Originally Posted by Ladeback
As for my walls, the room is not done, but was planing on paining the front wall and ceiling black, with black velvet panels around the screen where there isn't any speakers. Also was going to maybe add 4' wide velvet side panels floor to ceiling and paint the room a dark red.
Thanks for the info and I have looked at some of them before, but are you saying the 3800 would be better then the 5040? I have thought of going with a large scope screen and a 16:9 screen inside of it as well. Probably will wait til I finish the room to decide on screen and projector. I have an idea where I want my seats and how many so I could get my speakers laid out and figure out where to mount the projector. I current;y have a Epson 2040 and an Elite 120" 16:9 white screen with a 1 for gain.
Room size I have now unfinished is 14'x25.83'x8.83'. If I was to push one wall out 3' feet to go to 17' I would go with a scope screen since I have a beam to get under.
Since you already have a projector you should have an idea of how big the screen should be and from what distance. The 4K will make some difference, but Epson's technology is only ~4m pixels vs ~2m for 1080p. So you might see a screen door effect if the screen is too large or the seats are too close.
Might want to hold on on the screen size and fabric until you get the projector.
The 5040UB's tone mapper is old and will be too dark at 150". Even the 5050UB's HDR tone mapper may not be satisfying.
In that room a projector with good black level like the UB series can work. The HC3800 has poorer black level, but is ~30% brighter.
Not sure, but I think the tone mapper is relatively the same between the 5050UB and HC3800. @DaGamePimp
had a HC3800 with a 1.0 screen in 133" diagonal. Maybe he can provide some insight on how it would fare with a 150/160" 16:9 screen.
The 420/820/9000 (last two have Dolby Vision) are said to be better than the 5050UB's tone mapper. The Panasonic's have some streaming services.
All of these tone mappers are static. It works by taking the highest brightness in the movie and tone maps to that. So you have to change the slider manually.
Dynamic tone mappers exist on latest JVC generation, a HTPC with madvr (no streaming), the upcoming madvrEnvy. Unfortunately external boxes like the Envy are very expensive.
So for SDR the 5040UB is bright enough. But for HDR it depends on the source. Not even the Panasonic might be bright enough for that screen size. @skylarlove1999
has a 5050UB and a Panasonic. Can't remember what screen size. Maybe he can advise.
The 5040UB also has a 10GB HDMI. Which means it can't do 4K HDR 60Hz, only 24/30. For gaming and some streaming services 60Hz is required. Dropping the bit depth to 8bit from 10 so it can fit the 10GB bandwidth can result in banding in some cases.
Personally in that room I would aim to get the best picture quality, which IMO means contrast /black level.
So an Epson UB series and a UB420/others or a NX5/RS1000 (+ madvr) and manage the screen size accordingly. If the AT requirement can be dropped a white screen with positive gain can be used, either from a manufacturer or painted.
Actual white screens with positive gain in that size are expensive like the ST130 G4 with 1.3 gain.
Paints are much cheaper and can result in a great screen. The entire wall could be painted.
No painted AT screens unfortunately.
Positive gain AT screens, are even more expensive. I'm only familiar with ALR screens that have this specification. The problem with angular ALR screens is that the projector needs to be placed further back to avoid visual artifacts. If originally to get the best brightness the projector would be placed as close as possible, placing it further back would mean loss of brightness and generally speaking negate the screen's positive gain advantage. ALR screens can come with other visual related issues.
Although if you didn't plan to place the projector closest to the screen then one of these positive gain ALR screens might have an advantage.