand for screens with masking panels in addition to Seymour AV.
You do realize that Seymour AV does make custom sizes?
Mike Garrett is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 104 Old 03-17-2020, 11:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,239
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1096 Post(s)
Liked: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by ece2k2 View Post
Understood, thanks. 200"w 2.35:1 screen with CH235 masks on the sides would result in a 173.6" diagonal 16:9 image. So the second set of masks need to be custom made I guess - as Seymour AV website lists only a 170" diagonal CW178 top/bottom masks which won't fit my requirement. Please let me know if constant image area screen with 4 way masking panels would be a better bet for me.



Also, please let me know if I need to look at any other brand for screens with masking panels in addition to Seymour AV.
Not sure if this is an option but Severtson makes a 2.2 gain microperf screen. May get you the 200+ in screen that you desire.
blee0120 is online now  
post #33 of 104 Old 05-23-2020, 03:56 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ece2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Guys, should I look at Christie Digital CP4315-RGB laser projector for my requirement. Does it have any disadvantage when compared to high end home theatre projectors such as Sony 5000 or JVC RS4500? Please enlighten me. Thanks!
ece2k2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 104 Old 05-23-2020, 05:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ece2k2 View Post
Guys, should I look at Christie Digital CP4315-RGB laser projector for my requirement. Does it have any disadvantage when compared to high end home theatre projectors such as Sony 5000 or JVC RS4500? Please enlighten me. Thanks!
Plenty of lumens and would have excellent sharpness. Contrast is low, since it is a DLP, but being native 4K it will be a little bit better than the E-shift DLP's. But the whole reason you needed more brightness was for HDR and this projector does not do HDR. It is HDMI 1.4. Also, you will definitely need a projector room for this projector.

Added
Your thread says future proof. This is the opposite, since it is HDMI 1.4. If you want 15' wide AT screen, I would be looking at a microperf screen with some gain and get a projector with HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 that has decent contrast.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 05-23-2020 at 05:42 AM.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #35 of 104 Old 05-23-2020, 07:14 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ece2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post

Plenty of lumens and would have excellent sharpness. Contrast is low, since it is a DLP, but being native 4K it will be a little bit better than the E-shift DLP's. But the whole reason you needed more brightness was for HDR and this projector does not do HDR. It is HDMI 1.4. Also, you will definitely need a projector room for this projector.

Added
Your thread says future proof. This is the opposite, since it is HDMI 1.4. If you want 15' wide AT screen, I would be looking at a microperf screen with some gain and get a projector with HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 that has decent contrast.
Thank you as always for enlightening me Mike. So that still leaves me with just JVC RS4500 and Sony VW5000 as my potential options. Was wondering if there is any other new launch that I could consider. I am still 2-3 months away from my purchase and I would love to get something newer even if costs a little bit more.
ece2k2 is offline  
post #36 of 104 Old 05-23-2020, 12:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 348 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
The brightest woven AT screen is Seymour AV's XD with a gain of 0.94. But an RS4500 at short end of throw, running wide open is only going to get you around 18FL. As I said, the Barco will be a better option.
Is Severtson's woven SAT-4K not really 1.18 gain like they claim? I saw one and it's an awesome screen. They're not too pricey compared to Stewart or ScreenResearch, but they're not exactly cheap either which is about Seymour's price.

No one ever talks about Severtson, and I don't know why. They're good enough to be used in many cinemas, and are moderately priced. Plus their staff is real friendly and knowledgeable.

On-Axis Gain 1.18 gain
Half Gain Off-Center Viewing Angle 80 degrees
Half Gain Cone Viewing Angle 160 degrees
Minimum Recommended Seating Distance 6'

https://severtsonscreens.com/material/SAT4K/22

Debonaire is offline  
post #37 of 104 Old 05-28-2020, 07:47 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ece2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post

I would take the 4500 with Lumagen over the VW5000 on a 170" diagonal 0.94 gain screen.
Hi Mike, if it isn’t too much of a trouble, could you please pm me the best street pricing for JVC RS4500. Thank you!
ece2k2 is offline  
post #38 of 104 Old 05-28-2020, 12:46 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ece2k2 View Post
Hi Mike, if it isn’t too much of a trouble, could you please pm me the best street pricing for JVC RS4500. Thank you!
I do not use PM system and would not put prices in a PM. You would need to email me.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #39 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 01:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 977
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
I do not use PM system and would not put prices in a PM. You would need to email me.

Why don’t you use the PM system ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
blake is online now  
post #40 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 04:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,443
Mentioned: 532 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7222 Post(s)
Liked: 6908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debonaire View Post
Is Severtson's woven SAT-4K not really 1.18 gain like they claim? I saw one and it's an awesome screen. They're not too pricey compared to Stewart or ScreenResearch, but they're not exactly cheap either which is about Seymour's price.

No one ever talks about Severtson, and I don't know why. They're good enough to be used in many cinemas, and are moderately priced. Plus their staff is real friendly and knowledgeable.

On-Axis Gain 1.18 gain
Half Gain Off-Center Viewing Angle 80 degrees
Half Gain Cone Viewing Angle 160 degrees
Minimum Recommended Seating Distance 6'

https://severtsonscreens.com/material/SAT4K/22
Howdy,

I have a few Severtson samples and have done a bit of a test at home with them.

My screen is non AT and is supposed to be 1.26 gain, but based on measuring a few projectors here I believe it to be closer to 1.1 gain in honesty.

So, for this test, I had a black fabric on the backside of these samples as you would a real AT screen.

Top left - Sat4K.
Bottom Left - Cinema White 1.3
Right - Stellar 1.8

The 1.8 was hotspotting like crazy and I didnt like the sheen on it.

I was REALLY impressed with the 1.3 and even though it was microperf, it was clearly brighter than my non AT screen (which is claimed 1.26.)

As you can see, the Sat4K is quite dim, its well under 1.0 gain would be my guess. If my screen is a real 1.1, then its quite a bit darker than that. It was a nice material though looking at it.



With video scopes, higher is brighter



Another angle



Debonaire likes this.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves

Last edited by Javs; 05-29-2020 at 05:04 AM.
Javs is offline  
post #41 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:23 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Howdy,

I have a few Severtson samples and have done a bit of a test at home with them.

My screen is non AT and is supposed to be 1.26 gain, but based on measuring a few projectors here I believe it to be closer to 1.1 gain in honesty.

So, for this test, I had a black fabric on the backside of these samples as you would a real AT screen.

Top left - Sat4K.
Bottom Left - Cinema White 1.3
Right - Stellar 1.8

The 1.8 was hotspotting like crazy and I didnt like the sheen on it.

I was REALLY impressed with the 1.3 and even though it was microperf, it was clearly brighter than my non AT screen (which is claimed 1.26.)

As you can see, the Sat4K is quite dim, its well under 1.0 gain would be my guess. If my screen is a real 1.1, then its quite a bit darker than that. It was a nice material though looking at it.


With video scopes, higher is brighter



Another angle
On perf and microperf screens, all manufacturers list gain of material, before running through the perf machine. Cinema White is more like a 1.17 gain material at best. That is assuming the fabric is an actual 1.3, since you lose 10% to the perf.
Luminated67 likes this.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 05-29-2020 at 06:27 AM.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #42 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 10:06 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 12,503
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4007 Post(s)
Liked: 2332
Javs,
That Stellar 1.8 looks like it has a glossy finish. Is that the case?

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is offline  
post #43 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 10:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post
Javs,
That Stellar 1.8 looks like it has a glossy finish. Is that the case?
Yes.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #44 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 03:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,443
Mentioned: 532 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7222 Post(s)
Liked: 6908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post
Javs,
That Stellar 1.8 looks like it has a glossy finish. Is that the case?
Yeah almost. If you were to get it tight as a drum it might be ok on the perfect axis, but I would have a big screen and sit close, so I dont think it would work, I would see hotspotting on one part of the screen and not others. It was really bright though.

The 1.3 was perfect. At least, it was comparable to my nonAT screen and looked very uniform to me so I will either go with that, or just pay the ponies and get a stewart.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #45 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 03:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,443
Mentioned: 532 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7222 Post(s)
Liked: 6908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
On perf and microperf screens, all manufacturers list gain of material, before running through the perf machine. Cinema White is more like a 1.17 gain material at best. That is assuming the fabric is an actual 1.3, since you lose 10% to the perf.
Whatever it is, its brighter than my '1.26' gain screen, so I would be happy with that, the one thing I didnt want to do is go backwards in gain from what I have now, I will need all I can get so long as the image is not compromised too much.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #46 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 03:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dkersten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 1,242
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 783 Post(s)
Liked: 1400
Just to throw my 2 cents in (or maybe a nickel). I have a Severtson cinewhite 1.3 gain microperf screen, scope 2.35:1, 150" wide. With a JVC rs2000 and the built in DTM, along with a Paladin DCR lens, I have enough light for good HDR. It is enough light to be painful on suddenly bright scenes, and HDR has a significant "pop" over the same content in SDR.

That being said, here are a few things to keep in mind:

First, while I have "enough" brightness for HDR to be better than SDR (with the dynamic tone mapping), I will ALWAYS want more. I don't NEED it, my HDR is pretty amazing, but if you watch HDR on a quantum dot LCD or OLED TV then watch in my theater, you can see the differences. On high lamp I get around 18-20fL max, far short of the desired 30fL, but DTM makes up for it in almost every way and 30fL is no longer the required number for good HDR. There are times in some movies where the HDR highlights are bright enough to hurt, so sometimes I wonder if I really need more lumens. But then I watch a darker movie and know that it would be nice to have more. Is it worth jumping from an MSRP combination of around $20k to a projector like the RS4500 combined with a Lumagen and Paladin lens to end up with an MSRP closer to $50k just for a little brighter specular highlights? That is something you would have to decide for yourself. Thankfully, "street" pricing is going to be significantly lower in both cases, and if you have the cash, this might be an easier decision.

Second, the Severtson cw 1.3 gain screen measures to around 1.18 gain after the perfs, and I can tell you from comparison to the sat4k that their woven fabric is nowhere near as bright. Once you add a black backing, which you need, then actually put it next to the CW vinyl, it is significantly darker. It does look brighter than the "dream screen" fabric, but the whites on this fabric have a bit of a blue tint, where the whites on the dream screen are definitely warmer. Once you calibrate a sat4k screen it is going to lose that edge and would probably be pretty close to the dream screen, which is around a .85 gain screen in reality. In total, that means around 30% less light from a 1.3 gain microperf to a typical woven screen, no matter what the manufacturers are advertising. The XD screen fabric is about 10% brighter than the others, but also has a pretty large weave so you need to be seated further back. Also, in terms of gain, I personally wouldn't even consider anything over 1.3 gain. The hotspot on my screen is where I notice the perfs, even from 13 feet back. It is subtle and only noticeable in bright scenes, but there is no question you can see it. Once you see it, it is hard to unsee it. I have learned to ignore it as it is very subtle, but any more gain and I would hate it. In fact I considered switching to the dream screen just to get away from perfs and gain, but I just couldn't lose 30% of my light and still have good HDR across the board.

Third, Good screens are expensive, and get VERY expensive the larger you go. I paid $3500 for my Severtson but that is practically half the price of an equivalent Stewart (and still quite a bit cheaper than SI), and in the 1.3 gain microperf it was impossible for me to tell the difference between the two when looking at samples. However, I did have some quality control issues with my screen and the first replacement was from the same roll of vinyl, and it wasn't until a year later when I got a third replacement that I was finally happy to have no defects. I imagine if I had spent a few thousand more on a different brand I would have been happy from the start as their QC is supposed to be one of the reasons they are more expensive. That being said, now that I have a defect free screen, I would put it up against a Stewart any day of the week, and the savings was significant. Woven screens of the same size can be less than half of what I paid for perfed vinyl, and DIY custom sizes where you build your own frame can be half again as expensive, so even a really large XD screen can be less than 25% of what I paid if you build your own frame. I think it comes down to your gain needs though as it is rare to have enough lumens to not worry about it. If you have enough, go with a dream screen.

Fourth, while I do love my screen size, it took a while to get things "right", ultimately ending up with the combination I have now. This was due directly to having "too big" of a screen for the budget I had. The jump from REALLY good HDR at 120-130" to REALLY good HDR at 200" is massive, at least 5x the cost if not more, and usually with the noted sacrifices in contrast. Until you get into 6 figures, you are going to be trading contrast for lumens. Even the Sony 5000es can't compete for contrast with the significantly cheaper JVC's, but then even the rs4500 can't match the lumen output of the Sony, so there is your quintessential difference right there. The gap widens as you move into high lumen DLPs - massive gains in lumen output with massive losses in contrast. It really makes a strong case for a smaller screen with closer seating. Don't get me wrong, I am VERY happy with my 168" diagonal scope screen when watching a movie at 12-13 feet back, but I could have saved a bunch of money and scooted the front row 3 feet closer and gone with a 140" diagonal screen (which is still pretty big) and had a very wide choice of good projectors without needing a lens to get the most of my scope HDR content.

Fifth, contrast is nice, but on 90% of the content you would be hard pressed to see the difference in contrast between any of the options in the $5-50k range. Darker content is a different story, and near full black content is where the differences are most noticeable. While I love my JVC, I would love to have a Sony hw5000es with a Lumagen and an anamorphic lens. I would also love to have an RS4500 with a lens and a lumagen too. Plus, on those setups you can go Constant Image Height with only 2 way masking and be able to fill the screen with ANY aspect ratio. Now that Netflix and Amazon have leaned toward their oddball ratios, just using the built in anamorphic modes don't cover all the scenarios, so you are gaining more than just DTM with an external processor. Now if you can hit a bit above 6 figures, you can get into a projector that can give you the contrast, color, AND brightness, but until you are up in that stratosphere, you are going to be making compromises. However, those compromises sound bad on paper but might not be nearly as bad in person, unless you are deep down the rabbit hole of high end projection.

Sixth, someone mentioned that Paladin is not the only choice for an a-lens, but I wanted to point out that if your goal is conserving the max amount of light for a scope screen, they are the best and possibly only option. For projectors that have 4096x2160 pixels, the Paladin DCR will get you the most possible light on the screen on a scope image. So in the terms of a discussion about getting the most light for the best HDR, it is a pretty relevant a-lens. If you have lumens to spare, there are other certainly other options.

Finally, I have a room that is ~26 feet deep, with the screen now 23' from the back wall. I really wish I had the lumens to put the projector in the room behind the theater to get it completely out, but to get the most light I had to put it at the shortest throw (~17'). I have a hush box but have to keep the front open right now until I can manage to pump more than 100cfm of air from the hush box (my 135 cfm fan only does about 50 cfm after restrictions, so I need to double up my fans in my equipment room before I can close it up), so I can hear the projector when in high lamp. Being in the room it takes up ceiling space and would be so much cleaner if it were in the other room. Again, a lack of lumens has restricted me. I would never recommend the setup I have for a screen bigger than 150" wide, but at 150" or lower, what I ended up using is exceptional in every way. Any way you go, I would go for as many lumens as you can afford without completely killing your contrast. I would also ALWAYS opt for a processor with Dynamic Tone Mapping, because you will never get the 3,000-10,000 nits you need for un-mapped HDR (you will be lucky to get 300 with a high output projector), and static tone maps are now old technology, certainly not the future of HDR. External processors like the lumagen will also continue to be improved with new tech added via software, so while they are expensive and not totally future proof, it is a perfect example of tech that has evolved at no extra cost to keep up with new innovations and make your older projector relevant for a longer time. That being said, when talking about the Sony hw5000es or the JVC rs4500, you are talking about projectors that have been out for quite a long time (3+ years). But they are both still cutting edge tech in the "over 2500 lumen" category. That might change in the next year, but I can't see someone NOT being happy with one of these choices now or in the next few years. If I had the option to go with either I would take it for my theater, even with only a 150" wide screen.
Mike Garrett and Javs like this.
dkersten is offline  
post #47 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:27 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkersten View Post
Just to throw my 2 cents in (or maybe a nickel). I have a Severtson cinewhite 1.3 gain microperf screen, scope 2.35:1, 150" wide. With a JVC rs2000 and the built in DTM, along with a Paladin DCR lens, I have enough light for good HDR. It is enough light to be painful on suddenly bright scenes, and HDR has a significant "pop" over the same content in SDR.

That being said, here are a few things to keep in mind:

First, while I have "enough" brightness for HDR to be better than SDR (with the dynamic tone mapping), I will ALWAYS want more. I don't NEED it, my HDR is pretty amazing, but if you watch HDR on a quantum dot LCD or OLED TV then watch in my theater, you can see the differences. On high lamp I get around 18-20fL max, far short of the desired 30fL, but DTM makes up for it in almost every way and 30fL is no longer the required number for good HDR. There are times in some movies where the HDR highlights are bright enough to hurt, so sometimes I wonder if I really need more lumens. But then I watch a darker movie and know that it would be nice to have more. Is it worth jumping from an MSRP combination of around $20k to a projector like the RS4500 combined with a Lumagen and Paladin lens to end up with an MSRP closer to $50k just for a little brighter specular highlights? That is something you would have to decide for yourself. Thankfully, "street" pricing is going to be significantly lower in both cases, and if you have the cash, this might be an easier decision.

Second, the Severtson cw 1.3 gain screen measures to around 1.18 gain after the perfs, and I can tell you from comparison to the sat4k that their woven fabric is nowhere near as bright. Once you add a black backing, which you need, then actually put it next to the CW vinyl, it is significantly darker. It does look brighter than the "dream screen" fabric, but the whites on this fabric have a bit of a blue tint, where the whites on the dream screen are definitely warmer. Once you calibrate a sat4k screen it is going to lose that edge and would probably be pretty close to the dream screen, which is around a .85 gain screen in reality. In total, that means around 30% less light from a 1.3 gain microperf to a typical woven screen, no matter what the manufacturers are advertising. The XD screen fabric is about 10% brighter than the others, but also has a pretty large weave so you need to be seated further back. Also, in terms of gain, I personally wouldn't even consider anything over 1.3 gain. The hotspot on my screen is where I notice the perfs, even from 13 feet back. It is subtle and only noticeable in bright scenes, but there is no question you can see it. Once you see it, it is hard to unsee it. I have learned to ignore it as it is very subtle, but any more gain and I would hate it. In fact I considered switching to the dream screen just to get away from perfs and gain, but I just couldn't lose 30% of my light and still have good HDR across the board.

Third, Good screens are expensive, and get VERY expensive the larger you go. I paid $3500 for my Severtson but that is practically half the price of an equivalent Stewart (and still quite a bit cheaper than SI), and in the 1.3 gain microperf it was impossible for me to tell the difference between the two when looking at samples. However, I did have some quality control issues with my screen and the first replacement was from the same roll of vinyl, and it wasn't until a year later when I got a third replacement that I was finally happy to have no defects. I imagine if I had spent a few thousand more on a different brand I would have been happy from the start as their QC is supposed to be one of the reasons they are more expensive. That being said, now that I have a defect free screen, I would put it up against a Stewart any day of the week, and the savings was significant. Woven screens of the same size can be less than half of what I paid for perfed vinyl, and DIY custom sizes where you build your own frame can be half again as expensive, so even a really large XD screen can be less than 25% of what I paid if you build your own frame. I think it comes down to your gain needs though as it is rare to have enough lumens to not worry about it. If you have enough, go with a dream screen.

Fourth, while I do love my screen size, it took a while to get things "right", ultimately ending up with the combination I have now. This was due directly to having "too big" of a screen for the budget I had. The jump from REALLY good HDR at 120-130" to REALLY good HDR at 200" is massive, at least 5x the cost if not more, and usually with the noted sacrifices in contrast. Until you get into 6 figures, you are going to be trading contrast for lumens. Even the Sony 5000es can't compete for contrast with the significantly cheaper JVC's, but then even the rs4500 can't match the lumen output of the Sony, so there is your quintessential difference right there. The gap widens as you move into high lumen DLPs - massive gains in lumen output with massive losses in contrast. It really makes a strong case for a smaller screen with closer seating. Don't get me wrong, I am VERY happy with my 168" diagonal scope screen when watching a movie at 12-13 feet back, but I could have saved a bunch of money and scooted the front row 3 feet closer and gone with a 140" diagonal screen (which is still pretty big) and had a very wide choice of good projectors without needing a lens to get the most of my scope HDR content.

Fifth, contrast is nice, but on 90% of the content you would be hard pressed to see the difference in contrast between any of the options in the $5-50k range. Darker content is a different story, and near full black content is where the differences are most noticeable. While I love my JVC, I would love to have a Sony hw5000es with a Lumagen and an anamorphic lens. I would also love to have an RS4500 with a lens and a lumagen too. Plus, on those setups you can go Constant Image Height with only 2 way masking and be able to fill the screen with ANY aspect ratio. Now that Netflix and Amazon have leaned toward their oddball ratios, just using the built in anamorphic modes don't cover all the scenarios, so you are gaining more than just DTM with an external processor. Now if you can hit a bit above 6 figures, you can get into a projector that can give you the contrast, color, AND brightness, but until you are up in that stratosphere, you are going to be making compromises. However, those compromises sound bad on paper but might not be nearly as bad in person, unless you are deep down the rabbit hole of high end projection.

Sixth, someone mentioned that Paladin is not the only choice for an a-lens, but I wanted to point out that if your goal is conserving the max amount of light for a scope screen, they are the best and possibly only option. For projectors that have 4096x2160 pixels, the Paladin DCR will get you the most possible light on the screen on a scope image. So in the terms of a discussion about getting the most light for the best HDR, it is a pretty relevant a-lens. If you have lumens to spare, there are other certainly other options.

Finally, I have a room that is ~26 feet deep, with the screen now 23' from the back wall. I really wish I had the lumens to put the projector in the room behind the theater to get it completely out, but to get the most light I had to put it at the shortest throw (~17'). I have a hush box but have to keep the front open right now until I can manage to pump more than 100cfm of air from the hush box (my 135 cfm fan only does about 50 cfm after restrictions, so I need to double up my fans in my equipment room before I can close it up), so I can hear the projector when in high lamp. Being in the room it takes up ceiling space and would be so much cleaner if it were in the other room. Again, a lack of lumens has restricted me. I would never recommend the setup I have for a screen bigger than 150" wide, but at 150" or lower, what I ended up using is exceptional in every way. Any way you go, I would go for as many lumens as you can afford without completely killing your contrast. I would also ALWAYS opt for a processor with Dynamic Tone Mapping, because you will never get the 3,000-10,000 nits you need for un-mapped HDR (you will be lucky to get 300 with a high output projector), and static tone maps are now old technology, certainly not the future of HDR. External processors like the lumagen will also continue to be improved with new tech added via software, so while they are expensive and not totally future proof, it is a perfect example of tech that has evolved at no extra cost to keep up with new innovations and make your older projector relevant for a longer time. That being said, when talking about the Sony hw5000es or the JVC rs4500, you are talking about projectors that have been out for quite a long time (3+ years). But they are both still cutting edge tech in the "over 2500 lumen" category. That might change in the next year, but I can't see someone NOT being happy with one of these choices now or in the next few years. If I had the option to go with either I would take it for my theater, even with only a 150" wide screen.
You might want to look at DreamScreen V7.
You wrote a book, but it was well written. My room is small, so it forced me to use a smaller screen and sit closer.

Last edited by Mike Garrett; 05-29-2020 at 06:34 PM.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #48 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:38 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ece2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkersten View Post
Just to throw my 2 cents in (or maybe a nickel).
Thank you so much for your immensely helpful post.

A couple of updates from my end. While I was considering a 16:9 format screen earlier, I have now decided to opt for a scope screen instead. With this decision, I believe Paladin DCR is going to be a must buy for my case. I would be opting for a Lumagen as well as I have heard only good things about it.

Regarding the screen, I think Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 is going to be my choice - purely based on the reviews. While I would love to check out other cheaper options and also try some samples, I don’t have that luxury as I don’t reside in the United States. So it is going to be a blind buy where I live and I would like to play it safe.

My room’s width is 20.5 feet and I was wondering if a 12 feet wide screen would look a bit odd visually with all the empty space on the sides. Please advice.

As far as the projector is concerned, I am still seriously considering JVC RS4500. But if I could bring down the screen width to 12 feet, it looks like JVC NX7 might also do the job with the help of A-lens for HDR. The room would be completely light controlled. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I go with a JVC NX7, I will have the luxury to upgrade when a more brighter version of RS4500 hits the market. Not too sure if this makes sense though.

Thanks again!
ece2k2 is offline  
post #49 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,095
Mentioned: 163 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6769 Post(s)
Liked: 4874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Yeah almost. If you were to get it tight as a drum it might be ok on the perfect axis, but I would have a big screen and sit close, so I dont think it would work, I would see hotspotting on one part of the screen and not others. It was really bright though.

The 1.3 was perfect. At least, it was comparable to my nonAT screen and looked very uniform to me so I will either go with that, or just pay the ponies and get a stewart.
With your attention to detail and interest in reference quality images, I'm surprised you're considering anything that's not the stewart.

JVC Control - my software for controlling JVC projector via IP control.
Smart Masking - See my automatic smart screen masking system.
JVC IR Codes - free online pronto code converter for JVC IR codes.
markmon1 is online now  
post #50 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,443
Mentioned: 532 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7222 Post(s)
Liked: 6908
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
With your attention to detail and interest in reference quality images, I'm surprised you're considering anything that's not the stewart.
My attention to detail is followed closely by my affinity for logical price points, and I dont care what anyone says, but Stewart screens are not logical price points.
Kevin Snyder likes this.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #51 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,095
Mentioned: 163 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6769 Post(s)
Liked: 4874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
My attention to detail is followed closely by my affinity for logical price points, and I dont care what anyone says, but Stewart screens are not logical price points.
Yea, I guess their prices are really crazy outside of USA, also. I think someone in AU was posting his price he was quoted for an ST 130 G4 and it was about 2.5x more than what I just paid.

JVC Control - my software for controlling JVC projector via IP control.
Smart Masking - See my automatic smart screen masking system.
JVC IR Codes - free online pronto code converter for JVC IR codes.
markmon1 is online now  
post #52 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,443
Mentioned: 532 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7222 Post(s)
Liked: 6908
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
Yea, I guess their prices are really crazy outside of USA, also. I think someone in AU was posting his price he was quoted for an ST 130 G4 and it was about 2.5x more than what I just paid.
Yep, I could probably buy two NX7's for the price of one 165" Stewart...

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #53 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,095
Mentioned: 163 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6769 Post(s)
Liked: 4874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Yep, I could probably buy two NX7's for the price of one 165" Stewart...
That's crazy. It seems like it would be cheaper to buy from someone in USA even if freight cost $1000 or so.

JVC Control - my software for controlling JVC projector via IP control.
Smart Masking - See my automatic smart screen masking system.
JVC IR Codes - free online pronto code converter for JVC IR codes.
markmon1 is online now  
post #54 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 06:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,443
Mentioned: 532 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7222 Post(s)
Liked: 6908
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
That's crazy. It seems like it would be cheaper to buy from someone in USA even if freight cost $1000 or so.
Well no option is off the table when the time comes. I still have about a year before I will need a screen. But I will need a new projector too, and money dont grow on trees. I would rather make compromises where needed.

The screen I have now is not a stewart, and I have no desire at all to change it unless I go bigger and AT, which I will be. So long as I dont go backwards, which according to the Severtson sample I wont be, then I am good.

I built every speaker in my room not just because I wanted to, but because I cant fathom the amount of money it would cost to put in something comparable at MSRP... That sickness extends to other things. How fabric and a frame that doesn't even tingle my nuts can cost what it does is absolutely beyond me.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
post #55 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 07:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
Debonaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 348 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
My attention to detail is followed closely by my affinity for logical price points, and I dont care what anyone says, but Stewart screens are not logical price points.
IMHO all of Severtson Screens are the same quality of Stewart Film Screens, and many of them even greater quality, for a fraction of the price.

I had a friend who worked for a high volume dealer and quoted me a massive discount on Stewart at cost, and even that price was ridiculous.

Stewart are great screens, but the price.

What's funny is the owner knows this and had to chime in on a cheap Chinese manufactured screens thread. I mean seriously, who does that? If you're so proud of your product, shouldn't the product speak for itself?

Anyone who can afford a Stewart screen, if that Chinese screen was terrible and they said, "woops, I saw the light, and Stewart here I come!" They'd not care about the money wasted even if they threw it away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Stewart View Post
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
The only luxury brand I'd consider if I had money to burn is Screen Research's 4K AT screen. But they have a reason for being expensive. They're located in Sweden so when they ship to the US you pay customs and VAT, plus your local state tax, AND the insane shipping because you need to use a local courier.

Last edited by Debonaire; 05-29-2020 at 07:10 PM.
Debonaire is offline  
post #56 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 08:00 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ece2k2 View Post
Thank you so much for your immensely helpful post.

A couple of updates from my end. While I was considering a 16:9 format screen earlier, I have now decided to opt for a scope screen instead. With this decision, I believe Paladin DCR is going to be a must buy for my case. I would be opting for a Lumagen as well as I have heard only good things about it.

Regarding the screen, I think Stewart StudioTek 130 G4 is going to be my choice - purely based on the reviews. While I would love to check out other cheaper options and also try some samples, I don’t have that luxury as I don’t reside in the United States. So it is going to be a blind buy where I live and I would like to play it safe.

My room’s width is 20.5 feet and I was wondering if a 12 feet wide screen would look a bit odd visually with all the empty space on the sides. Please advice.

As far as the projector is concerned, I am still seriously considering JVC RS4500. But if I could bring down the screen width to 12 feet, it looks like JVC NX7 might also do the job with the help of A-lens for HDR. The room would be completely light controlled. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I go with a JVC NX7, I will have the luxury to upgrade when a more brighter version of RS4500 hits the market. Not too sure if this makes sense though.

Thanks again!
If buying RS2000/NX7, I would recommend purchase this month. As for replacement for 4500, that may never come. Could be a replacement, could be a projector that has a lot higher lumen output and a price to match. But I think it is more than two years off.

Excellent screen choice and probably not as expensive as you think.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #57 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 08:04 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
My attention to detail is followed closely by my affinity for logical price points, and I dont care what anyone says, but Stewart screens are not logical price points.
With the new lower prices here in the US, they are a lot more reasonable.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #58 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 08:05 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
ece2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
If buying RS2000/NX7, I would recommend purchase this month. As for replacement for 4500, that may never come. Could be a replacement, could be a projector that has a lot higher lumen output and a price to match. But I think itis more than two years off.

I am still constructing the theater and it would take atleast a couple of months before it is ready. Please let me know if there is any reason for suggesting me to purchase NX7 this month. If a higher lumen output projector from JVC is going to take a year or two, I think it makes more sense for me to opt for RS4500. Thank you!
ece2k2 is offline  
post #59 of 104 Old 05-29-2020, 08:12 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,527
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13995 Post(s)
Liked: 11677
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by ece2k2 View Post
I am still constructing the theater and it would take atleast a couple of months before it is ready. Please let me know if there is any reason for suggesting me to purchase NX7 this month. If a higher lumen output projector from JVC is going to take a year or two, I think it makes more sense for me to opt for RS4500. Thank you!
Never mind, if you are months away.
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #60 of 104 Old 05-30-2020, 10:25 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 12,503
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4007 Post(s)
Liked: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Yeah almost. If you were to get it tight as a drum it might be ok on the perfect axis, but I would have a big screen and sit close, so I dont think it would work, I would see hotspotting on one part of the screen and not others. It was really bright though.

The 1.3 was perfect. At least, it was comparable to my nonAT screen and looked very uniform to me so I will either go with that, or just pay the ponies and get a stewart.
Some manufacturers apply a high gloss finish to try to increase the gain. Unfortunately, it leads to hotspotting. It could be mitigated by going with a Torus, but that has its own issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
You might want to look at DreamScreen V7.
You wrote a book, but it was well written. My room is small, so it forced me to use a smaller screen and sit closer.
That was more than a couple of cents, wasn't it?

I am not calling out the poster (and he may not have done this), but I don't understand why some people choose a screen size first before anything else.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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